Skip to main content

Will UK press regulation charter prevents abuses or damage journalism?

By CNN Staff
October 31, 2013 -- Updated 1116 GMT (1916 HKT)
British lawmakers and publishers are divided over how best to regulate the press in light of the phone hacking scandal.
British lawmakers and publishers are divided over how best to regulate the press in light of the phone hacking scandal.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Court in Britain denies newspapers' attempt to block royal charter regulating press
  • Charter establishes government-backed plan to regulate UK press
  • Pro-government regulation activist: Plan will give public better protection from press abuse
  • Media commentator for Guardian: Publishers will simply ignore charter

(CNN) -- British newspaper publishers have failed in their bid to block a new government-backed royal charter on press regulation, clearing the way for a new system of regulation proposed by UK lawmakers but opposed by news publishing companies.

The royal charter is lawmakers' attempt to implement the recommendations of the 2012 Leveson Inquiry into press ethics, which was set up after outrage over claims of widespread phone hacking and other abuses by elements of the UK press.

Supporters of the charter say it provides the legal framework and sufficient penalties to ensure effective self-regulation by a press which, they believe, has failed to do so in the past.

Phone hacking trial begins

Detractors say the government should never have a role, however remote, in regulating the press, and that the proposed charter is an attack on journalism and on press freedom.

At Hacked Off, a campaign group which fought for the changes and was set up in the wake of the phone hacking scandal, a spokesman said: "News publishers now have a great opportunity to join a scheme that will not only give the public better protection from press abuses, but will also uphold freedom of expression, protect investigative journalism and benefit papers financially...

"The time has come for the newspaper companies to listen to all of those voices, including the vast majority of their readers, and to distance themselves from a past marred by bullying, fabrication and intrusion."

But Roy Greenslade, a former editor who is now a media commentator, said in his Guardian column: "It means, now that the Queen has approved it, that we face the existence of a royal charter to set up a system of press regulation that no publisher will sign up for. They will simply ignore its existence."

"Instead, the publishers will create their own system, having already advanced concrete plans for a new regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso)."

In the UK Press Gazette, Tim Crook, a member of the Chartered Institute of Journalists, went further. He said the government's royal charter "prescribes an unwanted, untried, untested, under-researched system of arbitration for media law disputes mostly paid for by the media whether they win or lose, taking place in secret, and leaving those who opt out with the future burden of punitive legal costs for open justice high court litigation."

At the UK Government's Department for Culture, Media and Sport, a spokesperson said: "A Royal Charter will protect freedom of the press whilst offering real redress when mistakes are made. Importantly, it is the best way of resisting full statutory regulation that others have tried to impose. We will continue to work with the Industry, as we always have, and recent changes secured by the Culture Secretary, to arbitration, the standards code and the parliamentary lock will ensure the system is workable."

But Tony Gallagher, editor of the Daily Telegraph, tweeted: "Well done everyone involved in the Royal Charter. Chances of us signing up for state interference: zero."

And Tim Luckhurst, a CNN contributor and University of Kent journalism professor tweeted: "The Royal Charter is bad for journalism, bad for freedom of speech, and - vitally -appalling for the British public."

He added: "Today Britain squandered a precious freedom.I fear that those who welcome press regulation now will regret it profoundly but too late."

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
August 21, 2014 -- Updated 1720 GMT (0120 HKT)
The beheading of U.S. journalist James Foley by ISIS militants brings into focus the risks faced by reporters in conflict zones.
August 21, 2014 -- Updated 1224 GMT (2024 HKT)
About $35,000 was taken from the bank accounts of four passengers on board Flight 370.
August 21, 2014 -- Updated 1353 GMT (2153 HKT)
Five survivors of acid attacks capture India's attention with a "ground breaking" photo shoot.
August 20, 2014 -- Updated 1732 GMT (0132 HKT)
The execution of a journalist by a British-accented jihadist is a direct challenge to the international community. It's time for the U.S. to move, writes Frida Ghitis.
August 20, 2014 -- Updated 1219 GMT (2019 HKT)
In an exclusive CNN interview, Lance Armstrong admits to having a "f**k you" attitude.
August 19, 2014 -- Updated 0858 GMT (1658 HKT)
Summer isn't over yet. These new hotels are keeping it alive and fresh.
August 20, 2014 -- Updated 1535 GMT (2335 HKT)
You've seen her turn on the catwalk, but her income might make your head spin.
August 20, 2014 -- Updated 0036 GMT (0836 HKT)
The pain that Michael Brown's parents are going through is something Sybrina Fulton can relate to. She, too, lost a son in a controversial shooting.
August 19, 2014 -- Updated 0904 GMT (1704 HKT)
19-year-old Udi Segal explains why he won't join the country's military.
Drinkers guzzled an incredible 10.3 billion liters of this brand in 2013, making it the world's No.1 beer. And you may have never heard of it.
CNN joins the fight to end modern-day slavery by shining a spotlight on its horrors and highlighting success stories.
Browse through images from CNN teams around the world that you don't always see on news reports.
ADVERTISEMENT