Further to my earlier posting about the Leveson inquiry's draft criteria for a solution to the problem of press regulation, note this paragraph:
"The setting of standards must be independent of government and parliament, and sufficiently independent of media interests, in order to command public respect."
And then note this paragraph:
"Enforcement of ethical standards, by whatever mechanism, must be operationally independent of government and parliament, and sufficiently independent of media interests, in order to command public respect."
Should these references to both the standards and the enforcement being independent of the state but only "sufficiently independent of media interests" mean that the inquiry still sees some form of self-regulation as viable?
Newspaper publishers certainly believe that to be a possibility. It is the key feature of a "draft contractual framework for a new system of self-regulation" circulated to editors in March by the Press Standards Broad of Finance (PressBof), the body that oversees the Press Complaints Commission.
In essence, the document aims to stave off statutory regulation by creating a new watchdog with sweeping powers. These would include the right for its investigators to enter newspaper offices in order to requisition documents and emails and tape interviews with journalists.
The regulator would be able to levy fines and there would not be any appeals process. However, decisions would be open to judicial review. (I see lawyers rubbing their hands).
What is less certain is how the new regulator, without any state involvement whatsoever, would be able to compel publishers to sign its proposed five-year contract.
The document does not say what sanctions should exist to deal with refusenik publishers.
