Leveson Inquiry: Sharing alarm bells with a prime minister

Prime Minister David Cameron makes his statement to the Commons following the findings of the Leveson Inquiry

Prime Minister David Cameron makes his statement to the Commons following the findings of the Leveson Inquiry

First published in From The Editor's Chair The Northern Echo: Blog: Editor Peter Barron by

IT speaks volumes that a Conservative prime minister should have alarm bells ringing over any state interference in the press.

I thought David Cameron was impressive in his response to Leveson. He made it clear that the status quo is not an option, that Leveson has laid down a way forward, but he draws the line at the moment on the proposed "underpinning" by legislation.

He describes it as a "crossing of the rubicon" which we should be very careful about - and he's right. They are the same alarm bells going off in my head.

What the PM seems to be saying is that legislation may not be necessary if the press comes together behind the main recommendations of Leveson - for a beefed-up independent regulator. The question is: Will it?

I said on Wednesday that the price for retaining self-regulation would be an all-inclusive independent system. If the press fails to agree to it, then the alternative is much worse - state regulation. I know which one I'd prefer.

Ed Miliband says there are no more last chance saloons for the press and we should move straight to the Leveson model in its entirety. Hold on, Mr Miliband - don't forget you're talking about a minority who've been drinking in the last chance saloon, and this decision will affect every journalist.

We have a firm proposal on the table for an independent regulatory body - let's see how the newspaper industry reacts to it, in an established timescale, before deciding whether we really should cross the rubicon.

 

 

Comments (2)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:05pm Thu 29 Nov 12

EvolutionConsultancy says...

To me, this is the same argument as "No more speed cameras".

If the media abide by the principals, why would it matter that there was a quango?
To me, this is the same argument as "No more speed cameras". If the media abide by the principals, why would it matter that there was a quango? EvolutionConsultancy
  • Score: 0

11:08pm Thu 29 Nov 12

chrisrine.lambert@btinternet.com says...

I agree with david Cameron.Just let the press do there job. we will always need a free press.If not then things such as our MPS. spending tax payers money for second houses and buying things for there homes and charging us for it would never have seen the light of day. The press holds an awful lot of these things in check.
I agree with david Cameron.Just let the press do there job. we will always need a free press.If not then things such as our MPS. spending tax payers money for second houses and buying things for there homes and charging us for it would never have seen the light of day. The press holds an awful lot of these things in check. chrisrine.lambert@btinternet.com
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree