Britain’s media and regulation

[Commentary] During his nine-month public inquiry into press standards, Lord Justice Leveson has heard many witnesses air legitimate complaints about the misconduct of the media. Now he must turn his mind to what to do about it.

How should Britain’s free press be regulated? The inquiry has set out sensible criteria for future regulation: whatever system is chosen must be effective, cheap, cover all “newspapers”, preserve media freedom and be a free service that protects the vulnerable. But finding a mechanism that delivers all this will not be simple. The primary purpose of regulation must be to protect the public – especially those without recourse to costly lawyers – from unfair treatment at the media’s hands. The existing system, in the form of the Press Complaints Commission, has palpably failed. While the PCC does much good work mediating in disputes between newspapers and the public, it is too close to those that it regulates and too weak to hold them to account. The best solution would be to move to a system of “independent regulation”. This would fall short of formal state regulation or licensing of journalists – both of which could expose the press to political interference. Independent laymen, appointed by a credible mechanism free from state control, would be in a majority on the new regulatory body. This would dispel the impression of a magic circle of editors or newspaper executives sitting in judgment on itself.