The UK Column has already written several articles warning about the true purpose of the Leveson Inquiry: the political control of a free press and media in the UK. By stirring the pond of the Leveson Inquiry, we have already exposed the startling links between major funders and so-called charities, and those who are now driven to judge the value and performance of the press and media in this country.
In doing so, we aimed our finger early at a key organisation, the Media Standards Trust, a self-styled organisation that advocates for the right to attack both the press and the media, and to demand and campaign for inquiries into press and media standards. Curiously, Sir David Bell, a senior member of Leveson's committee, was the leading figure of this very organisation until he was “called” into the investigative role by Leveson.
Starting from scratch under Bell's leadership, the MST presented a 97-page report to the Leveson Inquiry Committee in June 2012, attributing the document to the “Press Review Group”. In a five-part breakdown on press and media, the document covers “historical content, problems with the previous system, whether any of the proposals under consideration would work, an entirely new system, and the defence of the public interest in law”. Two appendices cover “a grid of recommendations for press self-regulation and the funding of the new system”.
The main objectives of this report are to:
… Recommendations for a new framework for self-regulation of the news media. The Recommendations are intended to protect freedom of expression and freedom of the press, strengthen safeguards for quality journalism in the public interest, address issues identified before and during the Leveson Inquiry, and better protect the public.
So far so good, but is it really? A quick look at the names of the authors and review group raises questions about connections, transparency and vested interests. The report's lead author is Dr Martin Moore, director of the Media Standards Trust and a close colleague of Sir David Bell as chairman of the MST committee, a role Bell held until his “resignation” to become chairman of the Leveson Commission of Inquiry, to which Moore is delivering his report. Are there any conflicts of interest?
Moore's CV includes stints at the BBC, IPC Media (Time Warner), Trinity Mirror and Channel 4. Surely this man who has been part of media history should take some responsibility for its current problems under the principle of “take the good with the bad”? Why should we listen to his advice on the future of media?
David Yelland
The same can be said about MST peer review group member David Yelland. Yelland began his journalism career at Pearson's Westminster Press Group (the Pearson empire where David Bell was a director) and spent 14 years working in the Murdoch empire, including five years as editor-in-chief of The Sun. During this time, he openly admitted to being drunk on the job, and that for nearly 24 years he was so drunk every night that he sometimes couldn't remember what he had written. He's certainly sober now, but one must still ask whether Yelland is capable of advising the public on matters related to the press and media. Didn't he help create the media culture at The Sun that Rebecca Brooks inherited that cost her dearly and ultimately led to her downfall? No hypocrite.
Meanwhile, the research group itself is a diverse collection of privileged analysts from the media, government, media, corporate recruitment agencies, big bankers, etc. What is their real purpose?
Moore's MST colleague Gordon Ramsay is a specialist researcher in media content and history, with no apparent work experience in reporting or media. Professor Stephen Barnett is Professor of Communications at the University of Westminster, and advises the House of Lords Select Committee on Investigative Journalism and News and Media Ownership. The picture that emerges is one of those who can, do, and those who can't, teach.
Martin Dixon's biography boasts that he led the MST's call for reform of the Press Complaints Commission. This statement is a further clue that the Leveson Inquiry is a hoax orchestrated by the MST. Their “Hacked Off” campaign, coincidentally, registered a web domain name before the phone tapping scandal broke and is now recruiting for various professional posts to continue their post-Leveson “campaign”. Why? Because their real aim is total control of the press and media. If they can't swallow press freedom this time, they'll be able to do so in the next mouthful or two.
Dixon is a Financial Times man, which fits in well with David Bell's one-time chairman of the FT. Carolyn Fairbairn, strategic director of the BBC and ITV, is of course a banker and serves as a non-executive director at Lloyds Banking Group. Richard Hooper was the founding deputy chairman of Ofcom, independent examiner of Peter Mandelson's Royal Mail and continuing leading authority on Vince Cable's research into copyright licensing. High on connectivity, low on transparency. The list goes on. Professor Stewart Purvis is former chief executive and editor-in-chief of ITN, president of Euronews and Ofcom's partner in content and standards.
The golden chairman of the MST Review Group is Rothschild banker and executive vice-chairman Anthony Salz, a former deputy chairman of the BBC, corporate lawyer and Department for Education official, who sits on the boards of MST, the Scott Trust which runs the Guardian newspaper, the Paul Hamlyn Foundation and, of course, is a member of Hacked Off.
Let us now return to Martin Moore, director of the Media Standards Trust, who recently posted on Inforrm’s International Forum for Responsible Media blog:
There are countless quotes and aphorisms about how too much power corrupts. From Thomas Baillie's warning that “unlimited power would make almost any man a tyrant” to Lord Acton's “absolute power corrupts absolutely”… This appears to have happened in parts of News International where subjects of stories – politicians, celebrities, public figures and victims of tragedy – were harassed, hounded, intimidated and ignored. The scale of phone tapping, which affected thousands of people, was due to the enormous power News International had amassed, and this power was almost completely unchecked.
Moore further states:
For these reasons, reform should focus on these large companies. Individuals, bloggers, Twitter users, independent news sites, small magazines and newspapers are not Leveson's focus. They should be free to publish what they like within the law. They should be exempt from regulatory obligations that threaten to restrict freedom of speech.
All this sounds great, but Moore himself is part of an elite group backed by big business and big money – just look at the funders of his Media Standards Trust: Esmee Fairbairn, Gatsby (Lord Sainsbury), Joseph Rowntree (multi-million pound funding), the Elanda Foundation (Rothschild), the Pearson Foundation (yes, David Bell's old company), the Nuffield Scott Trust (Rothschild & Guardian Media Group) etc. What are the real interests of Moore's powerful backers?
Another clue comes from Moore's connections with Will Moy, the up-and-coming press and media critic of Fullfact.org. This heavy-handed little organisation is run by four donors who fund the Media Standards Trust (see Fullfact article opposite). Who set up Fullfact and why? Could it be that Rothschild, Sainsbury, Pearson and other rich and powerful shadowy figures are fomenting press and media mayhem so that Leveson will bring in the regulation they originally wanted?
A source close to Conservative party headquarters said Prime Minister David Cameron said just before the general election: “If we come to power we will bring in laws against people like that”. His remarks were reportedly directed at the UK column.
Will control of the press end with the big corporations? Absolutely not, because the forces that control the big media corporations already control false fact organisations such as the Media Standards Trust, Hacked Off and Full Fact, which pretend to have press freedom and our interests first. In the bipartisan dictatorship that currently rules the UK, control of all press and media is simply a matter of bite-by-bit judgement. Hacked Off is already recruiting staff for its post-Leveson initiative. Free press and media need to start investigating and reporting quickly, before they are eaten alive.
