Leveson: a new era for British newspapers?

The police investigation into phone-hacking by the now defunct News of the World newspaper is a story that just won’t go away. This week saw the first court appearance of its former editor Rebekah Brooks, one of 23 people currently being investigated by 45 police officers under the London Met’s Operation Weeting. With costs already exceeding £40 million and with an estimated 6,349 potential victims to investigate, it is likely that the legal settlements are likely to extend into the years ahead.

Yet to what extent is the British public aware of its repercussions? The Leveson Inquiry, set up by Prime Minister David Cameron to examine the culture, practices of the British press appeared to many as a forum for famous people to explain how the press had disrupted their lives. The testimonies of victims like Sienna Miller and Steve Coogan, to newspaper insiders like Piers Morgan and most notably Rupert Murdoch provided an interesting examination and on occasion devilish detail, but for the public as a whole, it did no more.

Yet, this November, Lord Justice Leveson will provide a report into his findings and more notably some policy suggestions into how the British press should be run.

Lord Justice Levson - will his findings bear fruit? (Telegraph)

Press freedom is perhaps not one of the most exhilarating of topics, but it does represent one of the fundamental principles of an open democracy. To the proprietors and editors, any statutory rule in place which governed how UK media is legislated would be deemed an infringement on the rights on the freedom of the press. Most people accept this argument; Britain would not want to be seen as the only country in Western Europe with restrictions on what the press can and cannot print.

However; it is frankly clear that the current parameters in place do not work. The Press Complaints Commission (PCC), a self-governing body, has been hopelessly inadequate in addressing genuine complaints and policing predatory journalism. In fact, Richard Desmond, owner of the Daily Express and The Daily Star, two newspapers with a combined daily circulation of around 1.3 million copies, never signed up to it. The newspaper industry may seethe at any possibility of government intervention but for too long it has been poor at doing the fundamentals itself.

Some commentators said that the finger cannot wholly be pointed at the newspaper industry. For some, the sensationalist agenda many newspapers took was subject to its audience. The British public for a long time found the trivialities of minor celebrities part of their daily discourse. The newspaper editors were more than happy to meet these demands. Yet if you take into consideration that newspaper circulation in the UK has been declining since the 1960s, then the argument becomes flawed.

As social and cultural habits evolved, more and more people got their news on television or radio. For newspaper editors, taking more risks and providing even juicier scandals was a way of negating this loss. Setting the agenda and driving comment was taken at any cost, even if it meant hacking into the phone of a missing-later-murdered schoolgirl. It should not detract from the quality of parts of the British newspaper industry, but the levels that many editors sunk to, revealed the nadir of quality journalism.

The cases of the past few weeks have highlighted these inadequacies. Firstly, the report into the Hillsborough disaster showed journalism at its worse and the poor habits that defamed the memories of 96 innocent fans over 23 years ago. Secondly, the printing of the topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge. Although not printed in any UK publication, it shows the extent that people will go to make a story.

A landscape with a statutory framework would perhaps not be as draconian as it sounds, but would certainly intend journalists to remodel how they approach stories. For many, who for years were hounded by journalists looking for a simple story, it is a case of accountability rather than state intervention.

All newspapers and most politicians would not be in favour of statutory regulation, mainly because they do not believe it is in the State’s interest to be involved in policing such matters. The question left over is to what extent are the press capable at looking after themselves? Historical precedent suggests not, and reform of an internal system would simply delay further mischief in years to come.

It is unlikely to become a vote winning strategy, nor losing, but at the same time the public are fully aware of the unfairness that some news organisations have been involved in.

Newspapers are not the same types of institutions they were 10 or even 50 years ago. Not only must they face the challenges of the digital age, as well as the competition of the licence fee but they must learn to adapt to climate of new forms of journalism. Leveson’s suggestions may be overruled and the PCC ultimately strengthened, but it still does not deflect that newspapers must adapt both culturally and economically or its printing presses will be seriously overhauled or stopped.

