Read the report here: MST Leveson Content Analysis Report (.pdf)

The datasets used in the report, and a Q&A on our research, can be found here

The Media Standards Trust today publishes a report ‘Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson Part 1: The Inquiry’, the first comprehensive review of the UK Press’ coverage of the Leveson Inquiry.

1. Over 2,000 articles and over one million words were published on the Inquiry between July 2011 and November 2012 – 73% during the period of oral hearings
2. One viewpoint dominated evaluative coverage of the Inquiry. Of those articles that expressed a view, 76% presented one perspective;
3. That viewpoint was overwhelmingly negative. Only 18% of articles that expressed or contained a view were positive (6% contained both positive and negative views). Negative coverage increased substantially in the 100 days before publication of the Leveson Report
4. Reporting on proposed regulatory outcomes was virtually non-existent. Of the 3% of articles that dealt substantively with plans for a new system of press regulation, 9 out of 10 were about the newspaper industry’s own plan.

Other key findings were:

• Negative coverage usually framed the Inquiry as a potential threat to press freedom. 280 stories (64%) of those with evaluative coverage) contained descriptions of the ‘threats’ posed by press regulation. In contrast, there were 103 positive references to the Inquiry in all newspapers across the whole period of study
• In the 100 days prior to the publication of the report, newspaper leader articles on the Inquiry nearly all contained negative references to the Inquiry or its outcomes. Of 28 leaders in all papers published between 20^th August and 27^th November 2012, 23 contained only negative viewpoints on the Inquiry. Two contained no evaluative statements at all, while three contained both positive and negative viewpoints. None were purely positive.

The report is published alongside the datasets generated by the project (available here: http://mediastandardstrust.org/mst-news/mst-leveson-coverage-analysis-data-and-qa/), and the MST invites the public to analyse the data first-hand for their own research, or to comment on the content of the report.

Media Standards Trust Research Fellow and author of the report Dr. Gordon Neil Ramsay said: “It is startling to see the lack of diversity of viewpoints in the Leveson coverage, not just in opinion pieces, but also from sources in news articles. It is also striking that, while expressing a clear view of their own, few papers gave the public the information necessary to make their own minds up about the future system of regulation”.

To discuss the results or for further comment please contact Dr. Gordon Neil Ramsay at

+44 (0)20 7727 5252 or gordon.ramsay@mediastandardstrust.org

(update: a correction was made to Table 13 at 12.40 on 9th May 2013)

Media Standards Trust YouGov poll, 1^st – 2^nd May 2013

This YouGov poll, commissioned by the Media Standards Trust was conducted between 1^st – 2^nd May 2013. The weighted sample size of 1,851 GB Adults (aged 18+) ensures that answers can be reliably tested against political party affiliation. No results drawn from subsets of less than 100 are included in this summary. Some figures derived from newspaper readership are from samples close to 100, and so margins of error are accordingly increased.

Full results are available here: MST YouGov Poll Results May 2013 (.pdf)

Read the press release here: MST YouGov Poll Press Release May 2013 (.pdf)

Summary of results

• 56% of respondents would have ‘not much confidence’ (34%) or ‘no confidence at all’ (22%) in the system of press regulation set out in the press Royal Charter. 20% would have confidence in the system, of which 4% would have ‘a lot of confidence’.
• If the cross-party Royal Charter were to be abandoned in favour of the press Royal Charter, 73% of the public fear a risk (36% a ‘large risk’) of a repeat of the illegal and unethical practices that were revealed during the Leveson Inquiry. 9% felt that there was ‘no real risk’ (8%) or ‘no risk at all’ (1%).
• Respondents indicated that they were strongly in favour of an arbitration system for people who feel they have been libelled or harassed by the press to use as an alternative to the courts being obligatory (52%) as the cross-party Charter stipulates, rather than optional (18%) as the press Charter dictates.
• 76% support (50% ‘strongly’) the proposal in the cross-party Charter, that ‘a new regulator should be able to direct a newspaper to print a correction and/or an apology on the same page as the original story if it reports something incorrectly, even if it is on the front page’. 4% opposed the suggestion, with 10% neither supporting nor opposing it.
• If the cross-party Royal Charter were to go ahead, 52% of those respondents who read a newspaper would want their favoured paper to join the new system and would be disappointed if they didn’t, compared with 10% who would not want their paper to join and would be disappointed if they did. 28% would not mind either way.
• Asked whether the system of press regulation should be signed off on the 15^th of May, 38%  believed it should be signed off as planned, while 37% felt that the new regulator should be delayed until agreement has been reached with newspapers. 25% didn’t know.

