Guardian Debate: How Can The Press Restore Trust

"Once we lose reporters, we're fucked!"

Unless you have spent the past few months on a cloud numbered nine, been in a submarine or in a coma, you will be fully aware of the phone hacking scandal of July 2011 at News of The World. It shocked and horrified our nation, as well as confusing us about whether to sympathise or hate the frail or conniving Rupert Murdoch. Since then, in fact long before then, the public have lost the trust they once invested in Journalism. Journalists are now probably somewhere just above lawyers and estate agents. On this very topic, The Guardian organised a small, public debate; a post hacking debate in which they were discussing ways in which the press can restore the trust.

This Guardian event happened on the 29th September 2011 at The Royal Institute of Great Britain, situated in one the poshest roads in one of the poshest areas of London. I was lucky enough to be given the opportunity to attend this event for free. After a trip through London at rush hour on the Underground, a trip which involved a shoulder in the eye and a tube door shutting on my head, I attended the event, looking rather underdressed in my jeans and check shirt. I then sat in a small theatre with inadequate leg room for someone of the slightly above average male-height of 6 foot. I was now sat in a room filled with Journalists, Investigative Journalists and other, media-savvy people. This was a great place to be sat in the middle of for a Student Journalist.

The room filled and then the five established names took to their seats before a short introductory video began. It started with the clip from Fox News during the height of the scandal, in which the news anchor, interviewing Rupert Murdoch, was being told what not to ask by his interviewee before apologising in a cringe-worthy manner. Following that, there was a talking head video of various figures from The Guardian, discussing the course of events including numerous other clips, such as the embarrassing one of Murdoch saying it ‘was the most humble day of my life' to the MPs.

The line-up for this debate consisted of Kristian Guru Murphy, who chaired the event. We had Carl Bernstein, an American investigative journalist who largely reported the Watergate politics scandal for The Washington Post back in 1972 in America. Sylvie Kauffman was next to him, who is the current editor for Le Monde in France. George Eustice is a Conservative politician who has had some large roles in the party, including Press Secretary for David Cameron, who was later succeeded by Andy Coulson: who is a man largely wrapped up in this whole scandal. Alan Rusbridger was also proudly present, and he is the editor for The Guardian. He started off the debate by taking to the stand to give an opening statement.

Guru Murphy then asked the others to give an opening statement to this debate. Carl Bernstein stated that 'Hackgate' was only as a result of the consumer’s wants and needs, but agreed that the press abused their rights to freedom of speech and expression. George Eustice then agreed about the 'using and abusing', but also stated that Journalists would regularly distort the news out of malice. He then went on to knock plans to have a 'Journalists Register' (the equivalent to a sex offenders registers), which would strike off Journalists who break the law.

Sylvie Kauffmann then gave her statement, in which compared our press to that of the French. She said they have no tabloid press, which is the result of a cultural difference and the public having no appetite for those kinds of stories. She actually noted an opposite scandal in France, in which Special Intelligence spy on reporters. This was completely rejected by a French audience member, who stated that Journalists in France undertake the same methods as the British. Alan Rusbridger claimed that the scandal is a result of a PCC failure. He argued that increased regulation could endanger the freedom of the press and a Journalist Register would go back to 1694, when Journalists could be heavily punished for libels.

After an opinionated reaction from Bernstein, who seemed to completely disagree with what Rusbridger had just said, the debate was opened up to questions from the audience. The questions tackled the accumulation of power for News Corporation, in which Rusbridger stated that MPs are trying to stop it, such as the BSkyB bid; albeit last minute, and Kauffmann said the answer is simply more regulation.

Other subjects questioned included tabloids, such as it being impossible to compare tabloid and broadsheet press due to them having a hunger for different stories, and also questioning the limits of privacy. Bernstein answered these questions in saying that responsibility needs to be taken by the corporations, and also that they need to be transparent in their methods and how money is being spent. Bernstein also answered a question about the limits of investigative journalism, in which he thought that the law should not be broken to get a story, but it can still be justified on occasion. He then continued saying that the Watergate investigation was legal and that he would have never hacked phones.

Before the participants gave their closing statements, Kristian Guru Murphy took a poll regarding regulation. Not many people agreed that the answer was more regulation or that we currently have the right level of regulation. Interestingly, a third agreed the answer was less regulation; the same amount of people in the room who were also Journalists.

Bernstein thought that the way to restore trust, something all institutions have lost, is basically through good reporting. Kauffmann said there is no simple answer to restoring trust and that the public needed to decide the media they want. She also said that Journalists, Blogger's and Twitterer's should have the same ethics. On the issue of trust, Eustice stated that in Britain, we have the most trusted broadcasters but the least trusted newspapers, and that this was an issue. Rusbridger thought that regulation, so long as it was effective, was the answer, as well as transparency and the want for organisations to correct themselves too. The debate ended with Rusbridger's final words being "Once we lose reporters, we're fucked!"

So the conclusion? Well, there didn't seem to be a conclusive one. There are many different opinions in which way to restore trust. I think we are just going to have to wait for the results from Lord Leveson's Inquiry next year before really being able to answer the question.