Press regulation: Royal charter risks freedom - editors


Bob Satchwell says there is no place for "political interference" in a free press

Press freedom is being put at risk by the government's proposed royal charter on newspaper regulation, the head of the Society of Editors has warned.

Bob Satchwell said issues with the charter meant "you wouldn't have a free press any longer".

Shadow culture secretary Harriet Harman said newspapers had nothing to fear from the all-party draft charter.

Independent self-regulation is to be brought in after recommendations by the Leveson Inquiry.

Mr Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, which draws its members from across the press and TV industry, told the BBC there were "key problems" with the charter.

He said: "You can't have a new system of regulation which is drawn up by and imposed by politicians.

"The things which are being proposed at the moment would be totally unconstitutional in the US and other countries.

"People in other countries, not just journalists, are looking at what's going on here at the moment with horror."

Ms Harman - who said the "last thing" the government wanted was a situation "where politicians control the press" - urged newspapers to "try out" the proposed system.

"It's quite ironic because a system that's quite like this operates in Ireland and applies to our UK press for their Irish editions - they sign up to it and it hasn't caused any problems of politicians controlling the press."


There's one big stumbling block in the deal on newspaper regulation finally agreed by the three main political parties - and that is the involvement of politicians at all.

Those who back the new draft Royal Charter say it offers "safeguards" about freedoms of the press.

For editors, those safeguards, particularly offering Parliament the ability to change the charter in the future, are deemed a fundamental flaw which undermines those press freedoms.

Newspapers are committed to setting up an "independent" press standards body with a new code of conduct regardless of the current spat with politicians, while ministers look set to seek approval for the charter at the Privy Council later this month.

But if newspapers refuse to sign up to a deal designed to provide oversight of a new self-regulatory regime, then the new system may be as discredited as the old one from the outset.

The Industry Steering Group, which represents national, regional and local newspaper publishers, said it would "closely study" the proposals.

However, it said it was "impossible" to see that a regulator "imposed and controlled by politicians" would be "voluntary or independent".

"This remains a charter written by politicians, imposed by politicians and controlled by politicians," it said in a statement.

Many in the press are keen to get their own regulator set up as soon as possible.

Daily Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre said the row between Ed Miliband and his newspaper over an article about the Labour leader's late father showed why politicians should not be involved in press regulation.

Mr Dacre also claimed the "hysteria" which followed Geoffrey Levy's article was "symptomatic of the post-Leveson age".

In an article published in the Guardian and in his own paper, he said: "Some have argued that last week's brouhaha shows the need for statutory press regulation. I would argue the opposite.

"The febrile heat, hatred, irrationality and prejudice provoked by last week's row reveals why politicians must not be allowed anywhere near press regulation."

Political anger
Copy of the News of the World Press regulation faced intense scrutiny in the wake of phone hacking at the News of the World

Media lawyer Mark Lewis, who represented some of the victims of phone hacking, said newspapers had "failed completely with self-regulation and now they're telling the public this is statutory regulation, this is control over what's in the paper".

"It's nothing like that at all," he added.

Former News of the World executive editor Neil Wallis told the BBC there was no chance of the charter being implemented.

He said: "The idea that politicians can have any say in any way in the running of a free press is simply laughable."

He added there had already been a "chilling effect" on the press following the Leveson Inquiry.

Cross-party political agreement on regulation comes after months of wrangling since Sir Brian Leveson published his report into press ethics and practices.

The Leveson Inquiry was set up amid public and political anger at the extent of phone hacking by journalists, first exposed when it emerged that the now-closed News of the World had accessed the voicemail messages of murdered teenager Milly Dowler.

The all-party draft proposals include plans for:

  • A small charge for arbitration for people seeking redress from newspapers - as an alternative to expensive libel courts
  • An opt-out for local and regional newspapers
  • More involvement in decision making for the press and media industry

The all-party charter states that changes to regulation could be made only with a two-thirds majority in Parliament.

Culture Secretary Maria Miller said the deal would safeguard the freedom of the press and the future of local newspapers.

Hacked Off, which campaigns on behalf of victims of press intrusion, said changes to the draft proposals meant there was no reason for the press to refuse to back the charter.

The proposals will be put to the Privy Council for final agreement on 30 October.


More on This Story

The Leveson report

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 741.

    677. Observer - The press should have the freedom and ability to speak the truth, expose the absolute truth by whatever means and and safeguard rights of all citizens, including politicians...but i also beleive the press shouldnt be allowed to insult, lie and hurt innocent members of the public including politicians.

    But you just said 'by whatever means'. So, which is it?

  • rate this

    Comment number 740.

    We simply cannot have politicians regulating newspapers. We need a free press so that they can expose and hold to account politicians who in this country largely work against the people to further the narrow of interests of themselves, and the few. The expenses scandal is only one example of why we need a free press utterly unregulated by a self serving political class.

  • rate this

    Comment number 739.

