Courtesy of the Brits: An inquiry into the state of the press

Leave it to the Brits to respond to a crisis with gravitas. Perhaps, to a fault, as suggested by Alan Cowell in his column on Page Two of the International Herald Tribune (December 4, 2012) where he writes about the Leveson Inquiry, which looked into the state of the British press after the phone-hacking scandal at the News of the World in July 2011.

Cowell wonders whether the heft of the report, all 2000 pages in four volumes, will “make waves, or sink without trace in the current maelstrom swirling through Britain’s established media, from newspapers to the BBC.” Remember how everyone had something to say about the scandal and its repercussions in the Murdoch media empire? Whatever its faults, the Leveson report should be of interest to media communities and users of media everywhere. It stands among those rare efforts to shine light on the conduct and alleged criminality of a powerful press.

Headed by Lord Justice Sir Brian Leveson, the inquiry calls for more laws to regulate the press in the UK. The column notes the pride that the American press must feel about their First Amendment protection from such assaults. He then cites how some of the UK press have scoffed at the trade-off for this protection with American newspapers becoming “monumentally dull” while their papers remain “raucous and rambunctious”, suggesting pride in their gossip sheets and tabloids.

The British commentary cited above points to the underlying premise of the constitutional grant of press freedom—freedom imposes its own discipline and its own bounds. The British who do not have a written constitution have passed laws to control, investigate, and regulate the press. The courts are kept busy settling press disputes. But even as their system allows such intrusion and interference, the press has claimed and proved its capacity to criticize and expose. The British press has also operated an industry-based system of self-regulation, the best known of which is a Press Complaints Commission which hears public complaints, inquires about wrongdoing among their members and other issues affecting their independence and autonomy. Lesser known are news organizations’ detailed guidelines and codes of conduct.

Cowell recalls the history of British newspapers, which given the nature of their territory, had to compete fiercely for national circulation. The press culture favored the scoop, “sometimes ahead of the facts”. A history, which he argues “propelled the best of British journalism and contributed to its worst failures.” In contrast, leading newspapers in the US did not have to compete so much as they catered primarily to major city markets.

I would have to disagree with the pointed contrast between the British or American press, especially on the basis of their dullness or rowdiness. Both systems have propelled through competition national newspapers of quality, meaning, among other efforts, good writing, strict fact-checking, more context, and less flashy headlines just to sell on the streets. Somehow, in the struggle to compete, some newspapers were indeed liberated from the struggle for circulation, establishing themselves as leaders, with well defined political orientations, liberal, conservative, reflecting as well as the class lines among their citizenry, which is not necessarily determined only by the money they have or make. So on either side of the Atlantic, the system grew the best of the lot to a level of excellence. Although with the greater democratization of news on the Internet, these print editions have been shown up by the many stories they fail to report and for being so much a part of the Establishment.

I don’t think “raucous and rambunctious” could describe The Guardian or The Daily Telegraph in their current editions. Nor would anyone say “dull” of the Washington Post or The New York Times, to name two grown-from-city newspapers in the US. “Dull” might describe most small city newspapers, but these continue to be quite useful and indispensable to the local community they serve.

At the same time, on either side of the Atlantic, the tabloid newspapers continue to flourish, competing amongst themselves for their share of the market of readers who need the sensational boost from stories of sex, scandal, and crime, or the extraordinary “man bites dog” type of news, none of which needs to be accurate. And on either side of the Atlantic, some of these “tabs” have even attempted break-through investigations on political figures.

Recommendations of the inquiry are made on top of other laws on the British press, and will provide statutory force to a system of self-regulation undertaken by the industry. Even those in the press are agreed that the regulatory system has proven ineffective and needs improvement. In the contrast, the US press shunned the idea of the News Council, which could be their national counterpart to the BCC. The press councils in the US are state-based.

I do not think quality grows only from the protection of the First Amendment. It is a strong start but it is no guarantee for best practice and excellence. The current decline in the practice of journalism has been blamed on commercialism, with journalism catering to popular tastes. I think the press draws its qualities from aspects of history, development, and culture.

Quick cut to our rather messy system of constitutional protection of press freedom, a Congress unaware of such protection, self-regulatory mechanisms that the media do not care to enforce. The Press Council has turned off complainants and even their own members. As for checking on misconduct or breach of ethics, a review of the laughable penalties imposed by the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) on broadcasters who were found to violate their code during the live coverage of the hostage crisis will show up the ingrained resistance to any kind of corrective punishment for wrongdoing, which is what self-regulation is about. And we complain about impunity! The written code of conduct of a press association hardly inspires hope that those who work in the media take their accountabilities seriously. And yet, I would join, as the Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility (CMFR) has joined, actions to protest legislation to regulate or mandate the conduct of the press, because few government officials, especially those elected to Congress, think much about their own accountabilities.

We may not be quite as old as our American or UK counterparts, but ours is a pretty long history. There were periods before Martial Law, when, while imperfect, our newspapers were well written and enjoyed a higher level of public’s trust and credibility. These days there is mere smugness about the celebrity that comes with newspapering, even as I hear many people who have decided they no longer read the papers. We have not produced a newspaper of record, and one that is a joy to read. Our options are dull, “cringe-cringe”, and barely readable.

Maybe, we should limit expectations and ask the papers to focus on one important basic. How about striving for plain accuracy, factual and contextual, never mind if rambunctious or rowdy, nutty or naughty in the telling; and yes, even dull and a pain to read.