1. Leveson Inquiry: Culture, Practise and Ethics of the Press
What would you expect someone to pay you for revealing your deepest, darkest
secrets? At what point does journalism turn into harassment? These are issues
being explored and debated in The Leveson Inquiry, an examination of the British
media that has gripped the UK.
The explosive scandal hit the public’s TV screens over the summer when it was
revealed that tabloid newspaper ‘The News of the World’ had been gaining much
of its ‘exclusive’ information by hacking into the phones of many celebrities,
politicians and victims of crimes. Private investigators had even been tailing
people embroiled in the most news-worthy stories. In some cases, the phone
hacking had led to email hacking and had even given journalists access to private
passwords and PIN numbers.
More and more victims of the hacking came forward, an outcry broke out, and the
paper finally closed down on July 10 2011, producing its last edition. Many of its
editors and employees, former editor Andy Coulson in particular, denied all
knowledge of the phone hacking, and many were arrested. Founder and Chairman
of News Corporation, owner of News of the World, Rupert Murdoch was also put
into a tricky situation, jeopardising his takeover of BSkyB.
So what is the outcome of this huge story? On July 13 2011, Prime Minister David
Cameron announced a two-part inquiry chaired by Lord Justice Leveson to
investigate the role of the press and police in the scandal. It will also examine the
culture, practises and ethics of the media currently and govern the future of press
regulation.
The inquiry opened on Monday November 14, with an introduction from Lord Justice
Leveson himself saying: “The press provides an essential check on all aspects of
public life. That is why any failure within the media affects all of us. At the heart
of this Inquiry, therefore, may be one simple question: who guards the
guardians?” Among the key hearings were: JK Rowling, Sienna Miller, Hugh
Grant and Steve Coogan.
Possibly the lowest of the low, parents of abducted children were targeted. When 13-
year-old Millie Dowler was abducted and killed in 2002, her parents would
continually call her phone, hoping for some response about their daughter’s
disappearance. Almost unbelievably, Millie’s phone was also hacked, voicemail
messages deleted from her inbox. Mrs. Dowler recounted how elated she was when
she realized something had changed: “I rang her phone. It clicked through onto her
voicemail, so I heard her voice and it was just like, 'she's picked up her voicemail,
she's alive'.”
The inquiry also heard from young actress, Sienna Miller. She told of a closely-
guarded secret being revealed, meaning she was led to accuse her family and closest
friends after an anonymous journalist rang her saying he knew all about it. Her run-ins
with the paparazzi were also shocking: “I would often find myself — I was 21 — at
midnight running down a dark street on my own with ten big men chasing me and the

2. fact that they had cameras in their hands meant that that was legal, but if you take
away the cameras, what have you got?”
Miss Miller’s statement raises a valid point – where is the line? Is Britain to maintain
its freedom of the media, meaning tabloid journalists are able to hound celebrities to
breaking point just for that photograph of them lashing out? Or will a new, stricter
policy be put in place, meaning they can’t publish anything they want by any means
necessary? And will this hinder freedom of speech if it is put in place?
Either way, it seems something must be done to prevent further incidents. JK Rowling
highlighted: “The attitude seems to be...you’re famous, you’re asking for it.” Is this
now an excuse that is wearing a little thin?