It is disappointing to see the Guardian (Editorial, 14 April) misconstrue the provisions of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, a vital element of the Leveson reforms approved by all parties in parliament in 2013. To suggest that the Guardian’s revelations about the Panama Papers “might not have withstood the costs regime” of section 40 is simply wrong.
Far from threatening investigative journalism, this clause offers it unprecedented protection. News publishers willing to seize the opportunity would receive complete protection from “chilling” – gagging by wealthy litigants in the style made famous by Robert Maxwell. This is directly relevant to investigations such as the Panama Papers.
This advance for press freedom is a corollary of a far broader benefit of section 40, which is currently being undemocratically blocked by culture secretary John Whittingdale. It offers every citizen for the first time the right of access to justice in libel and privacy cases at minimal cost, ending the age-old scandal that only the rich and very fortunate can afford fair treatment at law when their rights have been breached by newspapers. Mr Whittingdale is thus denying us all a double gain, and David Cameron is reneging on the commitments he made to the victims of press abuse and to parliament.
It was this newspaper’s fearless and determined investigative reporting that first exposed the phone-hacking scandal which the rest of Fleet Street wanted to conceal. It is vital that the Guardian is not deceived by the anti-Leveson propaganda campaign of other newspapers and appreciates the major journalistic benefits of section 40.
Steven Barnett Professor of communications, University of Westminster
James Curran Professor of communications, Goldsmiths, University of London
John Corner School of media and communication, University of Leeds
Bob Franklin Professor of journalism studies, Cardiff University
Ivor Gaber Professor of journalism, University of Sussex
Máire Messenger Davies Director, Centre for Media Research, Ulster University
Greg Philo Professor of communications and social change, University of Glasgow
• When I read about the remarkable and unprecedented delicacy of our national tabloid newspapers, which recently decided not to publish a juicy story about culture secretary John Whittingdale’s apparently unwitting relationship with a prostitute, I was surprisingly unsurprised. In fact, it all made perfect sense.
Some weeks ago, Whittingdale announced in a Sunday Times interview his intention that more than half the new BBC’s new “unitary board” would be government appointees – a move that would undo nearly a century of the national broadcaster’s independence from government. The idea of BBC policy and broadcasting being controlled by government cronies would certainly have had Rupert Murdoch, Paul Dacre, and others who are keen to see the demise of the Beeb, rubbing their hands in glee. The question that lingered was: “What’s in it for him?” Now, I think, we know.
The real story here is about who John Whittingdale has been in bed with, but it has nothing to do with sex workers.
Ginevra House
Gairloch, Wester Ross
• “Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, said the decision of newspapers not to publish the story about John Whittingdale’s relationship with a sex worker showed how much the industry had changed since the days of sexual exposés about ministers such as David Mellor” (After Leveson, a new landscape, Analysis, 14 April). To answer this question, no it does not.
David Mellor wasn’t in charge of implementing Leveson, and as this report has been emasculated beyond what Leveson himself would recognise as his recommendations, I would say, contrary to what Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, opined and what you report, the press is virtually unchanged. The press will do what it has (or has not) to do, to further its interests.
Eddie Dougall
Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
• Do you actually believe that if Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, or Ed Miliband had been found to have consorted with a prostitute, that the Sun would not have printed the story because it was not “in the national interest”? I mean, you must be joking.
David Rainbird
Wallasey, Merseyside
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
