THE proposals for a new regulatory system for newspapers that emerged from the Leveson inquiry may not have the support of the newspapers themselves, but support for the plans among politicians at Westminster – never the media’s most reliable of allies – is still strong. So much so that there remains a very real risk that the plans could be passed into law.
Some politicians are not buying it though, including Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives. Ms Davidson is a former journalist, which may help to explain her position. But, in speaking out on the issue, she has identified two of the worst problems with the scheme, which, under Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, would require newspapers to sign up to the new regulator or face having to pay the costs of both sides in court actions, even if the newspaper won.
Ms Davidson acknowledges how many people feel about newspapers. The press, she says, is infuriating, challenging and a pain in the backside, but she says those are the qualities that make them important. “Section 40 threatens their ability to hold power to account,” she says, “And, worse, it could put local titles out of business altogether.”
This is not just political hyperbole. Should the plans become law, there is a risk that investigative journalism, already suffering in the face of cheaper – and in some cases fake – news on social media, would be killed off. Newspapers might also hold off from exposing public figures for fear they would be sued.
As Ms Davidson says, the potential costs of the scheme also represent a threat to the viability of many titles, including in Scotland, where even if Section 40 did not apply under Scots Law, newspapers could face being sued in England. The current proposals also do not acknowledge the fact that the industry’s own body IPSO is doing a good job or that most of the offences which were examined by Leveson are already illegal. Newspapers need to be regulated. But Section 40 is not the answer
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here