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
October 21, 2014 -- Updated 0102 GMT (0902 HKT)
A 15-year-old pregnant girl is rescued from slavery, only to be charged with having sex outside of marriage, shocked rights activists say -- a charge potentially punishable by death.
October 22, 2014 -- Updated 0333 GMT (1133 HKT)
After sushi and ramen, beef is on the list of must-eats for many visitors to Japan.
October 20, 2014 -- Updated 1607 GMT (0007 HKT)
Airports judged on comfort, conveniences, cleanliness and customer service.
October 22, 2014 -- Updated 1748 GMT (0148 HKT)
Scientists use CT scans to recreate a life-size image of the ancient king.
October 22, 2014 -- Updated 0959 GMT (1759 HKT)
Despite billions spent on eradicating poppy production, Afghan farmers are growing bumper crops, a U.S. government report says.
October 20, 2014 -- Updated 1319 GMT (2119 HKT)
With so many new attractions on the way, the next few years are going to be a roller coaster ride.
October 16, 2014 -- Updated 0429 GMT (1229 HKT)
Thomas Malthus famously predicted that rising populations would create a food crunch: Could this be true?
October 21, 2014 -- Updated 0945 GMT (1745 HKT)
The lives of everyone close to Oscar Pistorius and the girl he killed are changed forever, his siblings say.
October 22, 2014 -- Updated 1402 GMT (2202 HKT)
Gene Simmons reflects on 40 years of KISS, and how even rock royalty needs sound business principles.
October 18, 2014 -- Updated 1033 GMT (1833 HKT)
From "Sick Man of Europe" to the world's fourth largest economy.
October 22, 2014 -- Updated 0915 GMT (1715 HKT)
Each day, CNN brings you an image capturing a moment to remember, defining the present in our changing world.
Browse through images from CNN teams around the world that you don't always see on news reports.
ADVERTISEMENT