Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Blair Jenkins

GET UPDATES FROM Blair Jenkins
 

Leveson Inquiry and Restoring Public Faith in Journalism

Posted: 05/03/2012 00:00

Another week brings another damaging series of revelations at the Leveson Inquiry. And you do have to worry that there may yet be worse to come. But all the evidence of phone-hacking, unwarranted invasion of privacy, bribing of public officials and who knows what else (note that we have yet to hear about the relationships between newspapers and politicians) will culminate in the crucial last stage of the inquiry when the issue addressed will be the nature and stature of a new regulatory regime for the press.

It's becoming clearer that we're moving towards some new form of independent press regulation that is neither statutory nor self-regulatory in design. Much of the discussion inside and outside the Leveson hearings focuses on how newspapers can be persuaded or "incentivised" to sign up for what will still be in essence a voluntary regulatory framework.

In recent weeks two substantial attempts have been made to describe in outline how such an approach might work - my own report for the Carnegie UK Trust, and the more recent roundtable proposal for a new Media Standards Authority. There are considerable areas of agreement: the need to include online as well as printed media; the use of accreditation as a commercial incentive for participation; the ability of the new regulator to conduct proper investigations and (in the most extreme cases) impose financial penalties.

One important foundation on which to build better journalism in the digital age will be the creation and adoption of a new industry-wide code of conduct for all journalists and news organisations. It would provide much clearer guidance on the higher ethical and editorial standards expected - standards which ought to be universal and transferable between all bona fide press, broadcast and online news services.

The Editors' Code of Practice that forms the current rule book of the Press Complaints Commission is very limited, not only in its advice but also in its ambition for journalists. Significant omissions include such things as declaring conflicts of interest, avoiding plagiarism, giving a right of reply to allegations, recognising a clear distinction between advertising and editorial and any policy or guidelines relating to the (increasing) use of anonymous sources as the basis for news stories. In essence, the PCC Code is a rather restricted list of things a journalist shouldn't do, but it doesn't carry within its rather grudging and legalistic text any real sense of the important mission and purpose of journalism.

The vast majority of people who come into journalism are highly principled and have a strong sense of professional purpose and public service. A new ethical code needs to be authentic and inspiring to journalists, but also clear and reassuring to the public who depend upon them for information and who support newspapers through their taxes - not just with the VAT exemption costing almost £600 million a year, but also the huge investment in subsidised media facilities and in thousands of press officers on the public payroll.

Journalism is based on trust, to deserve which you need to have both integrity in your approach and a high degree of skill in your execution. And integrity is not a software application. There's nothing you can click on and download to make something true and fair and accurate. It has to be in the professional DNA of any decent news organisation and its journalists.

We need to set the bar a bit higher. A new code would help to define the profession of journalism. This has become ever more important as media platforms converge and more and more new entrants arrive to challenge traditional news suppliers.

The Carnegie Plan - the set of recommendations from my report - is intended to act as a contribution to the debate, and to provide the basis for further thought and discussion.

A central theme is making sure our society gets the journalism it needs, because you can't just leave it up to highly commercial media or indeed to the politicians. Let's rebuild public trust and let journalists be journalists.

 

Follow Blair Jenkins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CarnegieUKTrust

FOLLOW UK
 
 
  • Comments
  • 5
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
lastpost
see biography
12:40 on 05/03/2012
"all the evidence"
points to a power struggle. A plethora of vested interests, all with agendas to pursue.
Picking winners among hogs tussling for access to a trough, does not safeguard the farm. When that goes to the wall, we all fall into the wallow.

"regulation that is neither statutory nor self-regulatory in design."
Each of the groups involved in this have bodies charged with preventing pervasion of their activities. All have failed. There is a solution. Lets see what will be done this time to avoid implementing it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Drg40
Representative Democracy is all we have.
09:13 on 05/03/2012
Watching Leveson I come more and more to the conclusion that the debate about regulation is a smokescreen. Surely the issues with which we are faced with by the current press, both printed and broadcast are: cross subsidy of a profit less journal by a red top for the sole purpose of obtaining political power; the ownership of most of the press lying in foreign hands whose actions, on occasions, are clearly not in the national interest; the adoption by the press at large of a particular political stance with little diversity and, finally, censorship of the "news" in order to favour the proprietors ownership. Most of the current sound and fury relates to actions which are clearly illegal already. In my view module 1 of Leveson missed the boat. Drawn to the horrors of criminal misconduct in various areas, the Chairman forgot to inquire into the interests of the public at large, not only individual cases. Do the press overall serve the needs of the British public? To my mind the answer to that question is a ringing negative. Do the British press serve the needs of a modern democracy? The proposition is laughable. IMV there is the threat.
04:54 on 05/03/2012
So you are saying that journalists didn't know that bribing police wasn't unethical but a new voluntary code will fix it?
photo
Gavin Saunders
we only have each other
04:06 on 05/03/2012
Ha! Good luck with the "ability of the new regulator to conduct proper investigations. "

FGS, Murckydoch's papers wouldn't even allow POLICE the necessary, unfettered access.

And as for ethics, that's just for mugs isn't it?
iridium53
Semper Fi
03:01 on 05/03/2012
Public faith in journalism?

ROFLMAO

Murdoch and his clan spend their time paying off police to let them bug, tap, and invade the lives of their targets.

Law enforcement on both sides of the Atlantic simply do nothing.
Except take the money.

Journalists do little more than serve as public relations tools for politicians.
Rarely challenging the known lies.
Even more rarely doing even as little fact checking as a one-minute google search.

Investigation into real issues, clarifying issues so they can be readily digested - extremely rare.
Simplifying and clarifying into graphical, simply understandable presentations - almost not heard of.

Restoring faith?

HaHaHaHaHa.....