When the Press takes its freedom too far

The state is dangerous precisely because it is a monopolist. Newspapers, by contrast, are not monopolists. They lack any power of compulsion.



By Robert Skidelsky (Viewpoint)

Published: Fri 23 Mar 2018, 11:06 PM

The poisoning of Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia at an Italian restaurant in Salisbury has driven an important story off the front pages of the British press. Earlier this month, the former actor and comedian John Ford revealed that for 15 years, from 1995 to 2010, he was employed by Rupert Murdoch's Sunday Times newspaper to hack and blag his way into the private affairs of dozens of prominent people, including then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Discussing the techniques he used, Ford said: "I did their phones, I did their mobiles, I did their bank accounts, I stole their rubbish." Some of the most prominent names in British journalism are likely to be tarnished by this and other revelations of illegality and wrongdoing.
The basic plot goes back to the foundation of the free press with the abolition of licensing in 1695. To fulfill what has been seen since then as its distinctive purpose - holding power to account - a free press needs information. We expect a free press to investigate the exercise of power and bring abuses to light. In this context, one inevitably recalls the exposure of Watergate, which brought down President Richard Nixon in 1974.
But actual scandals are not necessary for the press to do its job. The very existence of a free Press is a constraint on government. It is not the only one: the rule of law, enforced by an independent judiciary, and competitive elections held at regular intervals are no less important. Together, they form a three-legged stool: take one, and the other two collapse.
We continue to view the press as our defender against an over-mighty state, despite politicians' often-craven performance in the face of media pressure. This is because we have no proper theory of private power.
The liberal argument is both simple and simplistic: the state is dangerous precisely because it is a monopolist. Because it controls the means of coercion and levies compulsory taxes, its dark doings need to be exposed by fearless investigative journalism. Newspapers, by contrast, are not monopolists. They lack any power of compulsion, so there is no need to guard against the abuse of press power. It does not exist.
But while a press monopoly in its pure form does not exist, oligopoly prevails in most countries. If, as economists claim, public good emerges from the invisible hand of the market, the market for news is quite visible - and visibly concentrated. Eight companies own Britain's 12 national newspapers, and four proprietors account for more than 80 per cent of all copies sold.
Efforts to bind the British press to a standard of "decent" journalism have been tried - and failed - repeatedly. There have been six commissions of inquiry in the UK since 1945. Each one, established after some egregious abuse, has recommended that "steps be taken" to protect privacy; and each time, the government has backed down.
There are two main reasons for this. First, no politician wants to turn the press against him: Tony Blair's wooing of Murdoch, owner the Sun, the Times, and the Sunday Times, is legendary, as was its pay-off. The Murdoch press backed Labour in Blair's three election victories in 1997, 2001, and 2005. The other reason is more sinister: newspapers have "dirt" on politicians, which they are willing to use to protect their interests.
In 1989, following pressure from Parliament, the government commissioned David Calcutt to chair a committee to "consider what measures are needed to give further protection to individual privacy from the activities of the press." Calcutt's key recommendation was to replace the moribund Press Council with a Press Complaints Commission (PCC), which was duly created. In 1993, however, Calcutt recommended its replacement by a statutory Press Complaints Tribunal. The government refused to act.
In March 2011, a Joint Committee of Parliament reported that "the current system of self-regulation is broken and needs fixing."
The same year, following criminal prosecutions for telephone hacking which led to the closure of Murdoch's News of the World, then-Prime Minister David Cameron appointed Lord Justice Brian Leveson to head an inquiry into "the culture, practices and ethics of the press; their relationship with the police; the failure of the current system of regulation." Leveson tackled his remit - to make recommendations for a new, more effective way of regulating the press - with "one simple question: who guards the guardians?"
The first part of the Leveson Report, published in 2012, recommended an industry regulator whose independence from the newspapers and government alike was to be assured by a Press Recognition Panel, set up under a Royal Charter. To preempt what they called "state control," the newspaper proprietors set up an Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), accountable to no one but itself.
True to previous form, the government then gave up, overruling the opinion of Leveson himself that further inquiry was needed to establish the "extent of unlawful or improper conduct by newspapers, including corrupt payments to the police."
Although some British press outlets are uniquely vicious, striking the right balance between the public's need to know and individuals' right to privacy is a general problem, and must be continually addressed in the light of changing technology and practices. The media are still needed to protect us against abuses of state power; but we need the state to protect us from abuses of media power.
-Project Syndicate
Robert Skidelsky, a Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University, is member of the British House of Lords


More news from OPINION
Identity overlap while being on the move

Opinion

Identity overlap while being on the move

For a slice of the global population that is geographically mobile, at times even settling down in a ‘foreign’ land, the idea of a motherland is watered down. as plurality kicks in, your ‘origins’ get blurred

Opinion4 days ago