The result leaves large mainstream newspaper publishers, which are in decline, the focus of the proposed new standards enforcer — but appears to leave untouched the growing wave of online-only outlets that inquiry chair Lord Justice Leveson nevertheless believes often operate to even lower standards than newspapers.

Weblogs aren’t news, aren’t even popular

Beside the proprietors of several large newspapers, victims of press intrusion and other interested parties, the nine-month-long Leveson iniquiry heard from the publishers of the weblogs Holy Moly (1.6 million monthly visitors), Guido Fawkes (up to 100,000 daily readers), Popbitch (350,000 subscribers) and Huffington Post UK. His report also notes that many large newspapers now publish their own weblogs.

But Leveson’s report nevertheless uses a narrow definition to appear to dismiss the notion “weblogs” could ever produce newspaper-like content…

“Although the blogs cited here are read by very large numbers of people, it should not detract from the fact that most blogs are read by very few people.

“Indeed, most blogs are rarely read as news or factual, but as opinion and must be considered as such”.

In truth, “weblogs” nowadays can no longer be described as simply opinion journals, and are often regarded merely as content management systems for publishing news, opinion, gossip, high-quality investigative journalism and scurrilous defamation — all the equally excellent and embarrassing kinds of content which large news institutions are accused of committing.

Many publishers on weblog platforms are becoming — and have already become — very popular and influential, and will become only more so as print media wane. Most newspaper publishers also publish their own weblogs.

Leveson remains interested in weblogs elsewhere in his final report, but not in considering whether they should be regulated in the same way he is proposing of newspapers. Instead, he notes instances in which newspapers nowadays often report unverified stories by reporting what weblogs themselves are saying — a kind of blogging in print by proxy. It is the newspapers and not the blogs which Leveson is putting on alert.

‘Twitter too small to be news’

One of the biggest digital stories of the year has been the challenges posed by social media users naming alleged criminals and, prejudicing trials and defaming others — the same accusations levelled at many in the “press”. In his report, Leveson acknowledges:

“Although there is limited news provision in the terms that are relevant to this Inquiry on pure social networking sites, all social networks provide opportunities for individuals to disseminate and discuss news, information and comment.”

But he nevertheless contends:

“Despite their extraordinary growth, as with most blogs, in the main, few tweets or social network pages are read by very large numbers of people, most tweets are read by very few people.”

This overlooks not only the rapid explosion of news delivered “socially” by the same institutional publishers who are Leveson’s focus (The Guardian now has a very large Facebook audience) but also the massive disruptive effects threatened by amplification of amateurs’ own inter-personal social messaging.

One of several apparent contradictions in his report, Leveson later himself recants the tale of a Twitter user who “had posted on Twitter anticipating a small circulation to her followers but failing to take account of the ability to retweet and so reaching a far wider audience”. And he later acknowledges that social media do have enough heft to disrupt conventional news publishers:

“Newspapers in this country cannot be viewed as once they were, as being uniquely responsible for the delivery of news. They are not. Control over information which might have been possible in an earlier age can be defeated instantly on Twitter or any one of many other social media sites.”

So who regulates social media?

If weblogs and social networks are not to fall under the auspice of Lord Justice Leveson’s proposed new press self-regulating watchdog, how are they to be regulated? Using existing laws, some of which are adequate and some of which are struggling to keep pace, he suggests…

For example, internet services like Google, Facebook and Twitter have pledged to act in accordance with UK law, removing content where the law has judged it illegal.

But Leveson acknowledges not all is perfect vis-a-vis these platforms:

“They are, however, understandably unwilling to make decisions on whether content may or may not be illegal or to take decisions where there are grey areas in law.”

And that can also leave victims of defamation or intrusion aggrieved:

“In some cases, considerable damage may have been done to the subject of those allegations before a judgment has been reached and the defamatory content consequently removed.”

