Press freedom

In Britain, we now have a debate about regulation of the press. For anyone that has missed this slow burning story, much of our press, especially that which is controlled by the Murdoch family, has been caught doing bad things. Tapping phones, bribing police, that sort of thing.

Not very good. Some senior executives still have charges pending. So we had an enquiry, presided over by a judge.

This enquiry, called the Leveson enquiry, concluded that the UK system of 'self regulation' of the press really wasn't working.

That is not news to anyone. We had a committee called the press complaints commission which could tell papers off a bit, but not really hurt them. It had a chair appointed by the papers. And representatives from the papers.

Nobody listened to it.

So the Leveson enquiry recommended that they have a new regulator. Backed by law, which make them pay big fines. And put their apologies on the front page, that sort of thing.

The press hate the idea. They keep whining about it being a fundamental issue of freedom. That it is the function of the press to hold the government to account.

I could take a cheap shot and point out that messing with the voicemail of missing 14 year old girls is a strange way of holding the government to account. So I have done.

The point is, the press are saying statutory regulation (meaning laws which regulate the press) are a limit on press freedom. They are backed by the Conservative party (the largest party in parliament and the government). These people say they are happy with all the rules but just don't want them to be enforced by law. That somehow puts the government in control of the press, is a step towards licensing of the press.

Whereas the Labour party (the main opposition) and the Liberal democrats (the minor government party) do want the regulations to be backed by law.

So the issue is not the regulations themselves, but how they are enforced. How arcane. I am left thinking that legal restrictions on the press can be introduced at any time. The real reason the press doesn't like this is because the really don't want to be held to account. They don't want the regulations enforced at all.

Many Latin American leftists point out, in defence of Chavez's record on press freedom, that the press is controlled by the wealthy. That it promotes the interests of those that own it, not the majority, and not justice or right.

It is a similar debate we see here. A feral press, controlled by a global elite, crying foul, backed by political rightists, opposed by leftists (such as we have any leftists here).

Which way will the cards fall?

The real question is, will it matter? Are newspapers actually that important or relevant any more?