Is the media too free?

The poisoning of Russian double agent Sergei Scripal and his daughter Julia at an Italian restaurant in Salinsbury has created an important story about Britain's first press pages. Earlier this month, former actor and comedian John Ford found that for 15 years, from 1995 to 2010, he was employed by Sunday Times, the newspaper of Rupert Murdoch, to avenge and dig into the private lives of dozens of celebrities, including wartime Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Discussing the techniques he used, Ford said: “I checked phones, cell phones, bank accounts, stole their trash.” Some of the best-known names of British journalism will likely be tarnished by such illegal discoveries.

The basic conflict dates back to the establishment of free press with the annulment of press licenses in 1695. To fulfill what has been seen since then as a particular purpose to keep those in power accountable, the press needs information. We expect free press to investigate the exercise of power and to expose abuses. In this context, someone inevitably recalls the exposure of Watergate, the scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon in 1974.
But current scandals are not necessary for the press to do its job. The very existence of free press brings government restraint. And the press is not the only one: rule of the law, implemented by an independent judiciary and contested elections held at regular intervals are no less important. Together, they make up a three - foot bench: if one of the legs is cut off, the other two fall.

We come to see the press as defenders in front of the almighty state, and that's because we don't have the right theories for private power.

Liberal argument is both simple and symplistic at the same time: the state is dangerous precisely because it is monopoly. Because he controls the means of violence and imposes mandatory taxes, state wrongdoing must be exposed by undaunted investigative journalism. Newspapers, unlike the state, are not monopolies. They don't have imposing tools, so there's no need to take action against abuse of press power.

But while the press monopoly in its clean form does not exist, the oligopolis dominates in most countries, if, as economists claim, public goods appear from the invisible market hand, the news market is quite visible and conspicuously focused. Eight companies own Britain's 12 national newspapers, and four owners own more than 80% of all copies sold. In 2013, two men, Murdoch and Lord Rothermere, owned 52% of online publishing and printing in the United Kingdom. If it weren't for the fact that the press itself has no power to retain its invisible power, we would never be enough to self-encumber as a means to keep the press honest.

Efforts to connect the British press to the standards of journalist “knowitious” have been frequent and have repeatedly failed. There have been investigative committees in the United Kingdom since 1945. Each of them was created after any major abuse and recommended “the taking of measures” to protect privacy; and in any case, the government has withdrawn.
There are two main reasons for this. First, no politician wants to become an enemy to the press: the satisfaction Tony Blair Murdoch offered to Sun's owner, Times and Sunday Times is famous, and she was rewarded. Murdoch's media supported Labusists in the three Blair election victories in 1997, 2001 and 2005. The other reason is more ominous: newspapers have “pockets of” on politicians who are willing to use to protect their interests.

In 1989,, following pressure in Parliament, the government commissioned David Calcutt to run a commission to replace “what measures (be legal or other) are needed to properly protect individual privacy from press activities and improve the citizens' complaints system in front of the press.” Calcutt's key recommendation was to replace the Media Council, which is a racist institution with a Commission for Press Pollies (PCC), which was actually established.
In 1993, however, Calcutt described it The PCC as a industry-funded <x0 body, dominated by industry and should operate a code of practices designed by the indicator and which is highly favourable for the industry.” He recommended her replacement by a statistical court for the Press Ankesat. The government refused to act.

In March 2011, a Joint Parliament Committee reported that the current system of self-regulation is failed and needs to be adjusted.” Because the PCC “was not equipped with the ability to address systemic and illegal privacy violations,” the committee carried out proposals for a reformed regulator.
In the same year, after criminal investigation into wiretapping that brought the Nea company of the World's Nea of the World, David Cameron, at that time prime minister, appointed Justice head Brian Leverson to lead an investigation into “cultural, practices and ethics of the press; their relations with the police; the current failure of the regulatory system; the contracts made between national newspapers and politicians; why earlier warnings of press violations were not heard; and to address the problem of media ownership.oh1x> Leverson dealt with this matter to make recommendations on the most efficient ways of overhauling the press with a simple question: “who guards the guards?”

The first part of the Lawson Report, published in 2012, recommended the establishment of a regulator for industry, with independence both from newspapers and the government, and which should function by royal decree. To prevent such a movement, which they considered as state “state control” newspaper owners established the Independent Organisation of Press Standards (IPSO), which was accountable to no one but themselves.

As in the past, the government subsequently gave up, ignoring Leveson's own opinion, which said further investigations were needed to reveal “the size of illegal or inappropriate conduct from newspapers, including corrupt payments to police.” Indeed, Leverson doubted whether the IPSO was sufficient and different from its PCC predecessor, and if it could bring any “changes in the conduct of the press”.

Although some British media are uniquely evil, achieving the right balance between the public's need to know and the individual's need for privacy is a general problem, and must be constantly addressed in light of changes in practices and technology. The media still need to protect us against abuse of state power; but we also need the state to protect us from abuse by media power.

Taken from Project Syndicate