LEVESON'S DUST
Whilst I am
instinctively opposed to all forms of censorship, unless extremely
good cause can be put forward, something had to be done. It is
obvious that pure self-regulation, in the various forms it has taken
across several decades, has failed. A legislative rein on the worst
excesses of (mainly) tabloid journalism is required. Leveson, within
the limited confines he was allowed to operate, appears to have put
forward a reasonable solution. As I understand it, the law would only
be called upon where there was a clear indication that ethical codes
had been broken. This sort of regulation should not interfere with
the justifiable investigative news writing we need to expose
criminality and injustice in the powerful institutions, political and
commercial, which dominate our lives.
We need a
free press and wider media. Really, really need it. For democracy to
have any chance of working effectively people need information.
Objective information backed up by opinion, with a clear divide
between the two. If democracy is about making informed decisions
(even if only between the limited choices we are presented with) then
we need to have access to the relevant raw data and reliable
interpretative sources. Journalism, at its best, gives us that and
more. But what exactly is a 'free' press. Free from what? State
censorship and interference to be sure. But it is not just
politicians that seek to control our opinions and understanding of
the wider world.
In the coming
weeks there will be much written and said about the reasons why David
Cameron, the lamentable Maria Miller and their various cronies are so
dead set against the most important recommendation of Leveson, the
statutory underpinning of regulation of the press. Finer, and better
informed, minds than mine will bring some clarification to this so I
won't attempt to try.
Meanwhile
Boris wades in and muddies the waters -
I like that
he celebrates the positives of our press (perhaps he'd like to do the
same for the BBC....?), but it seems the negatives aren't quite
bottom-scraping enough for him. Apologies for mixing my metaphors,
but the article seems to be both flogging a dead horse and nailing a
jelly to the wall. In the long run the printed press is spiralling
into decline. More and more we get our information from the web, on
the sites of established news organisations and from a wider range of
sources, especially social media. Our press has failed us and the
'lifeline' Johnson sees is a chimera, an attempt to blind us to the
real motives of Cameron. Boris gives himself away with his apparent
hatred of the unregulated, and uncontrollable, Twitter. He cannot do
business with tweeters. You can't easily corrupt a mob.
This is the
elephant in the room. Ownership. An iniquitous aspect Leveson has
touched on, but only in passing for he has no remit to tackle it head
on. Don't just take my word for it, read Harold Evans -
Our major
press organs are, in the main, owned by super-rich individuals.
Benevolent, philanthropists with the interests of our society at
hard, passionate believers in democracy and the power of the citizen,
warm, caring human beings who love their fellows? Yes, of course they
are, and my name is Felicity Kendal. Is anyone in any doubt that,
with few exceptions, this strata of society is anything other than
self-interested, self-seeking, uncaring and motivated by greed and
power over others? This, above all else, is the power which needs to
be controlled and Leveson hasn't done one bloody thing about it.
Murdoch has
almost always run The Times at a loss. Why? Because owning that organ
provides him with influence, access to power. News International,
effective owner of Sky, continually wages a war of attrition against
the BBC. The latter, whatever it's recently revealed flaws, is a
public service broadcaster outside the control of Murdoch and his
ilk. He would like to see the BBC neutered, and, one suspects, the
law changed to wipe out the need for 'balance' in coverage of
political issues on broadcast media. If you want a crystal ball gaze
into that potential future I suggest you seek out a few clips of Fox
News in the US. A recent survey found that people who got most of
their news information from Fox knew less about world affairs than
those who didn't follow the news at all. Being misinformed is worse
for your brain than blissful ignorance....
The Tories,
as this government has demonstrated beyond doubt, are the party of
the rich. They are ideologically driven to favour free market
capitalism and self-interest despite the clear warning of the banking
crisis that this is a system doomed to fail. A press dominated by the
wealthy beasts now in place suits them just fine for it is a
symbiotic relationship. Whilst the papers may criticise the party, or
the individuals that comprise it, they will do nothing to reflect
disquiet with the underlying socio-economic system which gives them
power, influence and wealth. How much has the 'free' press accurately
reported the progress made by the likes of UKUncut and the Occupy
movement? They try to make out that these grass roots activists are
an irrelevance, but Starbucks might now suggest otherwise!
Meanwhile the
web offers an alternative source of information and influence. One
that can't be controlled easily and here we come to Boris' jelly. You
can't regulate something which has no structure. Twitter's lack of
control can lead it astray at times, as Bojo suggests, but, as yet,
it has done nothing as bad as the News of the World. It probably
isn't organised enough to do so.
I have no
idea how, or by whom, this nettle can be grasped. Implementing the
Leveson recommendations is a must. But it will still just be the
polishing of a constantly steaming turd. Until ownership of the press
can be wrested away from people who do not have the interests of the
wider public at heart it can never be trusted. Media organisations as
cooperatives, or in some form of distributed ownership (but not
through the state), could provide workable models. In the end the
problems of the press are the problems of society at large -
unfettered capitalism.
For
now I suggest you ignore Boris and trust to your instincts in the
more egalitarian web community. Flaws and all.
No comments:
Post a Comment