contribution by Helen Goodman MP

Is a free press an essential part of a flourishing democracy? Yes. Does the press in Britain fulfil its role as the fourth estate? The answer must surely be sometimes.

Everyone with eyes to read knows that across the press – tabloid or broadsheet; right or left there are thorough news teams, thoughtful commentators and amusing cartoonists. There are also lazy hacks, recycled prejudices and the tedious promotion of friends and relatives.

In its defence the press has adopted rhetoric of the highest principle, while what has been revealed through the phone hacking scandal has been the lowest practice.

On Monday, in response to questions from the CMS Select Committee, Les Hinton, former chief executive of News Corp, said he didn’t know or couldn’t remember some thirty times. And at the weekend in response to Tom Watson, Rupert Murdoch said he didn’t know about claims of computer hacking to get stories.

Their lawyers may have told them this is the best defensive posture – but they risk winning the battle at the expense of losing the war. A tactical withdrawal becoming a rout.

Why? Because for self regulation to continue there must be an element of self control. How can the public be confident that their interests will be protected by organisations who are – to use Les Hinton’s own words “foggy” about what is going on.

One of the things that Lord Leveson is addressing is corporate governance – internal management systems, checks and balances. At his final seminar, interesting presentations were given by the Financial Times and Trinity Mirror. Both now have proper risk assessment, an internal code of conduct, responsibilities and reporting systems, so that there is a proper system of accountability.

At News International the culture of a family firm, which would be fine for a corner shop or local garage, seems to have been maintained in a multibillion corporation. Last week the FT headed an
article about shareholders’ worries on corporate governance “Blood is still thicker than water”.

It is a significant moment when independent shareholders are not satisfied with the risks to the business associated with the illegal activities described. Earlier this week we learned that two thirds had voted against James Murdoch staying on the board. He only held on because the family control 40% of the votes, while holding 12% of the shares.

Whether the confusion over who saw the “For Neville email” and why Gordon Taylor was paid nearly half a million pounds is real or apparent, its a problem.

In the courts of medieval Europe this technique was perfected – it even had a name – “sub audio” – those instructions which didn’t even have to be spoken to be known by the King’s ministers, to give him maximum deniability and flexibility.

It is worth asking what the connection is between the mode of ownership and the corporate culture.

For all their good qualities – business savvy and passion for newspapers – our newspaper industry is dominated by individual proprietors and when they have such an important public role, its
reasonable that the public care about how they run their business.

—
Helen Goodman MP is the shadow minister for Culture, Media and Sport, with specific responsibility for media reform.

Reader comments

1. Liberal Conspiracy

   Media self-regulation must include self-control too http://t.co/LgZHeRWt

2. sunny hundal

   EXCL: New shadow minister for DCMS and media regulation – Helen Goodman – writes for @libcon on media self-regulation http://t.co/nijIRBgV