South Africa: A fading rainbow?

Democracy is not an easy thing to do. It is not something that can be implemented over night nor does the ability to vote mean that things will immediately turn out for the better. For democracy to work, institutions need to be in place and civil society must work together to grow something organically.

Notions of idealism have often ignored the fundamentals of rationalism and pragmatism. In effect, just because something may seem right, it doesn’t mean it is going to work. To a large extent, this forms the building blocks of modern Conservatism and many of the views of the 18^th century politician Edmund Burke. Societies don’t become something overnight, they evolve through history and culture. The lessons of revolution and visionary leaders have often led to mass murder and the brutality of totalitarian regimes.

The problem with democracy is that when it is in place, citizens expect results immediately. Yet, when things don’t, old habits often die hard. One only has to look at Russia. Western critics of the current Russian leadership may have some salient points regarding Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian style, yet let us remember that democracy as we know it has never existed there at all. Before Stalin and Lenin, Russia was ruled by hereditary Tsars. Authoritarianism and the security blanket of socialism are the systems that Russians know; it may be some time before the framework of democracy beds-in.

(NY Times)

The same can be said of South Africa. The pressure for the country to flourish remains intense, almost on the verge of burdensome. The peaceful legacy of Nelson Mandela’s leadership was a platform for countries overcoming long legacies of discrimination to aspire to, any step backward is deemed a desecration of Mandela’s legacy.

The current crisis involving the South Africa questions not only the stability of the economy, but the essence of its democracy. The shooting and subsequent killings of protesting miners at a platinum mine near Rustenburg asks not only questions of the police, but questions about politics and society.

Since 16 August, South Africa’s platinum mines have become inoperable. Mass demonstrations by several unions have prevented workers returning to the pits and have put future operations in doubt. The protests have continued to gain momentum and not just in Rustenburg, miners from across the country have joined in wild-cat strikes. The return of the banished former ANC Youth Leader Julius Malema has only stoked the fire further.

Malema is no stranger to controversy. A fierce critic of South Africa’s current leadership, Malema has openly stated his admiration and friendship of Zimbabwe’s ageing tyrant Robert Mugabe, discredited the Government of Botswana and called for the South African mining sector to be renationalised. The 31-year-old raised headlines initially for singing the infamous ‘Shoot the Boer’ at ANC rallies, Boer being the white farmers who settled in South Africa in the 17^th and 18^th century, now a looser term for white South Africans. In April 2012, Malema was finally banned for calling President Zuma a dictator. Yet, it does not appear to have curtailed his opinions. Malema this week was talking to the South African army, in what has been perceived as a threat to national security.

Malema's speeches draw in the masses (Guardian)

Whilst Malema’s rhetoric can be deemed as absurd and opportunistic, to what extent does it echo with many of the workers in South Africa’s mining community? Since the end of Apartheid, are they materially better off? Life expectancy has dropped to 52 years old, over a tenth of the population is living with HIV, on top of poor educational standards, crime remains an inherent problem with high murder and violent crime rates. Figures also put the unemployment rate at 25%, though many believe it to be around 40%. Has freedom from Apartheid brought opportunity? For the masses living in black townships, how many would argue that much has changed?

Whilst many poor black South Africans have suffered, the political elite have prospered. 100 years since the ANC was born, to what extent does it really represent its constituents? Why has it introduced a secrecy law that critics believe to be akin to Apartheid-era politics. Why were the miners in Rustenburg arrested under an obscure Apartheid law?

South Africa has struggled like any country whilst it attempted to re-emerge from its bleak past. South Africa is held up as a beacon because what was enshrined in its constitution made it the world’s most equal society. Yet the strikes and gaps in wealth tell another story. A new black elite has managed to develop from the seeds of freedom. From what should have been an opportunity for liberation and new beginnings has led to greed, corruption and a failure of the masses. Whilst the miners may return to work this week, what remains is a seriously inequal society and the fault lines that will only become wider.

Lance Armstrong: It was more than the bike.

As London’s carnival of sport comes to an end with the closing ceremony of the Paralympics, the city will close the curtain to what will be seen as a defining summer not only for sport, but for the nation as a whole. Team GB’s success in harnessing the public’s attention and its ability to capture medals, many of them gold, will ensure that the London Olympics will be recognised as the most success modern games on record.

Even the achievements of our Paralympians have exceeded expectations. The British public have filled out the arenas and have continued to enjoy the relentless success. Many commentators are arriving at the belief that all athletes should be held as equals, despite any physical or mental handicap. And, whilst the athletes would prefer journalists to ask questions about their training and their hopes for the games, for most, it would be odd not to ask about their disability. This year’s games have seen injured members of the armed forces to a survivor from the 7 July terrorist bombings in London; all with unique and harrowing stories.

Whilst we marvel and are inspired by their success, a man who overcame his own challenges and rose to the top, inspiring millions along the way, has seen his reputation dissipate before him. Lance Armstrong, the cancer surviving cyclist, who went on to win Tour de France seven times, announced in August that he would not be challenging charges made by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) in relation to doping offences during his cycling career. In doing so, Armstrong has been banned for life from the sport and all his successes, including medals and victories, will be stricken from the record books.

The subsequent press release from Armstrong signalled that he had spent his entire professional life fighting against doubters and doomsayers and that ‘enough is enough’. Armstrong felt that the ensuing investigations and allegations were having an effect on his family life and towards the work of his foundation. This in effect was not a confession of guilt, but a submission to the investigation.

Yet, as most involved in the sport point out, this is very un-Armstrong like. The Texan was renowned for his combative spirit, as well determination to take on obstacles. He fought his battle with cancer as he did when ascending the Alps; with the ultimate goal of winning. Why then is he suddenly stopping the pursuit?

It is likely that the investigations will uncover the scale of doping, not only committed by Armstrong, but by the whole US Postal Service team – maybe wider. Examinations and testimonies will apparently reveal that Armstrong was part of cycling’s dirty secret. Sport’s ultimate survivor did not possess superhuman qualities, but was tainted like many of others in the sport. Perhaps the prospect of seeing these allegations thrown at him in the courtroom was a step too far?

Undoubtedly, Armstrong will remain defiant despite what is thrown at him. Beyond witness testimony, there is no scientific proof of his guilt.

And it is that defiance which ultimately prevents Armstrong from saying anything further.

Anyone who has read his first autobiography ‘It’s Not About the Bike’, would not be moved by the American’s overcoming of cancer. His subsequent Livestrong foundation has helped raise millions of pounds and much more in awareness of the disease. Armstrong’s philosophy was that anyone can beat cancer and who knows how many it inspired in their own fight. This is perhaps where his reluctance-cum-intransigence stems from. Perhaps Armstrong feels that a confession of guilt would undermine his beliefs and everything the foundation represents. Not only would his reputation as an athlete be tarnished, but so too the charity he believes in anymore.

Are there any other precedents? It is now over a decade since the South African cricket captain Hansie Cronje died in an airplane crash. Cronje, a man who had led the country out of the sporting wilderness of Apartheid, inspiring millions of South Africans helped the team become one of the most feared sides in the 1990s. Yet, Cronje’s reputation was destroyed after allegations of match-fixing led to his ultimate confession in front of a South African courtroom. Cronje, a man of international standing, wept as he relayed his involvement in illegal match-fixing syndicates.

Cronje’s decision to confess all, perhaps partly down to the history of truth and reconciliation in South Africa, illustrated his willingness to confront the mistakes he had made and for the better of the game. His own personal reputation would forever be tarnished, even after his death. Yet people still recognise Cronje for his work to help rebuild South Africa, particularly his work in black townships, despite the match-fixing.

For Armstrong this is not even worth considering. He rode from the front in his career and it appears it is where he will remain.