Results by political party support

• Supporters of the three main parties whose agreement underpinned the original Royal Charter were consistent in their lack of confidence in the press Charter, with 50% of Conservative voters, 61%  of Labour voters, and 82% of Lib Dem voters having ‘not much’ or ‘no confidence’ in the alternative press Royal Charter. Combined ‘a lot’ and ‘a fair amount’ of confidence for party supporters were 28%, 18% and 8% respectively.
• Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters were more likely than average (73%) to see a risk of a repeat of unethical and illegal practices, with 76% of Conservatives, 75% of Labour supporters, and 89% of Lib Dems believing there is a ‘large’ or ‘small’ risk.
• On arbitration and corrections, again party supporters were more likely than average (52%) to believe arbitration should be obligatory (54% Conservative, 54% Labour and 71% Lib Dem), while 80% of Conservatives, 77% of Labour supporters and 89% of Lib Dems support a new regulator being able to direct corrections and apologies of equal prominence to the original articles.

Results by newspaper readership

• When readers of newspapers were asked whether they would want their favoured paper to join the new system set out in the cross-party Charter, 50% of Daily Mail readers said that they would, against 12% who would not. Sun readers were less supportive, with 33% in favour and 12% against, but Guardian readers (67% vs 10%), Times readers (68% vs 7%) and Telegraph readers (58% vs 14%) were strongly in favour.
• On arbitration, Times readers were overwhelmingly in favour of an obligatory arbitration system (75%, against an average of 52%), with Guardian readers a close second (71%). Telegraph readers (65%) were also strongly in favour.
• On corrections, there was overwhelming support for a regulator having the capacity to direct equal prominence of corrections across all readerships: Mail – 81%; Sun – 69%; Mirror – 81%; Guardian – 85%; Times – 88%; Telegraph – 86%.
• Apart from Sun readers (37%) and Mail readers (47%), a majority of readers would have  ‘not much’ or ‘no’ confidence in the system set out in the press Charter (57% Mirror; 72% Guardian; 73% Times; 60% Telegraph).
• There was a strong fear of a risk of a repeat of illegal and unethical practices in the event that the press Charter system was put in place, with 71% of Mail readers, 66% of Sun readers, 72% of Mirror readers, 90% of Guardian readers, 86% of Times readers and 81% of Telegraph readers seeing a risk.

For more information or to discuss the results please contact Dr. Gordon Neil Ramsay on

+44 (0)20 7727 5252 or at gordon.ramsay@mediastandardstrust.org

All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc.  Total sample size was 1,851 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 1^st and 2^nd May 2013.  The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+). YouGov is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by their rules.

All data is derived from categories with more than 100 responses, ensuring reliability of results. Some figures derived from newspaper readership are from samples close to 100, and so margins of error are accordingly increased.

Last Thursday, three large newspaper groups (Associated/News International/Telegraph Group) put forward an alternative Royal Charter (pdf attached).

This was presented as being closer to Leveson than the agreed Royal Charter of 18th March, and more independent. Our analysis has found it to be further from Leveson’s recommendations than any previous versions of the Charter, and to be neither independent from the press nor from politicians.

The most important changes in this alternative 25th April Charter include: making arbitration – Leveson’s central plank – optional; reducing the power of the regulator to direct corrections or apologies and; making the Press funding body the key source of power.

Claire Enders came to a similar conclusion to this in a piece published at the LSE and on The Guardian here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/28/industry-proposed-royal-charter-leveson

Below are 10 key differences between the press’ alternative Charter and the one agreed on 18th March.

The Press Charter – 10 key differences from Royal Charter agreed on 18th March

1. Arbitration is optional

In the Associated/NewsIntl/Telegraph Charter there is no requirement to provide an arbitration scheme, one of the central recommendations of the Leveson regulatory recommendations (Schedule 3, #22)

2. The Press Board of Finance (PressBof) is written into the Charter and has a great deal of power

• The Charter is granted to PressBof: (p.1)
• Members of PressBof make up the initial Recognition Panel (p.2, 1.1)
• PressBof/Industry Funding Body has veto on amendments to Charter (p.4)
• PressBof/Industry Funding Body has veto on dissolving the Charter (p.5)
• PressBof funds the Recognition Panel on an annual basis: (p.5)

3. The regulator has much less power to direct corrections or apologies

The regulator will, like the current PCC, be in the position of negotiating what sort of remedial action is suitable and have far less power to say what, how or where a correction or apology should be published (Schedule 3, 15 & 16)

4. Editors are in almost total control of the Code of Practice

Journalists will be excluded, and the role of the public will be reduced significantly (p.14, schedule 3)

