Freedom to suppress

Is the press above the law? Must newspapers enjoy a degree of immunity from normal corrective processes to keep politicians on their toes and ensure justice and good governance for all? These questions are being feverishly debated as Britain waits for Thursday when Lord Justice Brian Leveson will present the report on the culture, practices and ethics of the press on which he has been working for a year at a cost of £4 million.

A Zimbabwean editor’s belief that “tin pot dictators” will indulge in “unrestrained joy” if Lord Leveson recommends statutory controls for newspapers reminded me of Justice Markandey Katju’s dismissal of self-regulation as an oxymoron. Whatever Lord Leveson recommends is of only limited relevance to India, though Jetho Goko, editor of Zimbabwe’s Daily News, says legal regulation would be “manna from heaven” for President Robert Mugabe who shut down his paper for seven years.
Another journalist who fears the global impact of any British precedent is Jurgen Kronig, president of London’s Foreign Press Association. “It would send a dangerous signal to the world if this nation chose now to introduce such controls,” he says. “It would send a disastrous message to countries around the world.”
Everyone seems to assume that Lord Leveson will recommend some kind of governmental control, and that British Prime Minister David Cameron will act on the recommendation. Not that all his colleagues are of one mind on the matter. Michael Gove, his education minister, publicly ridicules Lord Leveson. And Boris Johnson, London’s mayor, warns members of Parliament not “for a minute” to think about regulating the press.
Understandably, newspapers are up in arms. They know that however light the rein might be, legal control would establish a new hierarchy with the media ranking below the political establishment. The suspicion is that politicians want revenge against newspapers for exposing how MPs cheat on expenses and commit other crimes.
A recent full-page ad in the Daily Telegraph headed “Say NO to state regulation of the Press” displays the front pages of six British dailies that exposed major abuses. “If the press were shackled would any of this ever have happened?” it asks. The ad goes on to declare, “Yes… even phone-hacking was a scandal revealed by a newspaper. Not by politicians, not by the police, and certainly not by a bunch of quangocrats.” (Quango is the popular acronym for quasi autonomous non-governmental organisation, like our NGOs, but more closely linked to government.) It must be admitted that the British press is usually even-handed in exposing abuses, whether in the media or in the government. Apart from an innate sense of fairness, inter-organisation rivalry ensures that no paper (not even the British Broadcasting Corporation) is allowed to get away with transgressions.
No wonder the parliamentary culture, media and sports committee ruled five years ago that “statutory regulation of the press is a hallmark of authoritarianism and risks undermining democracy.” The committee was then dominated by the Labour Party. Times change and now, Labour’s deputy leader, Harriet Harman, favours statutory control. So do some 70 MPs, 40 of whom signed a letter to the Guardian recently.
They are supported by victims of press intrusion who are lobbying for the curbs and controls the Leveson report is expected to propose. According to these lobbyists, the leaders of all three parties (Conservative, Liberal Democratic and Labour) have made it clear the “status quo cannot be allowed to continue.” They are all committed to change. They all agree that the existing Press Complaints Commission (PCC), the equivalent of the Press Council of India over which the feisty Justice Katju presides, is not equal to the task.
PCC chairman Lord Hunt, and Lord Black of Brentwood, who chairs another similar organisation, have now come up with an ingenious two-committee formula to counter “breakdowns in ethical behaviour” through self-regulation. Media groups must voluntarily subject themselves to the discipline of a complaints committee which can impose fines of up to £1 million. A separate investigation and compliance panel will have the right to call witnesses and demand documents.
It sounds fine but isn’t compulsory. Richard Desmond, owner of the Daily Star and Daily Express, withdrew from the PCC. He is said to have agreed to join the new Hunt-Black scheme but there’s nothing to stop him — or any other media tycoon — from walking out. It must also be acknowledged that what the owner agrees to at the top need not be scrupulously followed at the bottom. I shouldn’t be at all surprised if Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation was unaware that his employees in the now defunct News of the World were tapping telephones, bribing policemen and striking deals with politicians. Moreover, a group that publishes the Times (London) and the Sun cannot possibly operate on the basis of a single set of values.
I have never been one of those American-style crusaders who chant that newspapers and government are permanent adversaries. Nor do I agree with Jeremy Paxman, the British commentator who reportedly compared the relationship between a journalist and a politician to that between a dog and a lamp post. There are times when the media must oppose authority. Both are as true of India as Britain.
But it’s equally true that on many occasions, especially in Afro-Asian countries with their explosive communal dynamics, the press and government must work together for political stability and social harmony. Justice Katju cannot afford to forget that essential long-term need. It will not be served in India by imposing legal restraints, even if Lord Leveson recommends them for Britain. We must find our own prescription for constructive cooperation without compulsion.

The writer is a senior journalist, columnist and author