Media misconduct and the regulatory fallout

Much of the commentary around the British media inquiry chaired by Lord Justice Leveson has expressed nothing short of delight about the prospect of a sledgehammer being brought down upon Rupert Murdoch, the head of News International (the UK arm of News Corporation). Outrage at the phone-hacking conducted for the now defunct Sunday tabloid News of the World, and further evidence that journalists at a number of newspapers (including News of the World’s daily counterpart, The Sun) have been bribing public officials, has revealed much anger about the power and influence of Murdoch, with many hoping to bring the old man down a peg or two.

But caution is also required about what the Leveson inquiry might lead to. And Brendan O’Neill delivers a bucketful. O’Neill is concerned that Lord Justice Leveson has been demonstrating some ‘authoritarian’ inclinations, including an assertion that his own inquiry should be above public criticism. The fear is that Leveson may seek to curb the freedom of the press — backed by many, including some from higher-brow broadsheet mastheads, who disapprove of the muckraking that passes for tabloid ‘journalism’.

It seems plain, based on the evidence presently available, that too many journalists have considered themselves above the law in plying their trade. Such lawbreaking cannot be defended. That, however, does not mean a full-frontal assault on the press — even the gutter press — is justified. Crimes should be prosecuted, whoever they are perpetrated by and against. The fact they have apparently not been is less a fault of the media, and more the independent institutions of authority and justice that have until now failed to hold them to account.

Copyright, censorship and an American-led digital world

Given how dominant US websites are on the internet, the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) would — if passed — have global implications. And with worldwide website ‘blackouts’, commentary on the subject has hardly been limited to the United States. Bernard Keane hasn’t let the loss of Wikipedia slow down his efforts to pump out a column on the subject, raising his concerns about the bills and how media titans are tackling the issue.

I’ve got to be honest, it’s not the most compelling piece of writing on the subject. For instance, quibbling over statistics about how much online piracy is taking place is a rather moot point — the fact is, piracy exists. Attacking the dubious origin of figures trying to quantify the trend may be satisfying, but it doesn’t change the parameters of the debate. Much closer to the mark is the lack of innovation within the entertainment industry. As Keane notes, the big players had every opportunity to set up their own digital distribution channels. But their negligence left the door wide open to the likes of Apple (iTunes), Spotify and Netflix. (Indeed, the evidence suggests that the availability of these legal channels has helped to dampen down illegal file sharing.) The old guard might be bitter about having to share the spoils of their business with new upstarts. But at least there are spoils to share — and in some senses, the old media companies can claim little credit for that given their own foot-dragging.

None of this is to suggest that content owners don’t have a right to protect — and profit from — their intellectual property. Indeed, it’s important for them to do so, because otherwise they will not bother to invest in content development in the first place. If no one were to ever pay for what they download, then there would be no commercial incentive to produce music, movies, TV shows, software, books and so on. (Yes, some would still exist — many musicians don’t expect to make money from their art, many coders contribute freely to open source projects — but output would be vastly lower, less diverse and arguably of lower quality.) The question is, in the digital world, what copyright enforcement measures are need to ensure the benefits of content production are realised at the lowest overall cost to society? Given the onerous burden that would be placed on internet service providers and major content disseminators — like Google, Wikipedia and Facebook — SOPA and PIPA certainly don’t seem to be the best answer.

The unfortunate truth is that if you want to change Washington DC, you have to buy it. And the big online internet companies, especially web-facing ones, have failed to pony up.

Media matters

Australia’s media inquiry is under way, with hearings kicking off in Melbourne today. Although it’s early days, the expectation appears to be that the inquiry will recommend beefing up the Australian Press Council — the ostensibly ‘toothless’ self-regulator of the print media. One popular suggestion is government funding to ensure a greater degree of independence from media operators (who currently fund the body). And Ray Finkelstein QC, who is presiding over the inquiry, has today floated the possibility of levying a fee on news publishers — which would increase with their revenue or circulation — to cover the costs of the Council.

Many would like to see the inquiry go further. Some want new regulations relating to who can own a newspaper — a ‘fit and proper persons’ test, that could be enforced through a licensing system. Others want specific measures to break the ‘dominance’ of Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited in the domestic newspaper industry. For what it’s worth, my hope is that the inquiry recommends precisely nothing — though that, I acknowledge is exceptionally unlikely.

The Murdoch press are an absolute disgrace, they are a threat to democracy in this country and we should absolutely be having a look at them. […] Day in and day out the Murdoch press are putting false headlines out there. They are misrepresenting the position of the government. Day in and day out it’s absolute lies and nonsense that is getting printed in the Murdoch press, and that’s the issue.