Free Speech Network poll backfires
Please note this is Hacked Off's old website, and it will soon be archived.
The latest Exocet in the propaganda battle waged against the Leveson Royal Charter turns out to have a dodgy fuse.
It comes in the form of a poll commissioned by the front organisation for press barons, the Free Speech Network, springing back to life after six months of silence (their ‘latest news entry’ is dated 26 October 2012).
As you might expect, the poll is enthusiastically reported in newspapers owned by the backers of the doomed PCC: News International, Telegraph and Associated. Equally predictably, it purports to show that the public do not support the Royal Charter that was endorsed by Parliament in March and is due to go before the Privy Council for approval on 15th May.
One typically loaded question asked respondents to choose between these statements:
“The new press regulation system should be set up in a way that gives politicians the final say if and when changes need to be made.”
Or
“The new press regulation system should be set up in a way that does NOT give politicians the final say if and when changes need to be made.”
Little wonder that the survey was instantly dismissed as a ‘worthless piece of propaganda’ by the Guardian’s media commentator, Roy Greenslade.
Let’s look at its finding that 66.5% of people think ‘the new press regulation system should be set up in a way that does NOT give politicians the final say if and when changes need to be made’.
If people believe that, which Royal Charter is more likely to give them what they want? Is it the one approved by all parties in Parliament in March, or is it the one put forward by press barons with a view to creating the PCC Mark Two?
Emphatically not the latter, which would not merely give working politicians a ‘final say’, but would allow them to continue routinely controlling the regulation system just as they have routinely dominated the PCC. (The chair of the PCC is a working Conservative peer and former Conservative Cabinet minister, while the chair of Pressbof, the powerful funding body, is also a working Conservative peer. But respondents to the Free Speech Network poll weren’t told that.)
The real Royal Charter, which is based on the Leveson recommendations, would not permit that level of political involvement because it aims to make the whole press self-regulation system as independent as possible.
So what does the poll question mean when it says ‘the final say if and when changes need to be made’? This refers to the provision in the real Royal Charter that any change in its terms would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament. The implication of the question is that this gives MPs ultimate control.
But that raises further questions. First, would it be better for the press itself to have ‘the final say’? Remember that Lord Justice Leveson found that history showed the press could not be trusted to regulate itself effectively.
Second, why is that provision for a two-thirds majority in there? Because the Charter aims to make it as difficult as possible for politicians to change the terms of the Charter. If there was no provision at all, then the Privy Council, a shadowy committee of ministers, would be free to meddle at any time. Instead, the Charter says that it will take two-thirds of members of both Houses to do it. That would require (a) an unusually strong political consensus and (b) a full, public debate. That is quite a protection for the public – and it would apply only if someone wanted to change the terms of the existing charter.
But the Free Speech Network and the papers behind it don’t care for such facts. They would rather ask loaded questions and publish loaded answers. You can see the full dataset here.
4 Comments
Join the discussion and tell us your opinion.
There is an important contradiction, at least a double meaning, in the “independent self-regulation” we seek to be agreed upon.
Independence for some is sought for ‘pure journalism’, its standards to be defended against proprietorial and political interests. For proprietors, and their supporters – paid and / or principled – the existing ‘chains of press command’ are plausibly more to be trusted probably than any attempt to emulate democratic responsibility. We can expect the latter camp at every stage to attempt obstruction of the former, and the ‘watering-down’ of any regulation, aiming to retain or extend – for good or ill – their own ‘press privileges’, not just in service but in pursuit of advantage, not just in terms of popular circulation but (it happens) in money and influence.
Press barons might wish to characterise ‘the press’ as independent and “free”, but it serves in fact a composite of many aims, its provisions ranging from ‘the needful truth’, through ‘the wanted repetition’, arguably to ‘the oppressive lie’. The pressures of money and of career and of family responsibility, naturally in the circumstances narrowly conceived, ever drive rightward, set against conscience and evolving public expectations.
As found by Lord Justice Leveson, history indeed shows “the press could not be trusted to regulate itself effectively”. For the press as for any other entity in public life, help is needed: toward timely disclosure of breaches with respect to professed standards (beyond mere avoidance of criminality), for remedy in law and further at the least for market discipline. Much of scandal will though be on-going, until eventually we come to look honestly at the root cause.
The magnitude of our democratic deficit, the compulsion of individuals in lack of material equal freedom, well understood by those with long interest, experience and historical perspective, should in the light of Leveson and aftermath, more readily now be grasped by new generations. The rather sorry facts to be admitted with respect to the all-party Royal Charter – quaint and cumbersome, connecting a distrusted people and a distrusted press, interposing a succession of supposedly less political entities, still the subject of doubt and hopes of controversy – all serve to highlight our universal (collective) self-subjection to ‘fear and greed’: and the remedy, in equal partnership.
Andrew Neil @afneil 28 Apr
@TCHL @richarevans1 @rupertmurdoch And I made you Editor of The Scotsman. Most stupid decision ever. But at least I fired you six days later
Tim Luckhurst @TCHL 28 Apr
@afneil @richarevans1 @rupertmurdoch Would you care to retract that statement, Andrew? It might be wise.
2:59 PM – 28 Apr 13
Andrew Neil @afneil 28 Apr
@TCHL @richarevans1 @rupertmurdoch Bring it on. And let me pay to straighten your teeth
Just to say “Thank you” for defending the true “Freedom of the press”, that is to keep a check on their abuse of power which is corrupt and self serving and takes away the freedom to consider both sides of the argument. Spare us from the loud hailing of those media barons who seek to brainwash us in to wrong thinking.
The press has a vital role in holding governments and other important institutions to account. However, the hacking scandals have shown that the press itself can abuse its own power. The Leveson Inquiry asked important questions about the role of the press in our society today, and its relationship with politicians and police. Its recommendations for statutory legislation and independent oversight of the press are important. We need to get back to a situation where the press once more plays a role in representing the general public’s concerns, and not simply being an extension of the state. If a Royal Charter can serve as an effective form of regulation, that will be a step forward from self regulation.