The Levenson Enquiry

The Levenson Enquiry is an on-going investigation into the cultures, practises and ethics of the British Press that intends to examine the moral and legal conducts of media organisations and the journalists working for them.
The Levenson enquiry began in November following the News International phone hacking scandal accusing employees of the paper of phone hacking, police bribery and instigating an improper influence in the pursuit of publishing stories.
The scandal dubbed ‘hack gate’ by the press caused an endless controversy regarding the News of the World and other defunct British newspapers. Investigations determined that celebrities, politicians and members of the Royal Family were victims of phone hacking activities between the periods of 2005 and 2007 however in July of 2011, it was revealed that the phones of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, relatives of deceased British soldiers and sufferers of the 7/7 London bombings were also tampered with resulting in a public uproar.
The corruption and immoral actions of these journalists who had participated in these scandals depicts a distasteful profession, with celebrities such as Hugh Grant, JK Rowling and Charlotte Church providing evidence as core participants to pursue the convictions of reporters involved in the proceedings. Parents of Milly Dowler and Madeline McCann have also given evidence of who most would consider to have gone through enough to warrant pestering by reporters.
After these revelations, Prime Minister David Cameron announced to Parliament that an inquiry would be established under the Enquiries Act appointing Lord Justice Levenson as chairman of the inquiry. The investigation is currently separated into four parts, the first of which looks at the relationship between the press and the public, part two explores the relationships between the press and police and the extent to which that has operated in the public interest. Part three examines the relationship between press and politicians and finally part four seeks to provide recommendations for a more effective policy and regulation to support the integrity and freedom of the press whilst encouraging high ethical standards.
The purpose of the enquiry was summed up by Lord Levenson himself expressing his contempt for the press’s lacking ability to self-regulate, simply stating “who guards the guardians?”
The press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life; any failure within the media affects all of us, disturbing the relationship between the press and public. These ‘guardians’ of public life have crossed the line, losing sight of producing stories which are in ‘the public’s interest’ and stories which are now of ‘interest to the public’. It is not only celebrities that have been pursued but also targeted were the 'infamous' such as Christopher Jefferies, the man who was wrongly vilified by the press over the murder of Joanna Yeates. It is understood that the UKs tabloid media is now driven by gossip rather than any desire to hold peoples interest leading to hearings taking place between November and February, following testimonies from complainants about press intrusion, press behaviour, and continuous harassment.

The second theme in the enquiry looks at the relations between the press and the police, whose failure to succeed in revealing the hacking sooner left a huge mark on the officers involved. It has been proven that members of the Met police have consistently taken huge bribes in return for stories confessed by Sue Akers, the Mets deputy assistant commissioner. The history of the press has always been known to have long paid for stories and tip-offs, a way to ensure that a contact always came back to you and not a rival. Payments were generally the equivalent of a drink, rather than the huge sums alleged by DC Akers. The public are left thinking payments by the press are corrupt and that it’s about obtaining the newest and juiciest gossip rather than stories in the publics interest.
The third theme looks at the relationships politicians cultivate with journalists. Looking at the relationship from an alternative angle, although corrupt, it is essential for politicians if they want to achieve their political and policy goals, however distasteful that might be. This angle however leaves consequences for the role of the “Fourth Estate”, the body which holds the Houses of Parliament in check, allowing the media to accrue huge power without any formal responsibility. An Inquiry has been called as it symbolises an acceptance by the UK Houses of Parliament that they do not have the ability or that its members themselves are too involved in the crisis to be able to properly arbitrate on the matter.
The outcomes for the future are uncertain but if the Levenson Enquiry is to lead to change it has various options at its disposal; legal or regulatory. The first option is to recommend legislative action. Britain already has a strong libel law allowing public figures and businesses a platform to attack papers they believe have slandered them. Big companies have on more than one occasion used Britain’s libel laws to legally intimidate newspapers out of running with legitimate stories that are arguably very much in the public’s interest, leaving the option of a new privacy law. A strong, new privacy law would be a big step however could hold potentially devastating consequences for UK investigative journalism.
This leaves another option, the reform and strengthening of industry regulation. The PCC has been strongly criticized for its inability to police the press, however the PCC has managed to survive but it is almost certain it won’t survive now, at least not in its current form. There are no simple answers to what might replace the PCC as there are two key problems for any new regulatory body, the lack of power which comes with any voluntary non-statutory body and the unique subjectivity of news, the product the press creates and sells. Any new body would have to expand its remit to judge on a larger set of issues not least the ethics and methods of getting stories in the first place. However withstanding these challenges, a new and strengthened industry regulator is probably the preferred choice of the majority. In contrast a strong regulator with a clearly defined remit could potentially hold newspapers to account and instil new legitimacy on an industry not only suffering from an image problem but also a decline in sales as internet based news booms.