5. There is no guarantee investigations will be funded or effective

They are not required to be ‘simple and credible’ (as in 18th March Charter). There is no requirement for a ring-fenced investigations fund. The recognition panel cannot use its judgment to assess the effectiveness of investigation

6. The appointments process (of the Recognition Panel) is far less independent

• The Commissioner for Public Appointments no longer has control of process or appointment.
• The Chair (who has to be a retired Supreme Court Judge) appoints the other members (this was to be done by Commissioner for Public Appointments).
• One member of the (4 person) appointments committee has to be agreed with the PressBof/Industry Funding Body (p.7, 2.3).
• Party political peers can be members of this appointments committee (they cannot in 18th March version).
• Members of the recognition panel serve only 2 years not 5 years – considerably increasing turnover and ability to influence appointments

7. Politicians can play a role on both the recognition Panel and Board of the Regulator, unlike in 18th March Charter

The bar on Party political peers from the recognition panel and the Board of the regulator has been removed (see p.8, 3.3 and Schedule 3:5)

8. The Recognition Panel cannot use its judgment to see whether the regulator is independent and effective

Instead, it is bound strictly to the recognition criteria (p.11, Schedule 2:1 vs 18th March)

9. It removes the obligation for the regulator to:

• Provide a whistleblowing hotline;
• Provide guidance on the public interest;
• Or provide general advice to the public about the Code and privacy issues (Schedule 3, 8A-8D in 18th March Charter)

10. It will be very difficult indeed for third parties to complain

A third party complaint has to be a ‘significant’ code breach, there has to be ‘substantial’ public interest, and it has to qualify for ‘formal’ consideration. This is a higher hurdle than PCC (Schedule 3, 11)

Read the Press Royal Charter (25th April) here: Press Royal Charter 25-04-13

Read the March 18th Royal Charter here: 18th March Royal Charter

Yesterday several newspaper groups announced their own version of a Royal Charter to underpin press regulation. It differs in several important ways from the Royal Charter agreed by the main political parties and a majority of both Houses of Parliament after 18th March.

As this analysis shows, it also differs substantially from recent public opinion on press regulation.

1) An arbitration system will now be optional (Schedule 3, paragraph 22 of Press Charter)

In January and February 2013 a YouGov/Media Standards Trust poll asked how important the public judged “a fast and free arbitration system for people who feel they have been libelled or harassed by the press to use as an alternative to the courts”. The results were (N = 2,030 GB Adults):

• Total important: 78% (43% ‘very important’)
  
• Total not important: 8%
• Don’t know: 14%

2) The regulator will no longer have the power to direct corrections and apologies (in fact, all references to ‘apologies’ have been removed from the Press Charter) with equal prominence to the original statement (Schedule 3, paragraph 15 of Press Charter)

An IPPR/YouGov poll in May 2012 asked:

To what extent would you support or oppose the following: “Requiring a newspaper to print a correction and/or an apology on the same page number as the original story if it reports something incorrectly, even if it is on the front page?” Results were (N=1,705)

• Total support: 84% (60% ‘strongly’)
• Total oppose: 1%
• Neither support or oppose: 8%
• Don’t know: 6%

Approximately 10 months later, on 19th March 2013, a poll run specifically by YouGov  asked the public:

“Do you support or oppose these features of the proposed system of press regulation: When newspapers print inaccurate statements, being told not just to publish corrections but where to print them (e.g. so that a major front page error has to be corrected on a future front page)?” Results were (N= 681):

This was followed in January-February 2013 by a YouGov/Media Standards Trust poll, which asked: “How much confidence would you have in… A press regulator set up voluntarily by the newspapers, without any legal backing?” Results were (N=2,030):

Churnalism US launches today – a joint project of the Sunlight Foundation and the Media Standards Trust.

The new service enhances the existing UK churnalism.com, making it into a browser plugin that alerts you to possible churnalism while you’re reading the news.

The new service can be found here: http://churnalism.sunlightfoundation.com/

The announcement by the Sunlight Foundation can be found here: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/04/23/churnalism-discover-when-news-copies-from-other-sources/

More technical details on how the service works can be found here: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/04/23/churnalism-technical-background/

The announcement – made by the Sunlight Foundation in the US – can be found below.

For more information please contact Martin Moore at martin.moore@mediastandardstrust.org.

The Sunlight Foundation is a nonpartisan nonprofit that uses cutting-edge technology and ideas to make government transparent and accountable. Visit http://SunlightFoundation.com to learn more about Sunlight’s projects, including http://PoliticalPartyTime.org and http://influenceexplorer.com and http://Scout.SunlightFoundation.com.

