Newsflash! Leveson supersedes postmen as attack dog's target of choice

If anyone thought that once the Leveson Report was published, the attack dogs of the right-wing press and their fellow travellers would stay their barking and slink back to their kennels, I hope they are thoroughly disabused by now.  Quite (relatively) senior people in the media such as Dan Hodges are bandying about Nazi/Nazi-related comparisons (at which point, according to Godwin’s Law, the argument is dead and the person who made the comparison is responsible).  Usually Hodges is an urbane commentator (despite his unwavering support for a retrograde electoral system and the principles behind Gulf War II) but, as a former aide to Tony Blair, his over-reaction to both Leveson and The Guardian’s support of the report is a very telling clue as to why Blair only had a go at the press on the day he resigned from politics (and didn’t have Hodges around whispering in his ear). 

Hodges' libel of the head of Ofcom is a case in point.  Calling Ed Richards “an excellent regulator of unimpeachable integrity”, in the next sentence he mentions that Richards was a former aide to Gordon Brown (incidentally the mortal enemy of Hodge’s ex-boss). Hodges goes on to rubbish Richards by association, concluding by implication that the latter is a less-than-excellent regulator of questionable integrity.  Well, might as well get it in before any implementation of Leveson, even if you can’t make up your mind.

Most opposition is frankly pathetic and based around the fact that no-one with any cojones gives up power without a struggle (and this is power without responsibility in the case of the press).  Bob Satchwell, chief of the Society of Editors, bleated on about how things were so much better and yet so much worse in America, conveniently eschewing the example of, say, Denmark.  Intimating that Britain might slide into tyranny at some unspecified future date is barmy.  He also said there was significant redress already in place – really? When an innocent man like Christopher Jeffries has his reputation comprehensively shredded, only compensation that would allow him to buy a Bahamian island and consequently live in the accustomed style might, just might, be enough.  Yet the press would never pay that out (indeed The Sun and The Mirror took umbrage when the attorney-general held them in contempt of court for possibly compromising the prospect of a trial, as they couldn’t conceive that they had done wrong) .  And maybe he doesn’t want to move away, but the whispers whenever he entered town would always be there.  The thing about redress is that it is a ‘cure’ (however dubious), but, as the saying goes, prevention is better than cure.  If the journalists weren't print bullies but conducted themselves with more responsibility, society as a whole would be better for it (semantically, it is comparable to Tsar Nicholas II and his wife's antipathy to 'responsible' government i.e. government responsible for its actions.  Godwin's Law says nothing about tsarist comparisons, so stick it, critics).  But to suggest that journalists should act with circumspection is to invite abuse and ridicule from slavering newshounds.

The way some are reporting it, Leveson had pulled on jackboots and was marching all over press freedom with glee, that the idea of press freedom was furthest from his mind in his deliberations, yet no-one is saying Denmark is under totalitarian rule with its press regulations. And (when not asked loaded questions), a hefty majority of the public back independent regulation of the press i.e. free from press and politicians.  To those who say Leveson is bonkers, I say you are bonkers.