If true, along with the rest of the scandal surrounding News International, it would be suggestive of an extraordinary amount of power being built and concentrated, over a matter of decades, within the news empire. So much in fact that it had developed the potential to threaten veto.
The power of veto, meaning to forbid, describes the use of political position to block the passage of policies by withholding support from, or generating opposition to, those policies with sufficient numbers - or political leverage - to prevent them.
Mr Major, at Leveson, described how he perceived Mr Murdoch to be angling for a change of the Government's European policy - away from seeking a place at the heart of Europe heart, toward a referendum on leaving it (BBC, June 2012).
'In the dinner it became apparent, in discussion, that Mr Murdoch said that he really didn't like our European policies - this was no surprise to me - and he wished me to change our European policies. If we couldn't change our European policies his papers could not and would not support the Conservative government. As I recall he used the word "we" when referring to his newspapers. He didn't make the usual nod towards editorial independence.'As Mr Major used vetoes to get what he wanted in Europe, so Murdoch apparently tried to veto Mr Major to get what he wanted.
The power of veto always represents a threat to the balance of any set of relationships. A veto, by deriving its power from commanding sufficient authority to forbid actions on the part of another, tips the balance away from the ability of individuals to think and act freely.
In the case of journalism, it faces similar criticism to that which has plagued the British police for decades - not enough accountability and oversight (Robertson, 1991). As with the police, the solutions are not so clear cut.
For journalism, some sort of direct political oversight would be a dangerous step towards censorship. During the outcry caused by the hacking scandal, some quiet voices have been urging people to remember that tabloid journalism has played a beneficial role, not to mention the role journalists apparently played in uncovering the recent scandal.
The problem for journalism has not been regulation and law, as Ian Hislop put it, 'Most of the heinous crimes that ...have made such a splash at this inquiry are already illegal' (BBC, January 2012). Rather, the source of the problem appears to be the vast concentration of power caused by conglomerate media companies - where the possibility exists (though it is not necessarily used) for several media outlets to coordinate their 'message'.
The importance of journalism calls for sensible & considered solutions to come out of the Leveson inquiry. Lord Leveson has already assured the PCC that censorship is not on the cards (BBC, July 2012). To ensure that things remain that way, the most pressing need will be the restoration of real editorial independence - to prevent the coordination of the massive multimedia campaigns that have so unbalanced the relationship between the state and the press. Editorial independence is important not only to the prevention of an immensely powerful but unaccountable industry continuing on its present path, but it is also needed to stop the inevitable measures that would have to be taken to curb those institutions: the heavy regulation that would end large parts of press freedom.
==========
References:
==========
+ BBC's 'Leveson Inquiry: John Major reveals Murdoch's EU demand'; 12 June 2012.
+ Geoffrey Robertson's 'Freedom, the Individual and the Law'; Penguin, 1991.
+ BBC's 'Leveson Inquiry: Ian Hislop says new press laws not needed'; 17 January 2012.
+ BBC's 'Leveson Inquiry: Judge has "no truck" with censorship'; 10 July 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment