Mediaforum 2014-5, p. 134-137, Thomas Gibbons: "Major changes to the UK’s approach to self-regulation of the press were recommended by the ‘Leveson Report’ in 2012. The aim was to introduce arrangements which would be demonstrably independent both of the press industry and of politics, which would uphold standards of good journalism, and which would provide effective remedies for those affected by unacceptable press behaviour. These characteristics are in marked contrast to the current system. This article discusses how the Report has attracted strong resistance from the industry, and how it has refused to cooperate with attempts to implement what is a carefully considered scheme, which balances the press interest in free speech with its responsibilities in a democratic society. [...]
The conclusion to be derived from the Leveson Report and its aftermath is that the response of the UK press industry, to the suggestion that its power should be restrained, is a telling testament to that very power. A noteworthy feature of the media is that it can influence debates about its power. In respect of the Leveson Inquiry, the UK press has not reported Leveson’s findings fully, it has made excessive claims about its own contribution to the UK’s legacy of freedom of speech and exaggerated the impact of regulation on that freedom, and it has directly challenged the clear will of all sections of Parliament to implement a scheme that will better protect the interests of those adversely affected by press activity. This success by the press should also be viewed in a wider UK context. The passing of the Defamation Act 2013 represents a significant advance for media interests, tilting the balance away from the protection of reputation. At the same time, there is a reluctance to tackle continuing problems of media concentration. Free speech advocates may consider the position healthy, because the UK press now enjoys considerable freedom. But, as Leveson recognised, that freedom is predicated on the expectation that it will enhance democratic society. It is not obvious at present that the press have much respect for that principle."
The conclusion to be derived from the Leveson Report and its aftermath is that the response of the UK press industry, to the suggestion that its power should be restrained, is a telling testament to that very power. A noteworthy feature of the media is that it can influence debates about its power. In respect of the Leveson Inquiry, the UK press has not reported Leveson’s findings fully, it has made excessive claims about its own contribution to the UK’s legacy of freedom of speech and exaggerated the impact of regulation on that freedom, and it has directly challenged the clear will of all sections of Parliament to implement a scheme that will better protect the interests of those adversely affected by press activity. This success by the press should also be viewed in a wider UK context. The passing of the Defamation Act 2013 represents a significant advance for media interests, tilting the balance away from the protection of reputation. At the same time, there is a reluctance to tackle continuing problems of media concentration. Free speech advocates may consider the position healthy, because the UK press now enjoys considerable freedom. But, as Leveson recognised, that freedom is predicated on the expectation that it will enhance democratic society. It is not obvious at present that the press have much respect for that principle."