The Media Standards Trust is a UK-based independent registered charity that fosters high standards in news on behalf of the public. Visit http://mediastandardstrust.org/ to learn more about MST’s mission and projects.

The three excel spreadsheets attached, and the corresponding links to versions in Google Docs, contain a dataset we have collected over the last few months on the coverage of the Leveson Inquiry by the national daily and Sunday newspapers between July 2011 and November 2012.

We are publishing this raw data, and the methodology behind its collection, before publishing our report and analysis, for three reasons:

1. To identify mistakes in the data

2. To answer questions about the methodology

3. To enable other people to do analyses using the raw data

This is also in line with our commitment to open data.

Below, we have published a Q&A that explains how we have conducted our data analysis, and the way in which we are evaluating the data.

Over the next week or two, once we have taken account of responses to the raw data and methodology, we will also be publishing:

• an interactive timeline on press coverage of the Leveson Inquiry
• analysis of the data;
• a commentary on our data;
• a report on the coverage

Access the raw data here:

Google Docs:

MST Leveson Coverage Full Dataset

MST Leveson Coverage List of Stories by Date

MST Leveson Coverage Wordcount by Date

Excel Versions:

Leveson Coverage Full Dataset

MST Leveson Coverage Stories by Date

MST Leveson Coverage Wordcount by Date

If you have any problems accessing the data, or would like to contact us about the data or methodology, please email Gordon Neil Ramsay at gordon.ramsay@mediastandardstrust.org or call 020 7727 5252

Q&A

Q. What is this data?

A: This is a database of all the articles published on phone hacking and the Leveson Inquiry from July 14th 2011 until the eve of the publication of the Leveson Report on November 28th 2012. It is split into 3 datasets.

Q: What else are you publishing?

A: There are several parts of this project, and we will be publishing different parts at several stages over the next week or two. We’re beginning by putting the raw data up, with a question and answer about how we collected the data and the methodology used. Over the next week or two we will also be publishing: an interactive timeline on press coverage of the Leveson Inquiry; a commentary on our data; and – once we have incorporated responses to our data and methodology from users – a full report.

Q: Why have you collected and published this data?

A: The Leveson Inquiry was the first review of the British press played out almost entirely in the public eye. The public nature of the hearings, streamed on the Inquiry website and transcribed for the public to access, has shone a light on the operation of the British press and its relations with politicians and the police.

This project builds on this openness, by collecting and making the data on the coverage of the Inquiry and the run-up to the report public. By publishing the raw data we aim to give people access to do their own analyses, to come to their own conclusions, and to highlight any errors if they find them.

We will be publishing our own analysis of this data, but we hope that this data will generate other analyses, and provide a foundation for future research.

The Leveson Inquiry provided a unique opportunity to evaluate press coverage of a significant ongoing event and area of public policy in which the interests of the press itself, on whom we relied for coverage, were linked to possible outcomes. The strength of a plural press is its ability to provide multiple viewpoints and explanations on any area of public life, whether specific policy areas, or moral or cultural issues – a reflection of the free circulation of ideas that underpins our democracy. In addition, the public benefits from a press that can and does provide this multiplicity of viewpoints.

In the case of the Leveson Inquiry, however, since there was always a realistic chance that the outcome of the Inquiry would lead to substantial changes to the way newspapers would be regulated, there is significant value in recording the extent to which a variety of viewpoints was expressed in newspaper coverage.

Q: How did you select the stories?

A: We tried to gather all stories relevant to the Leveson Inquiry published by every national daily and Sunday newspaper, from the announcement of the Inquiry in July 2011, up to the publication of the Report in November 2012. This meant coming up with two benchmarks: first, how to specify which stories were “relevant”; and second, how to gather all of those stories for study.

For the first, we used keyword searches in the Factiva database (the same database used by British Library Newspapers), selecting any stories that contained one or more or the terms “Leveson”, “Inquiry”, or “Hacking”. This cast a very wide net, and although it is possible that this technique did not gather every single Leveson Inquiry-related story, we are not sure how such a story could not include at least one of these terms.

Stories were then excluded if they did not meet any of three criteria:

• The story was specifically about the Leveson Inquiry, press regulation in relation to the Inquiry, or speculation about the Inquiry or its outcomes
• The story made multiple references to the Inquiry throughout
• The story contained an evaluative judgement about the Inquiry, either by the author or by a source solicited to comment on the story

We believe that this was a sufficient and realistic approach to gathering all Leveson-related coverage in the national press.

Q: How and why was positive and negative coverage of the Leveson Inquiry measured?

A: As well as showing how much coverage there was of the Leveson Inquiry, the project looked at how the balance of positive and negative coverage was spread across all newspapers. Given the size of the dataset, this was done using quantitative methods, measuring the occurrence of pro- and anti-Leveson viewpoints in newspaper coverage.

The purpose of this is to establish the extent to which Leveson was represented in the British press in a positive or negative frame. To do this, we recorded the presence of certain types of statement related to the Inquiry, which can be divided into ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ categories, which allowed us to measure two things:

• The number of instances of the different evaluative statements across all stories
• The ‘tone’ of each story, based on whether it contained only ‘positive’ statements, only ‘negative’ statements, both types of statements, or none (neutral).

The statements – or ‘frames’ as they are referred to in the report – were devised following a pilot study, and as the following question shows, were tested by other researchers to ensure that they were valid for this project.

Q: How reliable are the methods and the results?

A: The methods employed for the project were used for three reasons:

• They are practical, given the size of the dataset and the time involved
• They are straightforward to use and to understand, and can be used to generate coherent and robust results (they do not make claims based on probabilities)
• They are based on methods used in previous quantitative studies of media content.

To ensure that conclusions are reliable (and that the study could be replicated in other circumstances), we worked with other trained researchers to evaluate certain variables. The level of agreement was sufficiently high in all cases to justify using them in the study.

Q: What if you have made any mistakes?

A: We took great care to eliminate mistakes, but the size of the dataset (2,016 stories x 27 variables = 54,432 individual pieces of data) means that it is possible there may be some input errors. To help protect against this, the measures related to “relevance to the inquiry” and the positive/negative framing variables were given special attention when input, given their significance for the project.

Beyond errors in the dataset, there may also be disagreement among users of this research concerning whether stories should have been included or stories that may have been missed by the gathering techniques. By making the data – and the methods by which the data was evaluated available to the public, we are inviting investigation of any stories that have been missed,  or which may invite disagreement on how they have been coded. While we are confident in the methods we have employed, and while inter-coder testing has confirmed to us that they are reliable, we are also ready to amend any errors or correct any articles that have been mis-coded.

The summaries included in this web resource and in the attached documents containing data are therefore subject to revision, prior to publication of a comprehensive report.

Q: What next?

A: The methods employed in this study were suited to a situation in which the outcome of the Leveson Inquiry remained in doubt; once the report was published on 29^th November 2012, the nature of the discussions shifted to the concrete recommendations made in the report rather than speculation of the likely outcomes of the Inquiry, or coverage of the Inquiry itself, the public component of which had ended several weeks previously. The methodology for assessing coverage post-publication of the report should therefore be slightly different.

Yet the nature of coverage of press regulation post-Leveson is just as relevant for the British public. It is envisaged that the present project will be the first part of a continuing analysis of the coverage of events surrounding the Inquiry and its outcomes. Some excellent work on newspaper stories following the release of the Leveson report has been conducted by the Media Policy Project at the London School of Economics (including here and here), and we believe that it is important that analysis of this type continues to illuminate the coverage of a significant public policy area.

Two articles published in the Sunday Telegraph by Andrew Gilligan (31^st March and 7^th April) contained statements about the Media Standards Trust that are incorrect. They also contained assertions about the 2009 MST report A More Accountable Press which do not fairly represent the report. These points are addressed in turn below.

Statements in 31^st March Sunday Telegraph article, ‘The Truth about Hacked Off’s Media Coup’ (published here)

The article states: “The Media Standards Trust’s director, Martin Moore, is also a director of Hacked Off.”

Martin Moore is not a director of Hacked Off. The list of directors for Hacked Off can be obtained from Companies House or from the Hacked Off website.

The article also states: “In late 2011 [director of journalism at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford, John] Lloyd, the Media Standards Trust and Hacked Off convened the “Media Regulation Round Table,” the group which drew up what has now become the royal charter.”

Hacked Off was not one of the conveners of the Media Regulation Round Table. The round table was convened by the Reuters Institute and the Media Standards Trust.

The original article stated that the Media Standards Trust launched Full Fact.

This is not correct and was acknowledged to be incorrect by The Sunday Telegraph, who have now changed the article to read “The Media Standards Trust has also shared core funders and directors with Full Fact”. The only person to have served on both Boards is Baroness Neuberger who stepped down from the MST in 2007 and did not join Full Fact until 2009.

Claims in 31^st March article and 7^th April article (published here) regarding our 2009 report A More Accountable Press

The articles also make several claims about our representation of polling data in our 2009 report.

