Now That's What I Call Leveson

The news of the past few days has looked like a collection of the 'Best Bits' from the past 18 months. We've had the classic hits of Hugh Grant ruthlessly seeking vengeance on News Corp and The Mirror. Kate and Gerry McCann have made a long awaited comeback to point the stick at Mr Investigative Journalism for being accused by British Media of murdering their child Madeline. The one hit wonder of Christopher Jefferies who won libel damages for his wrongful arrest in the case of Jo Yeates' murder, has come back, looking better than ever (presumably spending his cash). Even political hits have been replayed such as in-depth discussion about Jeremy Hunt's involvement in the BSkyB and whether the coalition is set to burst.

This all comes after Lord Justice Leveson published his 2,000 page report into press ethics on Thursday. A lot of the findings were negative on how the media operated, in saying 'that some press behaviour had been"outrageous" and "wreaked havoc with the lives of innocentpeople".' The recommendations put forward by Leveson include an independent body to regulate the press industry, avoiding any influence from both Government and the Press. As well as this, law changes would be implemented to enforce these.

No-one seems to fully agree with Leveson on any of his proposals. No media house agrees fully or at all with the prospect of these being implemented. The victims of unethical press practice agree that these do not go far enough. The Conservatives intend to not put very much of it into action. The Lib Dems and Labour want the proposals to be fully implemented, but they have very little power to ensure this.

David Cameron must have known when he commissioned Leveson to investigate and put forward industry improvements, that the chances of him recommending law enforcement and regulation were very likely. At heart, Leveson is a lawyer, so it was predictable he might favour the legal antidote. Therefore, Cameron would have known that then implementing the suggestions would have awkward consequences. Did he always intend to oppose the result? To me, it's almost like he is/was seeking the best of both worlds (or more accurately, the least worst of both worlds). In appointing this investigation, he appeased the voting masses who were getting increasingly infuriated at every News Corp revelation. In refusing to implement these changes, he will be appeasing the media who will in return give him positive news coverage over his political rivals.

One must have at least a little respect for Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg for being bold enough to support Leveson and defying the immense power the press has to make or break a political career. The story about the coalition becoming split seems to be growing to be a story larger than the Leveson story. This could be done on purpose by the media to divert attention from the face they are being punished.

However, the media are rather enjoying playing the role of the victim in all this. They are acting like a maths class being kept in at lunchtime because a few people threw a paper ball at the teacher and won't admit responsibility and seek repentance. They are like a cheating partner begging for a seventh chance, because 'they've changed their ways' and 'they already feel punished; the pain they've caused is punishment enough'. Even though I want to be journalist, I am under no illusions that I am entering a special profession that provides a vital service; far from it. It's not as if journalists provide a vital service like doctors and police.

The press are acting very hurt by all of this. They are showing no remorse. They appear to be actually taking no responsibility. They might as well all shrug their shoulders and deny knowing anything about the questionable conduct undertaken by them. They need to just man up, bend over and take their punishment. It's a tough profession. They'll get over it. If journalism can survive radio, television and Internet, I'm sure they can handle a few regulation changes. I have no sympathy, and I want to be one of them.

If Leveson's suggestions were to be fully implemented, instead of a weak counter-proposal put forward by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, it actually could be beneficial to the profession, which currently is in a difficult period while they try and survive the Internet. Many organisations are trying to create ways to still make money in a time when sales of newspapers are decreasing and more people are getting their news for free on the Internet from bloggers (ahem) and social media.

So, imagine the scene. We now live in Post-Leveson Britain. Every online newspaper now has a paywall and are charging for their content; following in the footsteps of The Times. You want to read The Guardian or The Sun, but you have to pay first. However, it's WORTH IT because the newspapers have an industry standard logo on them. You are paying for trusted journalism, which you will never get with blogs (ahem) and social media. People are always willing to pay a bit more quality.

It would be a shame to lose this opportunity to improve the profession, but I think David Cameron is going to piss it away for press support to help him win the 2015 election. Perhaps I'm just cynical. They only way we'll know if that is truly the reason he's refusing to implement it, is to hack his phone. And why not? It's already an omnishambles.

To help put an end to politicians and journalists’ having an intimate relationship with each other, Leveson has also said that there should be a log of all contact, verbal and otherwise, which can be made public. I was rather surprised with Leveson's opinion criticism of Jeremy Hunt's handling of the BSkyB takeover. To summaries, Hunt wasn't to blame, but was told he should have supervised his special adviser.

At the end of it all, I do think the press should just accept their fate and put aside tradition. A new regulator comes with a new set of rules, to which journalists themselves would have some say in what is put forward. The chances are, organisations that want to carry on with investigative journalism, will find themselves before tribunals more often than of current, because legal fee will significantly decrease, allowing more people to afford to take libels cases, and the like, to court, rather than just being celebrities like Hugh Grant. However, the organisations will also find it a lot cheaper in return.

Of course, there are 2,000 pages, so obviously it covers a lot more than the above. However, these are what the main arguments are about. We will have to wait a few weeks to see to what extent press regulation and stature will change. However, I imagine the new campaign by 'Hacked Off' to ensure all the proposals that were put forward by Leveson are implemented will be futile. A weak, watered-down version of it will instead be executed in a selfish attempt by Cameron to ensure a second term as Prime Minister and hold off Boris Johnson for the foreseeable.