Dear Richard,
You suggested in your speech in the House this evening that implementing the Leveson report would mean legislating on ethical standards for the press.
This is nonsense and I find it difficult to believe you could advance such an idea in good faith. What Leveson recommends is legislating to create an independent regulator which would set ethical standards based on consultation and agreement. This is exactly what we need.
I could not disagree with you more when you say “non-statutory, self-regulation” is the only option. I believe precisely the reverse is the case. The press has been given seven ‘last chances’ in 70 years to put its house in order and without fail has returned to abusive, corrupt and unacceptable conduct.
You will recall, I hope, that I too am a journalist and real ‘freedom of the press’ is something I value highly – but with freedom comes responsibility. It is preposterous, as you seem to suggest, that there should be no rules and all journalists must be trusted without question!
I regret that in your speech I found you pompous, apparently completely detached from the reality of most people’s day to day lives and, most of all, out of touch. You appear to be a caricature of an MP from an age that is long, long past..
The press barons, owners and editors, are flexing their muscles, saturating our country with propaganda which blatantly misleads about the urgent necessity for independent regulation. Their furious disinformation, trying to frighten and intimidate with nonsensical allegations about state control of the press is the dishonesty and manipulation of Fleet Street exemplified.
Independent regulation, backed by statute, is essential. As proposed it will enshrine a newspaper industry as independent from the state. It is a necessary and progressive move in support of freedom and liberty and against the corruption and vested interests of the media megalomaniacs.
I reject entirely your position on this vital issue.
Peter Reynolds