    All newspapers knew about this weeks ago. Why wait to kick up a fuss now. At that time Fraser Nelson of The Spectator spoke up, why not the others? They were notified that the Charter would prevent interference by politicians of any future government. The purpose is to prevent lives being hacked. Why are the journalists wanting sympathy now?

  • rate this

    Comment number 738.

    A citizens charter on editors, you mean gag the press & only let them tell you what they want to! Murdoch springs to mind with his chip-wrapper red top The Sun & if you get bored with that you can put the BBC on they're always game for a laugh, if you absolutely knew what your hierarchy were doing to you in the UK c/o president Cameron & his vise president Mr 57 votes out of 650 GOT THE MESSAGE?

  • rate this

    Comment number 737.

    Press editors are the only ones responsible for risking freedom of the press.

    Like some naughty child who has been told off loads of times & just ignored it, now just like Nannys for naughty chiildren on TV, the nanny state is brought in to administer discipline.

  • rate this

    Comment number 736.

    Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? Beware people who suddenly become champions of free speech when all they want to do with it is attack and libel people. Free speech comes with responsibility attached. The editors' solution seems to be more of the same that lead to this mess, but with a promise that they really won't do it time.

  • rate this

    Comment number 735.

    Anyone can start a newspaper just like anyone can start a bank. As John Wayne said in Red River, "All it takes is money".
    Will the leftie authoritarians put their money where their mouths are & see if we'll pay for their thoughts?
    The only paper that sells out daily, whose place in the merchandiser is always empty, is the Daily Mail. Unlike with partisan BBC output we are free to choose; & we do.

  • rate this

    Comment number 734.

    Its the double standards that does me..Daily Mail for starters..single parents are the scourge of our society and feckless to boot..thats what they say..but if its one of the windsors..its a sad day for the country..and all the other BS that goes with it.would dissappear up the royal fundament if they could.queeny gets a massive rise she deserves it.the poor sick and disabled get one..its terrible

  • rate this

    Comment number 733.

    We must have a totally free press after all we need to know what our politicians are up to. We also need to keep an eye on bankers etc, or anyone who is paid by the taxpayer, it our money after all. No one is interested what actors, sportsmen get up to it is there own affair, I am fed up of the news media buying up salacious stories of silly actors or women of kiss and tell, are we interested, no

  • rate this

    Comment number 732.

    Steve @698
    'look down the road
    where this will inevitably lead"

    Inevitably? To many clashes, terms more fair, costs subject to risk control, modification of procedures up to the regulator (subject to Recognition terms), Charter change only after long debate, popular momentum, careful scrutiny by parliamentarians in both the lower and upper house

    What you (should) fear is with us already: Mammon

  • rate this

    Comment number 731.

    sorry if you print the story and it harms innocents then the default should be compensation for victims.

    Gossip scandal is not Watergate or WMA or blacklists or Privacy and should not be treated accordingly.

  • Comment number 730.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this

    Comment number 729.

    Royal Charter? Liz should have a few politicians and editors executed, sack the government, abolish the monarchy and implore her former subjects to find a better way and leave the old control systems to history.

  • rate this

    Comment number 728.

    By freedom of the press, I assume Mr Satchwell is referring to the ability for the papers to say & do exactly what they want !
    That includes the ability to reduce the security of the state and its ability to protect us by exposing state secrets !
    NO THANKS, my vote is for a legal charter that the newspapers have to adhere to !

  • rate this

    Comment number 727.

    Just now
    Dacre said "The febrile heat, hatred, irrationality and prejudice provoked by last week's row reveals why ....." the populace have finally had enough of this offensive lawbreaking clique who appear to be upset that now, the people they routinely abuse will have part of the recourse of the wealthy"

    So we don't need any law since the populace will stop buying their papers?

  • rate this

    Comment number 726.

    Quite possible that the press cannot be trusted but can we trust government either? If press is fettered by government could be a short slippery slope to government censored press. And whilst I do not condone phone hacking the Z list celebs really should have used their brains and pin protected their voicemail!

  • rate this

    Comment number 725.

    Just how many chances do the press want at self-regulation. They had the opportunity and blew it, so they can't complain if the Government now want to impose the standards.

  • rate this

    Comment number 724.

    The Press can't be trusted to regulate themselves. It was their 'self-regulation' that led to NotW hacking into murdered Millie Downer's phone so as to get juicy stories to sell their paper. There has been a catalogue of abuses under self-regulation. Now is the time for statutory regulation. The Press have no-one to blame but themselves.

  • rate this

    Comment number 723.

    What the freedom to tell untruths about people, including dead ones, and the freedom to decide who we should have in government come election time perhaps.

  • rate this

    Comment number 722.

    This really is "yah boo sucks!" They still don't get it that we are where we are as a consequence of media malpractices at best and criminality in some cases. Do we want a free, criminal press or one which has some meaningful social responsibility? Any journalist with a shred of integrity, nous and flair will not be affected; the mavericks and the downright poor ones deserve having time called.


Page 1 of 38


More UK stories



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.