The ongoing Leveson Inquiry has raised concerns as to the methods the media uses to investigate stories and how the industry should be regulated to prevent further scandals like phone hacking from happening again.

With this back drop in mind a variety of media experts gathered to discuss the question of whether the media can ever be regulated.

The debate was a Precise Exchange event in association with CorpComms Magazine and the speakers were varied in background, with different views, but all shared a depth of knowledge and experience of the media.  The speakers comprised of Jonathan Collett, Director of Communications at the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), Dan Sabbagh, Head of Media and Technology at The Guardian, Oliver Smith, Consultant Solicitor at Keystone Law and a specialist in media and libel law, and Robert Johnson of Jobson Media, official royal commentator for NBC, ITN News and Daybreak.

On the question of if the media should be regulated there were arguments both for and against regulation. It was noted that more stringent regulation had not negatively affected the broadcasting industry, but there were those that believed regulation of the struggling print media could be the final nail in the coffin for an industry already struggling to compete with online news. The difference between print and broadcast was also highlighted by Oliver Smith who made the point that to “apply OFCOM type rules to print and online media… would be unenforceable and would kill a lot of the variety which is the spice on our media diet.”

The current regulatory body was defended by Jonathan Collett who stated that the PPC’s mandate had only ever been to deal with complaints against the media and they had served that remit well. Predictions as to what future regulation and the regulatory body may look like were that there would be a body responsible for standards and also for providing an arbitrational service to remove the high costs of libel and defamation claims. The latter was welcomed by those who believe the cost of libel and defamation cases is stifling the media.

Whether the recommendations made by Lord Leveson will be capable of being enforced so as to ensure the media is fully regulated remains to be seen. There are certainly concerns that it will always be the print media that is easiest to hold accountable rather than internet news. There is already an example of this by what happened with the Giggs story. The tabloids were prevented from publishing it, but it was revealed on Twitter with no action taken against those individuals that posted the information.

However, given some of the evidence heard at the Leveson Inquiry and the extent of the scandal that has engulfed the media it is clear further guidance and regulation is needed for this industry and that it must be enforced. In doing so it will hopefully regain some of its credibility and ensure its future sustainability.

The debate was lively and thought provoking with many important points made. It was also very well chaired by Helen Dunne, Editor of CorpComms Magazine, who I understand will be writing a more detailed article on the debate.This can be found here