More than three years after the phone-hacking scandal was declÂared a national outrage, the British press is still far from having its jaws muzzled. The more important question바카라if it at all it should beÂ바카라remains. Despite a year-long inquiry by Lord Justice Leveson, a senior judge, and an extensive report, the parliament, the courts and the press are at loggerheads over whether Fleet Street바카라s excesses should be checked by legal statute or an independent regulator. Or whether they should be addressed through introspection by the media. In the latest round of dealmaking, horse-trading and soothsaying, the situation has become even more opaque.
The three big political parties바카라the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats바카라cooked up a deal just before a landmark parliamentary vote was due in the House of Lords. In the end, the vote was unnecessary, as the deal was agreeable to all, we were told by a beaming David Cameron. Of course it wasn바카라t. And isn바카라t.
Several publications바카라including the right-wing Spectator, the left-wing New StaÂtesmen and the satirical Private Eye바카라have said they won바카라t adhere to this deal. The Guardian바카라which broke the omerta of Fleet Street바카라s dark arts바카라is sceptical, but has agreed in principle to accept elements of statutory underpinning, along with the Independent and the Financial Times.
Chris Blackhurst, editor of the Independent, initially seemed relieved that something바카라anything바카라had been agreed on. 바카라We바카라ve had an inquiry that lasted a year, scandals galore,바카라 he said. 바카라If at the end of all that we바카라ve got this, well, we take our punishment and we move on.바카라 The tabloid Daily Mirror damned the deal for different reasons: 바카라The day the press was shackled바카라, it said, adding that the path was now cleared for an Orwellian 바카라Ministry of Truth바카라.
But the biggest opposition comes from the biggest-selling groups: Associated NewsÂpapers (the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday), News International (the Sun, the Times, the Sunday Times), Northern & Shell (Daily Express, Daily Star) and the Telegraph continue to deliberate on their position, and in a joint statement said there are 바카라deeply contentious issues바카라 yet to be resolved.
This despite the public perception that Cameron and his cohorts are too close to the Murdoch empire바카라which now is decrying their deal. But then again, the public lost interest long ago, when as George Brock, a former Times managing editor, said 바카라they realised it was a complicated prescription바카라 to fix the things that went wrong.
So there it stands, despite the much ballyhooed talk of a royal charter to form a regulator바카라which means the statutes would effectively be a 바카라back door바카라 agreement under the aegis of the Queen rather than parliament, hence protecting its independence in the face of changes of governments and their policies on press freedom. Royal charters have been used since the 13th century, and the BBC and the Bank of England operate under their protection.
What happens next is anyone바카라s guess. Opponents of state regulation repeatedly say offences like phone hacking are already illegal: the problem was that the police were in the pockets of powerful papers like the now-closed News of the World, so they never investigated. Advocates of more press control say that, no matter what is agreed, the buccaneering attitude that has made and kept the UK the most competitive newspaper market in the world will always mean self-regulation will never be effective.
If you corrall cobras, mongooses, octÂopÂuses, pytÂhons and tigers in one ring, and keep an eye on their performance, will you ever notice that the audience has left?
By Saptarshi Ray in London
