MOSCOW, November 29 - RAPSI, Ingrid Burke.  “Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.” In introducing his 2,000 page report on UK media practices, Lord Justice Leveson included the above Thomas Jefferson quote in order to illustrate the value of a properly operating press in safeguarding democracy. Still, he draws attention to the fact that his is the seventh such report that’s been required in the past 70 years as a result of concerns with the press.

This most recent inquiry was launched by way of the wide scale public outrage arising from the hacking by News of the World journalists into the phone of murdered teenager Milly Dowler. Three days after The Guardian exposed News of the World for its atrocious indiscretions in the aftermath of 13-year-old Dowler’s 2002 murder, it stopped the presses after 168 years in business, explaining, “Quite simply, we lost our way … Phones were hacked, and for that this newspaper is truly sorry.”

Less than a week after News of the World’s closure, UK Prime Minister David Cameron appointed Leveson to engage in the present inquiry.

The inquiry aims at the UK press as a whole. While it was prompted by the public’s horror over the Dowler case, it aims at the whole bunch rather than a few bad seeds. While Leveson sings the praises of the media and its various important societal functions, he notes that: “There is no organised profession, trade or industry in which the serious failings of the few are overlooked because of the good done by the many. Indeed, the press would be the very first to expose such practices, to challenge and campaign in support of those whose legitimate rights and interests are being ignored and who are left with no real recourse.”

Leveson was charged with exploring media culture, practices, and ethics, with specific reference to: the media’s relationships both with the police and with politicians, the shortcomings of current UK policy and regulatory framework with regard to data protection, and previous failures to act on media misconduct.

Based on these findings, he was tasked with making several key recommendations in areas such as media policy and regulation; the future treatment of media violations; and the future conduct of relations between the press and politicians, as well as those between the press and the police.

Accordingly, Leveson pursued the present inquiry with two key purposes in mind: public exposure and recommendations. Speaking to the latter point, he urges the need for change, explaining that, “it is almost universally accepted that the body presently charged with the responsibility of dealing with complaints against the press is neither a regulator nor fit for purpose to fulfill that responsibility.”

Leveson heartily agrees that the PCC has failed and that a new body needs to be established, a point voiced previously by the prime minister, deputy prime minister, and opposition leader. In fact he quotes Prime Minister Cameron as having referred to the PCC as “ineffective and lacking in rigour,” and opposition leader Edward Milliband as having described the body as “a toothless poodle.”

Leveson attributes its failure in part to the fact that despite having presented itself as a regulatory body, the PCC in fact lacks the capacity to do much more than handle complaints. Its structural deficiencies lack of independence, and inadequate resources further contribute to its shortfalls.

Leveson added, however, that of the 600+ witnesses interviewed for purposes of the inquiry, not a single one suggested that either the Government or Parliament should be involved in regulating the press.

To remedy the situation, Leveson suggests the creation of an independent self-regulatory body. In his words, “An independent regulatory body should be established, with the dual roles of promoting high standards of journalism and protecting the rights of individuals. That body should set standards, both through a code and in relation to governance and compliance. The body should: hear individual complaints against its members about breach of its standards and order appropriate redress while encouraging individual newspapers to embrace a more rigorous process for dealing with complaints internally; take an active role in promoting high standards, including having the power to investigate serious or systemic breaches and impose appropriate sanctions; and provide a fair, quick and inexpensive arbitration service to deal with any civil law claims based upon its members’ publications.”

He goes on to detail the process whereby the body’s Chair and members of the Board would be appointed in a transparent manner, free from government or industry influence. Furthermore the appointment panel charged with the appointments of the aforementioned players would be selected in an independent manner, free of government or industry influence.

The Code of Standards referred to above will govern such areas as: press conduct, with a specific emphasis on the treatment of people while obtaining information; respect for privacy, and accuracy. These standards should be crafted with a view to free speech, public interests, and the rights of individuals.

Publishers would be free to choose whether or not to subscribe to the governing body. However, membership would be incentivized by various means.

One such incentive would be the money saved on civil litigation through the creation of a special arbitration system to avoid court costs and resolve disputes close to home and at a reduced cost to litigants. This system could be staffed by retired judges or top lawyers with media law expertise “who would resolve disputes on an inquisitorial model, striking out unmeritorious claims and quickly resolving the others.”

Another inentive would be the establishment of a mark for use by its members to let readers know that they patronizing a trusted media outlet.

According to Leveson’s recommendations, this self-governing body would be vested with various powers, including over remedies and the imposition of sanctions. Importantly, however, he notes that the board “should not have the power to prevent publication of any material, by anyone, at any time.”

Leveson provides that such a body should protect both journalists and the public.