The article of 31^st March states that in 2009 the Media Standards Trust ‘declared the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) unfit for purpose – claiming, without much evidence, that its “ineffectiveness” had reduced trust in the media’. In fact, MORI, which has polled on the question every year since 1999, finds that trust in journalists has risen slightly over time.’

The article of 7^th April revisits the 2009 report, stating that ‘the Media Standards Trust has repeatedly claimed that the “failure” of press self-regulation has meant that “public trust in journalism, already low, was declining further”. In fact, the only long-run polling of public trust in journalism, by Mori, shows the opposite – a fairly consistent, if modest, rise, little affected by the hacking scandal. Indeed, and perhaps surprisingly, according to the Mori poll for 2013, public trust in journalism stands at the second-highest level it has known since the polling began in 1983.’

These comments do not fairly represent the report.

The 2009 report was an assessment of the existing system of press self-regulation. It concluded that press self-regulation was “insufficiently effective, largely unaccountable, opaque, and failing to reflect the radically changed media environment”. These conclusions, not accepted at the time, are now generally accepted. In the Leveson Report, the judge wrote that the MST 2009 report was “a measured and punctilious critique of the PCC, justified on the then available evidence and made more prescient by subsequent events” (Vol.4, p1,539).

The question of public trust in journalism was not central to the report’s conclusions. It was referred to in a brief section on pages 8-9. This is what the report said:

“3.1 Public trust in the press, already very low, may be declining further

Journalism is not held in high esteem by the public. In figures from Ipsos MORI charting trust in the professions to tell the truth since 1983, journalists come at or near the bottom of a group of 16 professions. The most recent Ipsos MORI poll (2006) shows them at the bottom of the list, retaining the trust of only 19% of the general public.

However, not only does public trust in journalism remain low, there is evidence that trust may be falling further.

A YouGov poll in March 2008 showed that 43% of the public trust journalists on ‘up- market’ newspapers (such as The Times, the Telegraph or The Guardian) to tell the truth. The equivalent figure is 18% for journalists on mid-market newspapers (such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Express), and 15% for journalists on red top newspapers (such as the Daily Mirror and The Sun). By comparison 87% of people trust local doctors to tell the truth, 76% trust teachers and 71% trust local policemen.

Moreover, this poll shows not only low levels of trust, but a significant decline in trust in journalism over the last 5 years. In 2003, 65% of people trusted journalists on up-market papers to tell the truth. By March 2008 this had dropped to 43%. Over the same period the percentage of people who trust journalists on mid-market papers dropped from 36% to 18%. The figure for red top newspapers stayed close to the bottom of the table but did not decline further. Indeed it rose slightly, from 14% to 15% over this 5 year period.

This decline should be seen in the context of a general decline in trust for many professions. However, for journalists of up-market and mid-market papers, the decline has been faster than with other professions.

Of the 23 groups covered in the YouGov survey, seven cover journalists. Six of these performed worse than all other occupations covered by the poll.”

The YouGov poll was reproduced in Appendix 2 (p.38) of the report. The report was based on figures available at the time.

If you would like to read the 2009 report in full, you can do so here.

In June 2012, the Media Standards Trust – via its Press Review Group – submitted a report (‘A Free and Accountable Media’) to the Leveson Inquiry outlining proposals for how a new regulatory system might work. One of the central propositions of the report was that the new system should cover only the very largest news publishers, due to their capacity to cause harm to private individuals in the event of inaccurate reporting.

We also suggested that any new system would need to be platform non-specific, for two reasons: because of the increasing digitisation of print journalism; and because the purpose of regulation (in any industry) is to redress disparities of power in society – a powerful media organisation can cause equal harm regardless of the manner in which its news is published.

After careful consideration, we suggested that the 2006 Companies Act may be used to define a size threshold above which news publishers would be obliged to become a member or be subject to the sort of incentives that are currently causing controversy (i.e. increased costs or exemplary damages – although we did not specify these). We acknowledged at the time, however, that further consideration would be necessary to ensure that loopholes could not be exploited to avoid the definitions in the Companies Act.

The Leveson Report did not, in the end, adopt this threshold, or specify exactly who should be in or out of the new system. This lack of precision has led to the present confusion over whether individuals, blogs, hyperlocal news websites etc should be subject to the new regulatory regime. We strongly believe that they should not.

We await the House of Lords vote on the relevant amendments to the Courts and Crimes Bill today, and note that definitions of “relevant publishers” based on the Companies Act 2006 are again being considered. If such a threshold, or something similar, is introduced, it would go a long way to ensuring that the new regulatory system is fair, trusted, and targeted only at those with the capacity to do great harm to private individuals, and who have done so in the past.

