An important part of the political battle following the publication of the Leveson report is to win over public opinion. YouGov has conducted the first post-publication survey for the Sunday Times.
First, given the controversies that have attended the polls that YouGov conducted beforehand, a word of caution. Public opinion is seldom simple. It deserves to be viewed with care and respect. The task of analysing survey results for insights into the public mood should not be confused with that of ransacking a gun store for ammunition to fire at a sworn enemy.
Here, then, is an unvarnished account of what we found. The numbered points show the key findings from all 14 questions we asked about Leveson for the Sunday Times. I have, however, reordered them in order to place the findings in groups that, I hope, help to make sense of our data. (Full details of all the questions, in the order they were asked, can be viewed here.)
1. More people, though not an absolute majority, think that, overall, Britain’s press is a force for good (45%) rather than a force for bad (34%).
2. By three-to-one (68-21%) the public thinks the press needs ‘much tougher independent regulation with fines for newspapers that behave badly’. This view is even held by a majority (56%) of those who say that overall, Britain’s press is a force for good.
3. We summarised Leveson’s proposal for new laws to underpin regulation, ‘approved and overseen by Ofcom, a government appointed body’. 58% think ‘new laws should be passed by MPs to encourage newspapers to join this new system of regulation’; 26% oppose new legislation.
4. By 54-31%, the public thinks Ofcom IS an appropriate organisation to ‘have a say in the system of press regulation’.
5. By 50-29%, people think Cameron was wrong to oppose Leveson’s proposals for new legislation; by 50-26%, people think Clegg was right to back Leveson’s proposal.
6. By a large margin (73-13%), voters think that “all government ministers and senior politicians should have to publicly declare all their meetings with newspaper owners and editors”.
7. However, the public is more evenly divided, on whether journalists’ exemption from the Data Protection Act should be ended. 41% say it should be ended; 30% say the exemption should be kept; 29% don’t know.
8. The public also divides three ways on the Rubicon-versus-brook controversy. 21% think that ‘giving the state a role in press regulation’ is a ‘major and worrying’ change; 25% think it is a “major and welcome” change; 32% think it is a ‘minor’ change.
9. A majority, 52%, think MPs should NOT ‘have a say in the system of press regulation’, as this ‘threatens the principles of a free press’. 31% disagree. In other words, the centre of gravity of public opinion is for a new law to ensure that press regulation works – but for the regulation system itself to be designed and managed away from Parliament.
10. By 56-24%, people think Cameron opposes new legislation because ‘he does not wish to jeopardise his relationship with newspaper owners and editors’, rather than because ‘he believes in the principle of newspapers being free of any state regulation’.
11. Likewise, voters are suspicious of Miliband’s motives for backing new legislation, albeit by a narrower margin than for Cameron. By 46-32%, people think he is doing so because he wants to ‘undermine the coalition’ rather than because ‘he believes in protecting the victims of press behaviour’.
12. However, Clegg wins widespread support for his decision to make a separate statement from Cameron, presenting a different view on the case for legislation. 66% say he was ‘right; it is more important for him to say what he believes than to present a united front’, while just 22% say he was ‘wrong; as deputy Prime Minister he should have presented a united front with David Cameron’. Even a majority of Tory voters (54%) think Clegg was right rather than wrong to break ranks and say what he thought.
13. Voters are fairly evenly divided on the risk that future governments might use laws on the press ‘to control the media’. 47% think there is a ‘large’ or ‘fairly big’ risk; 41% think there is ‘not much of a risk’ or ‘no risk at all’.
14. On balance, though not by an absolute majority, voters think that under Leveson’s proposals, the press would remain (as he wants), ‘irrelevant, unruly and opinionated’. 43% think these qualities would survive, while 28% think they would not.
Those are the findings. Here are my conclusions.
Overall, most people back Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals, including that for legislation to underpin press regulation; but voters are wary about giving too much say to MPs; and they are suspicious of both Cameron’s and Miliband’s motives for the stands they took last Thursday. This confirms one of the messages from our previous polls: that both politicians and journalists have their work cut out to regain the trust of the public.