Social can regulate itself, the law can try keeping up

Leveson acknowledges that, if social media were newspapers, they would have to work to his proposed new regulation agency:

“Although social networking sites are not obviously in competition with newspapers for audience, revenue or advertising, they may be used to publish information that would not be able to be published by a newspaper in conformity with the standards set by self-regulation.”

But he says such platforms have in-built organic correction mechanisms of the kind the new body will have to build for itself:

“The instant nature of social networking also differentiates it from more traditional media. Rebuttals and denials of allegations can take place instantly, helping if not to kill a story at least to provide the subject of the story with a voice and make users aware that the veracity of the allegation or story may be in doubt.”

The dozens of politicians recently named on Twitter as potential child abusers might disagree, as the recent outcry over the Twitter naming of a former politician at the centre of a BBC Newsnight report would suggest.

But, whilst Leveson is cognicent of the many areas in which law is currently being tested to keep up with social, this was not the remit of his inquiry in to “press” standards.

Lord Justice Leveson, who has been hearing issues including the “hacking” of mobile phones for news stories, said the existing Press Complaints Commission (PCC), comprised of newspaper editors, is “not actually a regulator at all”. And he has rejected news publishers’ alternative suggestion of binding themselves to ethical standards by commercial contracts.

Instead, he is advising the government to legislate the creation of a new independent body to promote “high standards” and safeguard individuals’ rights, run by a chair and a board who will hold publishers to a code.

Leveson is leaving the definition of that code and the implementation of the new body to whomever Prime Minister David Cameron, should he follow the recommendation, might appoint to set them up. But Leveson suggests the code should outline what constitutes “public interest” – a thorny topic on which newspapers and others often disagree.

The Lord Justice says publishers will be incentivised to adhere to this code because it will create an alternative dispute arbitration forum that will be cheaper than court battles — if publishers lost against a complainant in court, they would face heftier damages awards than in arbitration.

Whether this is enough of an incentive if unclear — after all, news publishers have operated in what Leveson called a “reckless” manner with the threat of hefty court fines up until this point.

Newspaper industry campaigners had worried that Leveson’s report, if it required legislation, would amount to state interference in newsgathering. They had highlighted United States citizens’ right to free speech under their First Amendment. But Leveson says:

“This is not, and cannot be characterised as, statutory regulation of the press. The legislation would not establish a body to regulate the press: it would be up to the press to come forward with their own body that meets the criteria laid down.

“The legislation would not give any rights to Parliament, to the Government, or to any regulatory (or other) body to prevent newspapers from publishing any material whatsoever.

“Nor would it give any rights to these entities to require newspapers to publish any material except insofar as it would require the recognised self-regulatory body to have the power to direct the placement and prominence of corrections and apologies in respect of information found, by that body, to require them.”

That definition of the body’s role sounds somewhat akin to that of the existing Press Complaints Commission, which is now discredited. But Leveson also says: “(The legislation) would enshrine, for the first time, a legal duty on the Government to protect the freedom of the press.”

But the new body must be recognised by Ofcom, the existing and powerful regulator of UK radio spectrum, telecommunications infrastructure and broadcasting standards — and Leveson suggests Ofcom be used as a “backstop” regulator for publishers that refuse to join the new scheme.

Leveson said: “For the seventh time in less than 70 years, there is a new report commissioned by the government dealing with concerns about the press. The PCC has failed in the task — if, indeed, it ever saw itself as having such a task — of keeping the press to its responsibilities to the public. There must be change.”

In sum, the Leveson Inquiry report amounts to a stern telling off for British newspapers, sets the basic colour and ideas for a slightly enhanced regulatory body but leaves all of the next steps to government — a process that is likely to be mired in ongoing political wrangling.

Update: Prime Minister David Cameron says he agrees with much of the recommendations but not the need to create the new body through state legislation:

“For the first time, we would have crossed the rubicon of writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land.

“We should, I believe, be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and a free press.

“In this House – which has been a bulwark of democracy for centuries – we should think very, very carefully before crossing this line.”