As the endless shenanigans continue over setting up a new post-Leveson system of UK press regulation, more attention is being focused on the influential role of Hacked Off. The little tabloid-bashing lobby group fronted by Hugh Grant has been blamed for the shabby political stitch-up that has left us with the messy agreement to establish a regulator recognised by a royal charter and backed by ‘a dab of statute’.
The Tories’ draft proposals for what they call a ‘tough’ new press regulator to be underpinned by a Royal Charter are a right royal disgrace to democracy and an attempt to impose more state supervision under cover of the Queen’s robes. Yet by far the loudest criticism of the plan has been that it does not go far enough in shackling our supposedly free press.
Why the dangers of Leveson don't end at statutory underpinning
It was a pity Hugh Grant decided not to take his reserved seat at the Free Speech Network launch meeting I spoke at in Westminster last Thursday, after his Channel 4 camera crew was turned away.
Is it possible to have a simple definition of what is ethical journalism or what we mean by the public interest that can be made into general rules for the conduct of the press? The simple answer is: probably not, no.
