Star Wars Day, 2024
I once came across a quote in a history book which I have never been able to re-find. It was from an acquaintance of I think Lord Randolph Churchill (Winston’s father), or perhaps of Benjamin Disraeli, and it was along the lines of:
“Dear Sir, you do not believe that there are actually solutions to political problems?”
This astonished admonishment from a Victorian politician has lingered.
*
There is a conceit in the notion that just because a problem can be stated it thereby can be solved. Maybe this fallacy comes about by reason of human optimism, that articulating a problem means that somewhere somehow it can be remedied.
If course, stating a problem accurately and plainly is a necessary condition of it being solved.
But it often is not sufficient – at least not in terms of public policy.
And one problem is how, if at all, the media should be regulated.
*
Not long ago the media were far easier to regulate.
This was because there were fewer media entities to regulate and the ability to publish and to broadcast was more restricted.
Indeed, until the 1990s it was was actually quite difficult for most people to publish or broadcast to the world – or even to circulate things beyond your immediate circle or place. You had to go through gatekeepers who had a near-monopoly of the means of publication and broadcast: newspaper titles, publishing housed, broadcast stations.
From time to time there would be the spirited eccentrics who would, say, set up up a pirate radio station in the North Sea or self-publish books and pamphlets. But such self-publication was derided as a “vanity”.
(Little did they realise the upcoming relentless mass self-publications of social media.)
That such self-publication was possible at least in theory was always an important principle- indeed, it was the original meaning of the phrase “freedom of the press” (a 2012 New Statesman post on this is one of my favourite pieces).
But few if any sensible people had a press at home, even though could have one.
Now most people have access to the means of publishing and broadcasting to the world.
The device you are reading this on is no doubt capable of such worldwide publication or broadcast, at least via a social media platform.
And just as it was once odd to possess a personal printing press or pirate radio ship, it is now similarly odd not to personally possess something capable of far greater publication or broadcast.
For want of a better word, this is an information and communications revolution. A fundamental shift, comparable to the first writing and alphabets, or the invention of movable type.
And the implications of this revolution are still being worked out – if they can be worked out at all.
*
How – if all – can media be regulated now that everyone is a potential publisher?
My day job is as a media and communications (and commercial) lawyer – constitutional law is a mad hobby – and I see everyday the attempted use of law and policy to try to make people and companies do things (and not do things) which they otherwise would not do (or would do) but for that law and policy.
Such regulation is hard. Sometimes it is ineffective. Sometimes it is ignored. Sometimes it has unintended effects. Sometimes, even, it works.
*
Turning to the wrongful conduct of parts of the news media in the first decade of this century (and before), there is no doubt bad things happened – and there is also no doubt that we do no know the extent of the bad things that happened.
And the one thing that can be correctly said of the Leveson Inquiry – and of the criminal and civil litigation that followed – is that a lot of these bad things were placed into the public domain which otherwise would not have been placed into the public domain.
This was a boon for the public understanding of the news media.
But.
The purpose of the Leveson Inquiry (of which only one of two parts took place) was to use that investigation for the purpose of proposing a new regulatory model.
And this is where there is maybe a category error.
For what happened in the UK news media before around 2012 is not a good data set for regulating the news media in 2024 and beyond.
Indeed, it is far harder to say what is now news media. You cannot walk down Fleet Street and its environs and point, saying “there” and “there” and “there”.
For example, if a freelance journalist has a social media following of hundreds of thousands they often can have a bigger “circulation” than any title they work for. In those circumstances, what practical purpose would there be in just regulating the latter? And if you try to regulate the former, at what point do you stop trying to regulate everyone?
Anyway, please now click here and read my article at Prospect on whether “Leveson 2” should take place.
And tell me and other readers of this blog what you think.
For, dear Sirs and Madams, you – unlike me – may believe that there are actually solutions to political problems.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
The unstated conclusion to be drawn from your article is that unless the regulator has draconion powers then regulation will fail. Unfortunately those most in need of regulation will simply take control of the office of regulator and will operate as before, only less visible.
Indeed a problem with no solution.
Pretty much.
Ultimately I think Leveson 2 would be an expensive whitewash. Leveson 1, while it did end up with some minor players in the phone hacking scandal facing jail, unsurprisingly failed to set up a meaningful press regulation system. Indeed Leveson’s ideas were rather flawed in that regard. We might find out more about what Rupert Murdoch got up to, and perhaps more importantly Rebekah Brooks, and with whom in public office. Piers Morgan might finally get a grilling on his actions. But, as with many retrospective enquiries, Leveson 2 would be unlikely to end in a satisfactory conclusion with those who misled the public behind bars. It will all take far too long, which will diffuse public interest in the outcome. Lawyers will be the only winners.
What we should be doing is protecting ourselves from future scandals. Investigative journalism is a far more direct means to get at the truth. We need to strengthen the protection of investigative journalists from super-rich SLAPP happy predators and other vested interests. Only by exposing their past and present scandals in public will people be called to any sort of worthwhile account. At least that way we will learn what happened away from public gaze and make sure the likes of Murdoch, Brooks and Morgan are confronted with the truth in the media and exposed to shame and ridicule.
My two thoughts about the underlying technological change issues are:
1. What will our concept of (enforceable) ‘privacy’ be in the future – including for ‘public’ figures?
2. What greater protections of personal communications will technology facilitate?
It is a mistake to think of regulation as a problem that can be solved.
It is a process that can, and and must, be improved and continually recalibrated as the media landscape changes.
Perhaps Leveson IS fighting the last war. Or perhaps the press dinosaurs are still powerful enough to deserve the necessary attention to unfinished business.
Either way, we currently have the worst of all possible worlds, where the news is driven by flocking behaviour and has become a segment of the entertainment business. It is absurd to suggest that we can’t do better. Or that improved regulation can’t be part of the improvement.
DLG; thanks for the informative and nuanced post.
I agree with the point made by Will Ross. What about incremental process improvements as a pathway to deal with these complex issues? Single point solutions may well be almost impossible but a process that refines better and better ends is surely not.
We as a society have done it before. Food safety regimes, water supply quality, fire regulations, seat belts in cars, general car safety requirements including regular maintenance and service regimes, the provision of dentistry services, medical services, pharmaceutical drugs, employment regulations, working time directives, building construction codes, the list is long. They may in some cases have fallen into disrepute and in others be in need of further strengthening but they do work on our behalf and can be made to do so again as well as being extended to include other aspects of our lives.
You may well ask ‘Why bother?’ and I think you’ve already supplied the answer; because there is no other way to begin rebuilding trust in how police forces and politicians deal on our behalf with broadcast information services (of course ‘the press’ is now a redundant term).
According to some recent polls, 25% of Brits think Covid was a hoax while, over in the US, 36% believe the 2020 election was stolen. It’s difficult to believe that democracy will survive unless dishonesty in the media (both old and new) is tackled.
AllanJW makes the point that it may be hard but we have tackled other powerful industries. Roger McNamee, an early investor and advisor to Facebook but subsequently a fierce critic of social media, points out that the Petrochemical industry was once very profitable and freely poisoned the rivers and the air. After regulation it was a lot less toxic and a lot less profitable.
Maybe media companies will be obliged to employ armies of fact checkers and moderators; maybe they will withdraw from some markets where the regulation is particularly onerous – and maybe this will open up opportunities for new locally based replacements – or maybe we will just have to do without some services just as we now have to do without the convenience of a tin of DDT in the kitchen cupboard.