That said, public opinion is seldom fixed. Views about the precise policies needed to make things better may well evolve over time. In the weeks and months ahead, the arguments advanced by the differing camps will affect the way some, perhaps many, voters think. For what it’s worth, I expect the voices of the victims of press intrusion to carry most weight.
In the longer term, however, different forces will come into play. People will see what happens and judge by results. Does the new system work? If it is pure self-regulation without any new laws, does it make journalists behave better and penalise them when they behave badly? If new legislation is enacted, does it achieve its intended effect without putting Britain on the path to oppressive state regulation?
The answers, and the public’s response to them, will take years to evolve. Whatever system of press regulation emerges, YouGov will track the public mood and seek to make sense of it.
See the full survey results and details here
Follow Peter Kellner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@YouGov
They keep us informed of matters of public interest, be they trivial, sporting, criminal or civil!
They remind us of how devious and nasty some individuals, institutions and organisations can be!
They give us stories that move us because they are sad, move us emotionally and remind us how some are kind and generous!
Most importantly of all they root out corruption, be it from private individuals to public office!
All of this carries a heavy responsibility to get the facts correct and present them in an unbiased and factual way.
The whole of the media industry has to prove now that it can deliver unbiased reporting, stating facts truthfully using information gained by ethical and moral means.
Statutory intervention is not necessary to prove justice and faith is a news reporting industry that has informed us, the public and helped form our very way of life.
Statutory Regulation gives parliament the opportunity to amend the law and censure reporting in various areas. For example; reporting of parliament and politicians, allowing a muzzle to be placed on the Press.
Much of the conduct recently criticizing the Press has been about bribery, corrupt relations with police, politicians, business people, phone hacking, invasion of individuals rights to privacy and other abuses of privilege.
These are illegal acts and are already covered in British law. It is the speedy application, administration and updating of the law and its penalties that need tightening up, not political control of the Press!
People still confuse free speech and free press; if a researcher stated, before the questions, "95% of Britain's national and regional newspapers are owned by 6 companies", the approval for Leveson would be yet higher.
"That said, public opinion is seldom fixed" - so true; the press is unanimously against Leveson, and TV news presenters instinctively believe that their beloved' public mood' is what the papers say it is. So an advantage to the press
I notice that the tabloids are already replacing those nice profile shots of Leveson with the most bizarre photos they can find - a very old trick, often used against Scragill and Prescott - and, of course 90% of their coverage supports the Tory stance (rather similar to their own self-interest, coincidentally).
... yet more evidence that Leveson is so badly needed.
Cameron's cosy back-room chat with his press pals cannot achieve what he wants; a voluntary organisation could only have even the semblance of power until it made it its first tough decision - and an editor (or proprietor!) walks out. It's a political game between the very people we don't trust.
Depends for success, on obtaining a suitable calibre of ammo.
“Britain’s press is a force for good (45%) rather than a force for bad (34%).”
What data was to hand, in order for these canvassed voters to perform the necessary evaluation? Given that Jimmy was classified a saint, in the short term, by some.
“overseen by Ofcom,”
How many rate the regulating abilities of regulators? Since some are themselves having their failings looked into.
“on the Rubicon”
If it wasn’t for raiding parties repeatedly paddling over from the other side. No retaliatory strike would have resulted.
“it is more important for him to say what he believes than to”
wait until after an election, and have the people find out the reality for themselves the hard way?
‘as deputy Prime Minister he should’
be assisting the PM in carrying out the majority mandated policies of the people. Some hopes.
“Voters are fairly evenly divided on the risk that future governments might use laws on the press ‘to control the media’.”
As they already effectively control ‘democracy’, what’s to speculate about? How they might be prevented from so doing should be the real question.
“regain the trust of the public”
or suppress voting altogether. Which is likely to be easier? Here’s a clue: EU referendum.
“arguments advanced by the differing camps will “
be used to excuse doing nothing. How much did this Inquiry cost?