Site menu:

Site search

Get Updates

Enter your email address to hear about new posts.


RSS Recent Posts

Archives (month)

Topics

  1. Accounting
  2. Actuarial
  3. Banks
  4. Communication
  5. Economics
  6. Fair Value
  7. Finance
  8. Football
  9. Happened to me
  10. Human Rights
  11. Justice
  12. Law
  13. Management
  14. Mediation
  15. Pensions
  16. Politics
  17. Press
  18. Professions
  19. QPR
  20. Regulation
  21. Sport
  22. TV

Leveson and the Living Trees

Like many people, I have been following The Leveson Inquiry intermittently. As someone with a background in regulatory policy, I am particularly interested in the way that many witnesses have expressed a concern that regulation of the press has become inseparable from regulation of the individual because the internet has given any individual with a website (or even just a Twitter account) the power to be a journalist. I think the argument is flawed.

Standard techniques of regulatory analysis help to show why, starting with a structural breakdown of the process by which the product – in this case, a press article – is created and delivered to the consumer:

  • Fact-finding (or “news gathering”): This is the process of finding out raw information other than by reading material that has already been published. This first stage in the process includes good old-fashioned journalism. It also includes behaviour which occupied much of Leveson’s time in the early hearings, such as phone-hacking, which is illegal, and the pursuit of celebrities, which is typically not illegal but has caused much concern, not least to the celebrities themselves.

    It is clear that this step has nothing to do with the internet and can be regulated (or not) without interfering with the benefits which the internet has brought us.
  • Converting the raw data into publishable content: This is essentially the process of writing-up the content or selecting photographic image(s) in a form for publication. It is a necessary step in the process on the road to publication, but the unpublished word seems to present no regulatory issues.
  • The decision to publish: This is the point at which someone decides to make the output from step 2 publicly available – whether for purchase or free of charge, and in hard-copy or online. It is the step which featured, in various ways, in evidence to Leveson from witnesses such as Max Mosley (who has argued for advance notice before private information about individuals is published) and Alastair Brett (who was involved in the Times Newspaper’s decision to reveal the name of the NightJack blogger).
  • The distribution of published material: This is the process of passing on the published word to readers. In my (current) analysis, it includes printing and distributing hard copy, making content available online and aggregating existing publications into new formats.

    It may be that there needs to be a sub-division within this activity, but if the decision to publish (step 3) was properly taken, there is plainly no need to restrict the distribution and, if publication was improper, it seems to me that the appropriate target for regulatory action is the publisher not the mechanism by which it was distributed. The sole exception would be a distributor who deliberately distributed material which they knew had been published in breach of the regulations.On that basis, there is no reason why search engines and other automated news aggregators would be, or need to be, brought within the ambit of any regulations.
See also:  Is that you, Bobby?

More work may be needed but, at first sight, this analysis suggests that steps 2 and 4 might essentially be free from regulation and step 1 can be regulated as if there were no internet because the internet plays no part.

That leaves us with step 3: the decision to publish. Here the internet does play a part, because it enables virtually anyone to be a publisher. Lord Justice Leveson has told us that he is keen not merely to be regulating “work produced on dead trees” (page 81 of Rupert Murdoch’s second day of evidence). But, in terms of his inquiry, it is only the publishers with power (or influence) who are a concern.

I have yet to determine a metric for determining which publishers have “power”, but I venture to suggest that is more sophisticated than mere readership (otherwise, Stephen Fry’s Twitter account, with over 4 million followers, would seem to qualify).

My current hypotheses for further investigation are (a) a measure of the readership multiplied by the volume of words published (which would rule out not just Twitter accounts, but actually most single-handed blogs too) and (b) a combination of readership and news-gathering power. I may be mistaken here, but it seems to me that the “press” we worry about are those who publish “news” (and comment), not those who publish only comment.

[Update (26 July 2012): I have written a follow-up post about the form of a regulatory system – see Leveson could legislate for a non-statutory regulator.]

[Further update (30 November 2012): Lord Justice Leveson has now published his report. He addresses the above issues in Volume 4 on pages 1791-93, in the following terms:

Para 6.5
“… the coverage of a new regulatory system should encompass those who undertake activities likely to involve … the gathering of information about people and current affairs, for the purpose of, or in relation to, publication of news and information; and the publication of information about people and current affairs.”

Para 6.17
“… when considering who should not be able to opt out of standards regulation, the measure to be used should be a materiality threshold based on influence.”

Para 6.20
“It is more difficult to be clear about what types of online service clearly should be inside or outside of a regulatory system. However, it would clearly be appropriate that websites providing news coverage aimed substantially at a UK audience, with a substantial stable audience should be covered by any new regulatory system.”]

Sign up for updates by Email, Twitter or RSS Feed.

See also:  Moses and the Culture Secretary

Related articles on this website
I keep reading expressions of anger that the Metropolitan Police sought a court order under the Official Secrets Act to uncover the Guardian’s source behind the phone hacking story (here, ...
Read the complete article
The press are against statutory regulation of their activities. That is the message they have been sending to the Leveson Inquiry. But most people fear that, without a legislative underpinning, ...
Read the complete article
What are the chances of being able to write a 2,000 page report on press regulation and walk away with all-party support (or even all-Party support)? Plainly, not very high. ...
Read the complete article
It is not that long ago that the press were pointing to Andrew Mitchell MP and asking: “If the police can do that to a government minister, what chance the ...
Read the complete article
In 2012, when I clicked on a link in order to watch a family friend appear in front of the Leveson Inquiry, I little realised just how much the subject ...
Read the complete article
It has been a strange week for those of us who took a keen interest in press regulation as a result of the Leveson Inquiry. On Tuesday evening, Sir Alan Moses, ...
Read the complete article
I was disappointed to read recently that the UK has dropped to 40th place in the World Press Freedom Index. Among the 39 countries which are said to offer the ...
Read the complete article
Lovers of Life on Mars may have thought that DCI Gene Hunt was giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee yesterday. In fact, it was a real (ex-)cop, former ...
Read the complete article
Hasty Copper and the Paper with Secrets
Leveson could legislate for a non-statutory regulator
Leveson – Is the battle already lost?
Has the press done to Miller what police did to Mitchell?
A pressing need for regulation …
Moses and the Culture Secretary
Reporters Sans Frontieres: not my idea of a knock out
“I’m Hayman and I’m ’aving hoops”