Leveson Inquiry: Risk Management Analysis - Coursework Example

?Introduction The Leveson Inquiry fundamentally touches and qualifies the activities of the Department for Culture Media and Sport. In itself, the Leveson Inquiry as comes against a backdrop of the News International (News of the World tabloid) phone hacking scandal and the commissioning of the Leveson Commission by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron to examine the practice, culture and ethics of the press. The Inquiry then heard spates of public hearings throughout 2011 and 2012, before publishing the Leveson Report in November 2012. The relation between the recommendation by the Leveson Inquiry and the operations of the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) is that the Inquiry reviewed the general ethics, ethical standards and culture of the British media, before making recommendations for a new autonomous entity to face out the existing Press Complaints Commission. The existence of the new entity was to be sanctioned by state, through the creation and ratification new laws. Conversely, the relevance of the DCMS in the recommendations that the Leveson Inquiry made is premised on the very nature, existence and functions of the DCMS. The DCMS is a department of the United Kingdom government, bearing the responsibility for sports and culture in England, and aspects of the media throughout the entire UK, with these aspects being primarily, broadcasting and the Internet. The aspect of a close relationship is seen in the fact that not only did the recommendations by Lord Justice Leveson qualify the future of press regulation, but the same also looked into the relationship between the press and the public, police and politicians, apart from just making a proscription on phone-hacking and other forms of illegal behaviour. This means that DCMS’s jurisdiction is wide enough to include creative industries (and thereby joining DCMS’s operations with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills), leisure and tourism. Since sports is also included in DCMS’s sphere of responsibility, the 2012 Olympic Games, the Paralympics Games and the building of the Digital Economy have fallen within this rubric. In respect to the foregoing, it is important to take to stock, the changes that the recommendations the Leveson Inquiry made, in order to determine the new framework that the DCMS will use to discharge its duties. One of the recommendations that the Leveson Inquiry made is that newspapers should continue to be self-regulated and that the government should have no power to determine what newspapers or newspaper outlets publish. Another recommendation that the Leveson Inquiry made is that there should be a new body taking charge over press standards and that this new body should be a creation of the media industry and that the industry in turn should have a new code of conduct. The Leveson Inquiry also made recommendation to the effect that the existence and operations of the newly contrived body or entity should be enshrined in the constitution (legislation). Lord Justice Leveson explained this recommendation as being necessitated by the need to have an independent and effective regulation on the newly formed body. The need for this overhaul according to Lord Justice Leveson is that the current system in which the press is voluntarily self-regulated through the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has proved to be moribund. It is for this reason that the PCC itself readily agreed to enter a transitional phase, to pave way for the long-term replacement. As the Chairman of PCC, Lord Hunt himself conceded to the fact that there was a dire need for a stronger, tougher and more independent regulator with teeth. Lord Hunt had made it clear before the Leveson Inquiry on the willingness among publications for a new body and a fresh start which would ensue from a legally enforceable contract between the new body and publishers. In a closely related wavelength, the aspect of independence which the new regulatory body should have is underscored by the Free Speech Network (FSN) as a representation of editors and publishers had vehemently opposed any form of state involvement in the regulation of the press. The crux of the matter herein is that FSN essentially exists to scrutinize people in senior positions of power, and that it would be impossible to discharge this mandate if those being scrutinised had power over FSN. Secondly, even the body representing members of the public and victims of acts of hacking, the Hacked Off campaign maintained before the Leveson Inquiry that the voluntary self-regulating framework had failed and that the Leveson proposal and recommendations were the only way forward. Because of this, there is need for the new agency to be made independent of the control of the government. Hierarchically, it is important that such an agency that will replace to PCC does not fall under any agency of the government. Nevertheless, given that regulation is vital in warding off excesses and malpractice, stakeholders in the media industry, including the FSN form a body that will play this oversight role. Ascending into office will be through the involvement of the representatives of players in the media industry in a vote. Allowing the stakeholders and the FSN to have a hand in electing the members of the oversight board will be important since it will help eradicate sectarian interests and conflicts of interests therein. The need for objectivity in the committee’s discharging of duties is underscored further by the roles it is supposed to dispense. Particularly, it is this agency that is supposed to order and carry out proper investigation of complaints, receive apologies and reparations and to impose fines on media outlets which contravene the confines of stipulated media ethics and culture. The gravity of the matter herein is that the fine can amount to 1 million British Pounds. Equally, the activities that are due to the roles to be discharged are still too weighty to be left in the hands of members of the press alone. The weightiness of these roles are attributed not to the idea that such tasks are too immense to be carried out with relative ease, but to the fact that the tasks have serious implications which may change the bearing of the press and may therefore attract conflicts of interests during their execution. Particularly, it is this agency that is to listen to the hearings that shall have been brought by alleged victims. The complainants must be victims of journalism, press intrusion, newspaper executives and owners, politicians and police communication advisers. At some instance, the committee will have to consider the materials being cited by the complainant as evidence to determine the strength of the complaint. In the event that hearing or considering the evidence about phone hacking has been established to prejudice progressing criminal investigations, then the committee may desist from it. In regard to the above, it is very possible for the committee to sway its activity or its finding as an oversight body in order to absolve an interested party. This is why incorporating government representatives remains a necessary measure, as a way of infusing independent decision making. Conversely, if Again, the Leveson Inquiry also recommended the need for the previously mentioned legislation as being instrumental in the restoration of public confidence. It is the same legislation that will be instrumental in having the complaints of the public decisively dealt with. Because of this aspect of legislation, the press will also be protected from interference from the government. It is also best if the enterprise risk management (ERM) factors into consideration, the extent to which the law regulates the media and the press. In this case, it will be important to note that the Leveson Inquiry was more specific on the press and not the media, generally. While determining the ERM structure that will be most tenable, it will be important to factor the place of Ofcom, given that Ofcom does not only regulate broadcasters, but it is also enshrined in, and protected by law. In respect to the above, it will be important that the committee takes steps to cover online bloggers, tweeters, online marketers, pundits and other people who publish literature on the Internet. This is because, the law covers these people enough to qualify what amounts to libel and contempt of court, but not enough to address ethical standards and cultural values of the media. It is therefore important that publishers are made to up the new self regulator that will have been created, since it is backed by the law. Secondly, Lord Justice Leveson envisages the situation whereby online publishers such as bloggers, marketers and pundits have to subscribe to this agency. The proposal that the people who sit in the committee as its commissioners must be graced with public appointees is underpinned by the demonstration that the press is totally incapable of effectively regulating itself. Conversely, all the activities of this independent body can be synchronized with those of Ofcom. This demonstration goes as far back as 70 years, yet the power that the press wields must not be misappropriated, the role the press plays towards democratization and the upholding of human rights and civil liberties notwithstanding. Conclusion ERM Table for Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) 1 In regard to the changes that the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry made Time Read More