Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry
into the media misconduct recommenced this month after the Christmas period to
as much furore as had previously shrouded the case.
Over the past week, a number of
official apologies have been issued to the victims of hacking from corporate
giant News International. The statements released mark an interesting and
significant development in the proceedings in the court examination, as the
executive groups in charge of News International had held their ground in
rebuking all the claims even till the latter stages of 2011.
Among those high profile figures
who have now settled are actor Jude Law, politician Lord John Prescott and
athlete Gavin Henson, alongside several other famous figures and ordinary
persons alike.
It is hoped that with the
admissions made by the firm, there may be some further ground covered as to how
far the alleged transgressions had become common practice.
Of course, the revelation that
emails were also targeted by many news groups has released fresh controversy
that is not too difficult to imagine by any stretch of the imagination. Should
these allegations prove true, it not only adds an extra dimension to the case,
but ensures that there may need to be further sessions, divided by invasion
category.
After all, Lord Leveson has made
public his intention to release the first findings in September and the nine
month period could easily be filled by thorough investigations of the initial
claims.
In an inquiry whose costs are now
expected to be in excess of £10m in compensation, it is the ethical value of
the newspaper corporations that shall now be the method of payment for many of
the firms. Open and transparent contributions are expected of all, and are
anticipated as a form of apology, a form of exoneration, from many reporters
and key figures.
When the story originally broke
with the Guardian, one aspect that caused the most concern was the belief that
executives, chiefs and editors at News Group Newspapers (NGN) were aware of the
malpractice of their employees within the papers they printed.
With the eight week of the
inquiry being proliferated with various editor figures from across the media
domain, it was perhaps the comments of the Private Eye editor, Ian Hislop,
which gained the most attention. In addition to proffering a different tone
with his witty satire, he claimed that “statutory regulation is not required.”
In the face of the widespread
controversy, such an outlandish statement appears insulting to the work of
those leading the investigation, and to those whose privacy was invaded.
However, Hislop developed his argument, citing that all the charges facing the
accused relate to practices that are already illegal.
Instantly, Hislop has pointed out
a crucial oversight of the public eye. Whilst there have been calls for tighter
administration of the newspapers, this only invites government control,
censorship, propaganda. The press is first and foremost a domain of free
speech. By employing methods which impede on this right of print, the
subsequent material cannot be expected to achieve the same insights, the same
coverage, the same depth as has come to be expected of the British broadsheet.
Rather than focus on the produce
of the paper, there need be a reformation of the central structures, ensuring
that the sources of stories are trusted informants, open to public query at any
junction. Perhaps this approach may result in fewer people offering information
that may have some backlash, but in the interest of paper pride, this method of
printed sources would align with a freedom of information that satisfies the
public at large and permits media groups to remain insightful and current.
Yet, as a consumer conscience
always craves the latest scandal, the irony of the media position was
emphasised as Lucie Cave argued that the public had an interest in exposing
hypocritical behaviour. The newspapers, once the source of scandal, now the
subject of its wrath.
No comments:
Post a Comment