An ethical vision for media

Where do I begin to tell you of all the troubling and inspiring words about the aspirations for the highest standards of ethical journalism as expressed by Lord Justice Brian Leveson in his 1,987-page, fourvolume report into Britain’s phone hacking scandal? Leveson’s exhaustive tome on the “Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press” has ignited fierce debate in Britain for its central recommendation calling for an independent media regulator, backed by the force of law. At the heart of this debate is press freedom. Though Leveson says he has not called for “statutory regulation of the press” but rather “independent regulation of the press,” he’s adamant that legislation is required to “underpin” media self-regulation. I expect I’ll write about that more in coming months, particularly in the context of the current debate within Canada’s newspapers on whether to establish a national press council. I’m most interested now, though, in what Leveson had to say about ethical journalism in the public interest. There are enough wise and wary words here to fuel debate among journalists, media lawyers and j-school ethics classes for years to come. Leveson’s report is most of all an indictment of the worst excesses of the British press, mainly its tabs. As I’ve said before, that’s generally not the Canadian way. Nick Davies, the Guardian journalist whose reporting on phone hacking led to the Leveson inquiry, summed up the report best in a video on the Guardian’s home page Thursday. He labelled Leveson’s report as “damning.” “He’s dammed a whole bunch of damnable behaviour that deserved to be damned by him.” While Leveson said that, “at its best,” British journalism has been “world-beating,” he called out “some” for unethical, substandard work. Transgressions cited included phone hacking, theft, harassment, invasion of privacy, fabrication, inaccuracy, misrepresentation, distortion and deliberate disregard for readers, sources and the industry’s ethics code. “There have been too many times when, chasing the story, parts of the press have acted as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist,” he said. “. . . Time and time again, there have been serious and uncorrected failures within parts of the national press that may have stretched from the criminal to the indefensibly unethical, from passing off fiction as fact, to paying lip service to accuracy. “In doing so, far from holding power to account, in these regards, the press is exercising unaccountable power which no-

Leveson understands the press faces unprecedented financial pressures but said that is no excuse ‘to accept lower standards’

body holds to account.”

Leveson had much to say about “the ethical press” and aspiring to the “highest standards.” While he understands the press now faces unprecedented financial pressures, he warned, “that is not an excuse to race to the bottom and accept lower standards.”

Leveson repeatedly affirmed the importance of freedom of the press. Not surprisingly, he reminds us that freedom and responsibility are linked.

“The public interest in a press which is free, which is viable, and which is diverse cannot be too highly valued. Without investigative journalism, and the ability of the press to scour hidden places, the domain of the powerful, for potential wrongdoing, our democracy would be severely impoverished.”

But, he said: “The recognition of the need for an ethical press inevitably carries with it the recognition of the need for a responsible press, which respects the rights and interests of others, and which does not regard ‘freedom’ as the ultimate panacea or touchstone for its mores and conduct.”

Leveson devoted many words to the matter of journalism “in the public interest,” contending that journalists don’t have “free rein to define the public interest however they choose.”

“It is clear, as most (but not all) have fully recognized, that the public interest is something quite different from simply what interests the public.”

Leveson’s report contains thousands more words that set the bar for quality journalism. Other topics he tackles are codes of ethics, accuracy and corrections. He also waxes positive on the value of a “reader’s editor” to respond to concerns about ethical journalism.

Overall, the justice makes clear he understands that quality journalism matters. But, I’ll let the man of these thousands of words have the last words here:

“The press, operating properly in the public interest is one of the true safeguards of our democracy.” publiced@thestar.ca