Search for a solution among the subplots

Like one of the multi-episode Scandinavian crime dramas currently in vogue on British television, the Leveson inquiry has emanated sub-plots, spin-off dramas and red herrings by the bushel. These have often distracted attention from the main purpose of the inquiry: to work out how the scandal over phone-hacking and press ethics can be prevented from happening again. Yet, amid the theatre surrounding Tony Blair’s testimony and the political frenzy ahead of Jeremy Hunt’s, this week has brought some of the most animated exchanges so far on the future shape of press regulation in Britain.

Blair, the former prime minister, floated the idea of rules to separate news and comment in newspapers as part of a “change in culture” across the UK press. Michael Gove, the education secretary, in contrast urged caution before the big foot of state intervention came anywhere near press freedoms. Siding with editors who fear statutory intervention, he told Lord Justice Leveson: “I’m unashamedly on the side of those who say that we should think very carefully before legislation and regulation because the cry ‘Something must be done’ often leads to people doing something which isn’t always wise.” Lord Justice Leveson is looking for a simple answer to a question he first asked last July when he received his warrant to inquire: if the press are the guardians of our freedom, who guards the guardians? At the end of the evidence from his scores of witnesses, he asks each to offer their vision of a future regulatory system.