Our threshold recommendations (from pages 60 and 61 of the Report):

Focus reforms on large news publishers that are larger than a ‘small company’ (as defined in the Companies Act 2006)

Reforms ought to be focused where serious problems have been identified. This should be on large news publishers. A number of these have acknowledged unlawful or unethical behaviour, and of failing to establish effective internal controls.

Large news publishers have voices far louder, with significantly greater impact, than any individual. They have the power to frame and influence opinion and public understanding. They also have exceptional power to seriously harm private citizens through their influence.

Focusing on large news publishers distinguishes between freedom of expression, which we believe should be entirely unconstrained within the bounds of the law, and corporate speech, which due to its power and influence ought to accountable.

As Professor Onora O’Neill said in her [2011] Reuters Institute lecture:

“Powerful institutions, including media organisations, are not in the business of self-expression, and should not go into that business. An argument that speech should be free because it generally does not affect, a fortiori can’t harm, others, can’t stretch to cover the speech of governments or large corporations, of News International or the BBC”.

It therefore makes sense to focus attention on large news publishers.

We suggest the distinction between large and small publishers should be set high. To set it low carries four major risks:

• It risks capturing organisations that are not regular news publishers
• It risks placing obligations on organisations who would struggle to deal with compliance obligations
• It risks making it more difficult to create a coherent, effective system
• It risks placing constraints on the freedom of individual speech

To set it too high carries far fewer risks:

Small and medium sized news organisations have not, in the Inquiry, been found to have seriously breached the law or the Editors’ Code of Practice Large news publishers still dominate daily consumption (the top four national daily newspapers, for example, represent 70% of national daily circulation).

Helpfully, UK law makes a distinction between large and small UK companies. The Companies Act 2006 defines a ‘small company’ as one which fulfils two out of three criteria: having a turnover at or less than £6.5m turnover; a balance sheet total at or less than £3.26 million; or 50 employees or less.

None of the major UK news publishing groups is smaller than this. Most are far larger.

Accordingly, we suggest that the new regulatory system should not affect any news publisher that comes within the category of small company or small group for the purposes of the Companies Act 2006. That way, the Congleton Chronicle will not be affected by the reforms, but any publication within the Telegraph Media Group will.

We suggest that ‘News Publisher’ includes any publisher, in any medium from print to online, who meets the following criteria:

1. a significant proportion of its publishing activities involve the generation of news, information and opinion of current value
2. it disseminates this information to a public audience
3. it publishes regularly

This definition is based closely on the definition of ‘news media’ in the New Zealand Law Commission report on the news media.

Based on this threshold and definition:

The large news publishers who would be within the system include: The Daily Telegraph, part of Telegraph Media Group (2010 revenues £323.8m); the Daily Mail – as part of DMGT (2010 revenues £1,968m); The Guardian – part of Guardian Media Group (2010/11 revenues £255m); The Manchester Evening News – part of Trinity Mirror Group (2010 revenues £761.5m). Large publishers that produce regular publications but do not produce news (for example, academic journals) would not be included.

Those publishers who would be outside the system include: Congleton Chronicle; Private Eye; Huffington Post.

Smaller publishers should not be prevented from joining self-regulatory schemes, or from starting their own schemes (e.g. to suit their own particular circumstances), but they would not be obliged to do so. The same would apply to international news publishers.

The Leveson Report recommended that the press be left to set up their own self-regulatory body to replace the Press Complaints Commission. This regulator, it was then recommended, should be checked every two to three years to ensure that it is working properly. Leveson recommended that in order for this body to be effective, it would require the force of legislation.

The Prime Minister, in a decision that gained the overwhelming support of the press, decided that he was not prepared to use legislation in this manner. The Royal Charter was therefore used as another means of constituting an independent oversight body to verify whether the self-regulatory system set up by the press is working. To clarify – the Royal Charter does not set up the press regulator.

The primary purpose of the Royal Charter is to ensure that the Recognition Body is not set up via statute.

 
2) The backstop recognition body is not Ofcom

Leveson recommended in his report that the statutory body with responsibility for verifying whether self-regulation was working should be Ofcom. This was unacceptable to the press, due to Ofcom’s status as a body set up by legislation (the 2003 Communications Act).

Leveson recommended that Ofcom be given this role because it has expertise in many areas of media regulation. He feared that an entirely new body would be lack the ability or expertise to ensure that press regulation was monitored adequately.

The bulk of the rest of the Royal Charter, after setting up the Recognition Body, is to specify a robust system of checks and balances to make sure that this Body is entirely independent of politicians and the press (as Leveson believed Ofcom would be), with specifications for the nature of members, appointments, funding, and so on.

