After months of waiting, the first half of the Leveson
Report into press standards has finally arrived. Two thousand pages long and
nearly a foot high in printed form, it contains a mass of data into how the
press has operated and makes many damming comments on this– the recommendations
however are what matters. Leveson’s call for an independent panel to monitor
press standards, backed up by law, to replace the discredited Press Complaints
Commission, has split the Coalition.
After months of waiting, the first half of the Leveson
Report into press standards has finally arrived. Two thousand pages long and
nearly a foot high in printed form, it contains a mass of data into how the
press has operated and makes many damming comments on this– the recommendations
however are what matters. Leveson’s call for an independent panel to monitor
press standards, backed up by law, to replace the discredited Press Complaints
Commission, has split the Coalition.
The government established the Leveson Inquiry after the
torrent of revelations about phone tapping led to the closure of Murdoch’s News
of the World. The scandal quickly spread out to reveal deep-seated links
between the press, politicians, the police and other sections of the state. Of
course, such links have long been understood to exist but for the first time
here was clear evidence of just how enmeshed and corrupt they were. The scandal
even spread to Number 10 with the employment of former News International
employee Andy Coulson as Downing Street head of Media. Given the growing pressure, Cameron had
to do something to divert attention away from Westminster, hence the setting up
of the Inquiry.
Behind the scenes the press barons begun to plot in order to
turn this to their advantage. They hoped that Leveson could be convinced to
establish a PPC Mark Two under their control with more powers being given to
it, including the right to investigate journalists’ behaviour and be the sole
issuer of Press Cards. When it became clear that this was not going to happen,
a huge press campaign against the expected recommendations was launched. Over
the last month the national papers have been full of spreads attacking Leveson
as being some-sort of “left-wing cabal” and droning on about historic rights of
press-freedom.
Now the report is here. The bulk of the Tories want a
voluntary “independent” panel with no legal backing to it. In truth this would
be just like the old PPC but instead of being staffed by editors it would now
be staffed by the sort of worthies who fill up many other official bodies and
quangos. As we shall explain below, it would be more of the same but with a
thin veneer of independence to give it some creditability. Labour and the
Lib-Dems however support the Leveson recommendation in full, which would mean
statutory backing for any such panel.
This would make things a bit more difficult for the press owners but not
by much. The reason is that neither the report nor any new panel they might set
up still fails to deal with the question of ownership. At the end of the day,
even a panel set up along the lines of how Leveson presented it would come up
against this problem. The fact that Leveson seems happy for the useless Ofcom
to oversee the panel just confirms its limitations in reality.
We do not have a “free” press in this country. All the
national (and for that matter local) titles are firmly in the hands of the
capitalist class. No wonder most back the Tory party and all show clear
hostility when it comes to workers in struggle. Even the supposedly Leftist
Guardian usual fails to support strike action when workers take it.
Interestingly enough, despite all the talk of our press
being free from legal constraints, this was not always the case. Before the end
of the 18th The press
remained under restraint in one form or another up until the 19th
century when you saw capitalists starting to take a serious interest in buying
or setting up national and local titles to take advantage of the new potential
profits that were appearing as a result of the industrial revolution and the
huge growth in towns and cities. Many of the papers we know today were born
during this period. Right wing, jingoistic and often adopting a
more-sensationalistic approach than had been the norm before, these papers
firmly backed a status quo and therefore needed no restraints from the state.
Far better to present them as voices of the people, free from being told what
to say etc., etc. Then, as now,
they were weapons of the ruling class, one of the “pillars” of state. century it was the norm for the press to be restricted
and subject to government control. Papers who did not toe the line were
regularly shut down or had their presses smashed. This makes sense when you
remember that many presses and newspapers were owned by groups rather than
individuals. During the English Civil War (or English Revolution to be more
accurate) the country was awash with printed papers and pamphlets, including
those of the Levellers.
Leveson steers clear of having anything particular to say
about this issue – after all he is part of the status quo and does not wish to
rock the boat too much. He also uses the limitations imposed by forth-coming
court cases to avoid confirming the clear collusion that existed between Number
10 and the press. However, it would be naive to reject this reality. During the
Thatcher years it was well known that the Tories and people at all the
right-wing papers had regular, sometimes daily contact, to plan strategy,
especially during election campaigns. After all they all had the same interests
at heart, the interests of the ruling class. No wonder even Leveson was forced to comment that
politicians and the press have been too close in a way that “has not been in
the public interest.”
Now that the Coalition is split over the Leveson report, a number
of different outcomes may present themselves. On a vote Cameron may be defeated
or some sort of compromise may be worked out behind closed doors. Whatever
happens, nothing fundamental will change. Even if the panel is backed by
"robust" statutory regulation the best we could expect is some sort of reigning in of
the worst-excesses of the national press, at worst it could be used to further
hamper genuine investigative journalism (already much restricted by owners who
prefer sensationalist stories to real revelations) or attack left wing
publications. One thing we can be sure of - the press
and the rest of the media will remain firmly under the grip of the press barons and
the class they represent and defend. Collusion will continue between all
sections of the ruling class to act against our interests. Free speech will
remain free only for the few who can buy it. For socialists the way forward
should be clear. The national press should be nationalised and opened up to all
sections of society and ideas based on their support rather than just on the
criteria of wealth. Then we would see a really free press that would act in all
our interests.
