Chill the Bugger Out About The Royal Charter

It seems absurd, even profane, to be writing an article for a newspaper recommending the regulation of newspapers. At its best journalism can reveal political and social corruptions and injustices in an impartial format. But at its worst so-called ‘journalists’ can be ruthless, unethical parasites: phone-hackers, celebrity-chasers, liars.

The issue of press regulation emerged recently due to the phone-hacking scandal and consequential Leveson Inquiry.  The result of this is that the press has been weighed, measured and found wanting a royal charter.  Granted in October, the new royal charter will oversee a regulation of media organisations. 

Newspapers have inevitably made a racket about this. Like petulant toddlers, The Mirror, the Daily Mail and the Express have reeled out the sensationalist hyperbole: “THE DEATH OF FREEDOM!”Of course, the concept of a state-controlled press is frightening, connotative of Soviet Russia or Communist China. But haven’t we witnessed a whole other end of the spectrum, with journalists of zero integrity hacking into the phone of murdered schoolchildren in the name of  ‘press freedom’ and that ubiquitous, self-righteous concept: the ‘freedom of speech’?

The charter has been labelled “bonkers” by former BBC Chairman Lord Grade. In almost the same breath, he conceded that “the press...has brought this situation on itself”. With the risk of sounding like a parent or primary school teacher, the press really have brought it upon themselves. Thanks Rebekah Brooks, you’ve ruined it for the rest of us decent journalists.

As you probably know by now, Brooks and Andy Coulson are among the defendants charged as a result of the Leveson Inquiry. The charges against them are of conspiring to hack phones, committing misconduct in public office and perverting the cause of justice. 

But these are not isolated incidences of individual indecency in the British Press. Recently the Sun (a paradigm of media excellence, I am aware) deigned to allot a miniscule corner of their newspaper to ‘clarify’ that there is no evidence of 600,000 ‘benefit tourists’ invading the UK. Following in similar footsteps, the Daily Mail – the newspaper which appears to speak the loudest against press regulation - on November 7 admitted that it had completely  coined out of thin air that ‘Gordon Brown had claimed more than £316,000’ in expenses. Making things up and pretending they are facts is not freedom of speech. It is deliberate manipulation which is as problematic, in its agenda-instilled, scaremongering propaganda, as state control.

To address frenzied concerns for the government interfering with the press – they already have been. From David Cameron being text buddies with Rebekah Brooks during the 2010 election campaign, to Tony Blair dining with the former Sun editor, it is an ugly truth that politicians have been getting into bed (maybe not literally) with press leaders frequently in recent years. So, besides press freedom, is there an underlying motive behind such newspapers’ hysteria? Chris Huhne in the Guardian, put it quite aptly: “If the Sun could not make up fictional stories when accuracy is too boring, time-consuming or costly, how would it make money?” How, indeed.

Contrary to these hysterics, the press charter will not establish its regulation in a tyrannical, George Orwell-esq melee of censorship. Rather the idea is to arrange a body which certifies the independence of pre-existing self-regulators. That is, newspapers nowadays are required to self-regulate, but the royal charter will be able to oversee whether this is being done legitimately.

Ultimately, something needed to be done. Whether the royal press charter is effective is yet to be discovered, but we’re hardly going to wake up in a totalitarian state.  So calm down, people.