 
3) There are no specified consequences in the event that regulation fails to be set up

Leveson specified that, once a Recognition Body was set up, it was to report to Parliament whether the self-regulatory system set up by the press had succeeded or failed, either because it hadn’t been able to recognise a functioning regulator, or because a significant publisher remained outside the system.

In the event of failure, Leveson said, Ofcom should be given the job of regulating the press and specifying to whom regulations would apply.

The Royal Charter does not go nearly as far, and simply states that the Recognition Body reports on the success or failure of the self-regulatory system. It doesn’t specify any consequences if the system should fail.

• The closeness of the Leveson Recognition Criteria to the Royal Charter
• The compromise over the Recognition Commission to accommodate press concerns
• How press coverage of Leveson has consistently failed to reflect public opinion

 
Introduction

On Monday 18^th March Parliament voted on three aspects of the Leveson ‘package’:

• A motion to approve the Royal Charter

• An ‘entrenchment’ clause, within the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, to prevent government ministers and Privy Councillors from interfering with the Charter

• Two amendments to the Crime and Courts bill, to put into effect the costs and exemplary damages incentives

All three passed on a cross-party basis.

 
Royal Charter

The Charter is very close to Leveson, though does not go further than Leveson. Indeed it is not as strong as Leveson in a number of key places. It establishes a Recognition Panel and a recognition process as Leveson set out in his recommendations. Some newspapers have suggested that this is somehow a ‘victims’ charter’. This is not borne out by the evidence. The Charter is 80-90% Leveson, and the 10-20% that is not in accordance with Leveson comes from compromises in favour of the press (e.g. having a Royal Charter instead of  legislation, and strengthening the autonomy of the Code Committee). For a comparison of Leveson and the recognition criteria see this analysis.

 
Entrenchment clause

This clause, passed in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, protects the Royal Charter from interference behind closed doors by Privy Counsellors and Government ministers. Of course Parliament could still pass new laws to dissolve the Chartered body, but it would need to do so publicly, and through the democratic process. But with the entrenchment clause in place there cannot be changes made in secret by Privy Counsellors or ministers. If it is ‘crossing the Rubicon’ it is crossing the Rubicon only to use law to protect press freedom, not the reverse.

 
Costs

This is by far Leveson’s most important incentive because it could apply in court cases brought against publications and therefore could have considerable cost implications. The amendment set out in the Courts & Crimes Bill is close to Leveson, although it does not include qualified one-way cost shifting (an approach to civil litigation funding that prevents a defendant from recovering its costs from an unsuccessful claimant), as first recommended in the Jackson review and subsequently by Leveson (in case arbitration does not work or takes a long time to implement). This may be addressed separately. There is also the question of jurisdiction since the definitions are currently broader than intended by Leveson (though the judge was not entirely clear on this). In our view this needs to be addressed urgently since it might otherwise lead to the penalisation of small online publishers who were never the focus of the Leveson inquiry.

 
Exemplary Damages

This Leveson recommendation, despite the controversy it has caused, is a much less important incentive. First, because exemplary damages could only be considered where there is a deliberate and outrageous disregard of someone’s rights. They have been used very rarely indeed in the past. Second, because those within a system of regulation have virtual immunity, and most of those publishers outside a system are exempt (eg specialist publications, academic/scientific publications, public bodies or charities, and others).

However, the way in which it has been worded in the government amendment may be open to challenge under the ECHR (as Lord Pannick has advised the press).

 
Jurisdiction

Some of the confusion about who is inside and who is outside the system seems to have been caused by a misunderstanding of the purpose role of the Royal Charter as against the role of the costs and damages amendments. It makes sense to draw the jurisdiction of the Royal Charter deliberately broad so as not to exclude those who would like to join a regulatory system (or form one themselves). At the same time the jurisdiction of the amendments ought to be drawn much narrower so that costs and damages incentives do not apply to bloggers, NGOs etc. It is this second jurisdiction that is crucial and, in our view, is currently too wide (though there may be an opportunity to narrow this).

Since Monday there has been considerable media coverage of – and some intense criticism of – the cross party deal. Some of the criticism has been directed at the process and some at the substance. As explained above, some of the criticisms of substance claim that the package goes far beyond Leveson. In the case of the Royal Charter this is not true. In the case of the amendments, exemplary damages does, in our view, go beyond Leveson. Costs only goes beyond Leveson with respect to jurisdiction.

You can see a comparison of Leveson’s recognition criteria with the Royal Charter here

You can see how the Royal Charter approach is a compromise that accommodates the press’ concerns over Leveson here

You can see public polls about support for independent regulation and for Leveson’s recommendations here