Post on 28-Jul-2020
transcript
How Newspapers Covered Press Regulation after Leveson
September 2014
Dr. Gordon Neil Ramsay
3MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary 4
2. Timeline of Events 9
3. Sampling and Methodology 12
4. Press Regulation: Overall Figures 17
5. How Each Newspaper Covered Press Regulation 27
6. Coverage of Press Regulation in Leader and Opinion Articles 47
7. Coverage of Press Regulation in Factual Articles 57
8. How the ‘Threat to Press Freedom’ was Portrayed 63
9. How Coverage of Press Regulation Failed to Reflect Public Opinion 73
Appendix 1: Newspaper Coverage Breakdown 96
Appendix 2: All Leader Articles with Classifications 107
Appendix 3: Dataset Variable List 118
Appendix 4: Press Regulation Guide for Coders 121
Appendix 5: Inter-Coder Reliability (ICR) Testing - Methods and Results 129
4Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Press Regulation Coverage: Overall Figures
• Coverage of press regulation in the UK national press was extensive.
In the year following the publication of the Leveson Report, 2,047 articles
were published across the national daily and Sunday press, an average of
5.6 articles per day as compared to 4.0 per day in the 18 months from July
2011 until publication of the Leveson report in November 2012.1 There were
particularly high levels of coverage in three periods: in the aftermath of
the publication of the Leveson Report; around the agreement on the Cross-
Party Royal Charter in March 2013; and in October 2013, when the Royal
Charter was sealed following the Privy Council’s rejection of the newspaper
industry’s own draft Royal Charter.
• The majority of coverage contained some evaluation of Leveson or the
Charter. Over two-thirds of articles (1,421 of 2,047, or 69.4%) contained
one or more evaluative statements on the Leveson Report and/or the Cross-
Party Royal Charter. This was over three times as much as during the 18
months prior to publication of the Leveson Report (436 of 2,016, or 21.6%).
• A majority of the 1,421 articles – news and opinion – which contained
an evaluative statement contained only negative viewpoints. 835
articles (58.8%) contained only negative or critical viewpoints. 217 (15.3%)
contained only positive or supportive views, and 370 (26.0%) contained
both supportive and critical viewpoints.
• Both the Leveson Report and the Cross-Party Royal Charter received a
majority of negative coverage. 55.8% of articles containing a view on the
Leveson Report were entirely critical (i.e. containing not one single positive
reference), outnumbering positive articles by three to one. This rises to
64.5% of articles on the Cross-Party Charter, where the ratio is four to one.
• Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter were widely portrayed as a
threat to press freedom. In total, 862 articles contained this assertion by
a source or by the journalist - over 40% of all articles on any aspect of press
regulation. As a proportion of the 1,421 articles containing a viewpoint on
Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter, this figure rises to 60.7%.
How Each Newspaper Covered Press Regulation
• The majority of national newspapers contained a high proportion of
negative-only coverage of Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter. Certain
newspapers featured a significant majority of negative-only coverage: for
1 See Part 1 of this analysis: http://mediastandardstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/05/MST-Leveson-Analysis-090513-v2.pdf
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
every article in the Daily Mail that contained only positive viewpoints, there
were more than 33 that contained only critical views. In the Sun, this ratio
was 1 : 29. Of 18 newspapers that published articles with viewpoints on
Leveson or the Charter,2 14 contained more negative-only than positive-
only articles; in nine titles the imbalance was by a ratio of over five to one.
• Only a minority of coverage – news and opinion – sought to be balanced.
Articles, including news articles, tended to express one single view without
reference to opposing views: in 15 of 18 newspapers containing articles
where views were expressed, the proportion where both positive and
negative viewpoints were included was below 30%; in seven titles it was
below 20%.
• Coverage of Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter was mostly negative ,
as contrasted with coverage of the newspaper industry’s Royal Charter
and the newspaper industry plans for a new regulator (IPSO) which
was mostly positive. While on average only 15.3% of articles containing
a view on Leveson or the Charter were wholly positive, 57.7% of articles
with a view on the newspaper Industry’s Charter were positive, as were
65.4% of articles containing a view on IPSO. The results suggest that the
majority of newspapers gave strong support to the newspaper industry’s
own initiatives, and were highly critical of those initiatives that were not
led by the newspaper industry.
• There was a structural difference in how sections of the national press
covered Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter. After observing differences
in coverage across groups of publishers, a separate analysis of those titles
published by News UK, DMG Media, Telegraph Media Group, Trinity Mirror,
and Northern & Shell found that those titles contained highly negative
coverage (70.5% of articles containing a view were ‘negative-only’), a lower
proportion of positive coverage (on average, around one positive article for
every eight negative articles published), with the ‘threat to press freedom’
frame appearing in 74.5% of articles containing a view. Significantly, this
group accounts for over 90% of weekly national newspaper circulation, and
three-quarters of the national newspaper market. In contrast, those titles
published by Guardian Media Group, Independent Print Ltd, and Pearson
contained half as many negative articles proportionally (34.2% of articles),
less than half as many instances of the ‘threat to press freedom’ frame
(34.4% of articles), a roughly equal ratio of positive to negative articles (1 :
1.2), and were almost twice as likely to publish articles that contained both
supportive and critical viewpoints.
Coverage of Press Regulation in Leader and Opinion Articles
• Leader articles and opinion articles were, by a very large margin,
2 Of the 19 national newspapers featured in the study, one – the Daily Star Sunday – did not feature any articles in which critical or supportive views of aspects of press regulation were included.
6Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
hostile to Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter. Out of 197 leader articles
in which a view was expressed on Leveson or the Charter, 156 (79.2%) were
negative-only and just 7 (3.6%) were positive-only. In addition, 272 of 369
opinion articles (73.7%) were negative-only, with 55 (14.9%) positive-only.
• Newspapers belonging to News UK, DMG Media, Trinity Mirror,
Telegraph Media Group and Northern & Shell were far more likely to
be negative than those published elsewhere. The relevant opinion and
leader articles published by this group of titles were extremely hostile to
Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter:
- 90.8% of all such articles were negative-only (347 of 382);
- For every positive-only opinion or leader article published by these
newspapers, more than 30 negative-only articles were published;
- 84.8% of leader or opinion articles by these titles contained the
argument that Leveson or the Charter represented a threat to press
freedom.
Coverage of Press Regulation in Factual Articles
• A majority of factual news coverage (i.e. news reports and features)
contained statements for or against Leveson or the Royal Charter. 806
News articles (66.7% of the total) and 49 Feature articles (43.8%) contained
evaluative viewpoints on Leveson or the Charter. For News articles, this
was a fourfold increase on the same measure of coverage in the 18 months
prior to the Leveson Report (14.7%). Of these 806 News articles, almost half
(46.8%) contained negative-only viewpoints.
• As with opinion-based coverage, most of the press focused considerably
more on critical views of Leveson and the Charter. Titles published by
News UK, DMG Media, Trinity Mirror, Telegraph Media Group and Northern
& Shell were again far more likely to publish articles containing views
hostile to Leveson than titles published elsewhere:
- 55.7% of all News articles by these five publishers contained only
negative viewpoints, compared with 28.2% in titles published by
Guardian Media Group, Independent Print Ltd and Pearson;
- There were considerably fewer articles containing only supportive
viewpoints (12.9% versus 29.8%)
- The ‘threat to press freedom’ frame was more prevalent in the
newspapers of these five publishers, being present in 65.8% of
articles in which any viewpoint was expressed. This compared
with 38.2% of such articles by other publishers
How the ‘Threat to Press Freedom’ was portrayed
• The argument that Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter posed a threat
to press freedom was very frequently referenced in the national press.
862 articles published on the topic contained the argument – 42.1% of all
7MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
articles mentioning any aspect of press regulation, and 60.7% of those in
which a view of Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter was expressed.
• The claim that press freedom was being threatened was often presented
with no supporting evidence, no counter-argument, and without a
quote by an identified source. Less than 30% of articles in which the
‘Threat’ argument was made included specific evidence to justify the claim.
Only 14.8% of these articles included the counter-argument that Leveson
or the Charter did not threaten press freedom or political interference, and
less than half based the ‘Threat’ claim on a quote from an identified source.
• The language used to describe Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter
was emotive, repetitive, and focused on freedom and government
interference. There were hundreds of references to ‘press freedom’
in newspaper coverage of press regulation, and to ‘shackles’, ‘muzzles’,
and ‘curbs’ on the press. Certain phrases were repeated across news and
opinion articles, and several newspapers, indicating a lack of plurality
in the presentation of press regulation. Opinion came increasingly to be
presented as fact, crossing the divide from ‘leader’ and ‘opinion’ articles, to
factual news articles, and there was evidence of arguments being replicated
word-for-word across comment pieces.
How Coverage of Press Regulation Failed to Reflect Public Opinion
• Overall public opinion tended to be at odds with the negative line a
majority of newspapers took on Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter.
The majority of the public, in most polls (even excluding those commissioned
by groups supportive of reform of press regulation) tended to be supportive
of legal underpinning, supportive of the Leveson recommendations, and
supportive of the Cross-Party Charter agreement reached in March, and of
its specific provisions. This was in contrast to the strongly negative coverage
of each of these issues in the national daily and Sunday press across the
whole period of study.
• Individual newspapers did not reflect the viewpoints of their
readership on matters of press regulation. Newspaper readerships
displayed considerable consistency in terms of their support for the
Leveson recommendations and Cross-Party Charter system. While there
was some variation between titles (e.g. Sun readers being less supportive
than other titles), each set of readers tended to be, by a ratio of at least
two-to-one, in favour of their paper joining the Cross-Party Charter system.
When surveyed on other aspects of regulatory reform, they supported legal
underpinning, supported the Cross-Party Charter over the Industry Charter,
and supported the Cross-Party Charter’s system of independent external
review of a new regulatory system.
Therefore, though many media commentators have stressed that press regulation
is not a ‘doorstep issue’ for the public, it was extensively covered by national
8Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
newspapers in the year following publication of the Leveson Report. At an average
of almost six articles each day across the UK national press, most newspaper readers
would have been aware of the issue.
Yet, most of them would have read a highly polarized perspective. For over 90% of
these readers almost three-quarters of the articles they read on press regulation
expressed a view. This included seven out of ten news reports.
Of the articles that expressed a view for these readers, 70% expressed only a negative
view. As a consequence, most British news readers would rarely have been exposed
to positive views about the Leveson recommendations or the Royal Charter.
This is despite the majority of news readers – and the broader public – holding
positive views about the Leveson recommendations and the settlement agreed
through Royal Charter. Based on opinion polls over the course of the year following
the Leveson Report, a consistent 50-70% of the public wanted a system similar to the
one Leveson recommended, and on average only 10-25% trusted newspapers to set
up an adequate alternative on their own.
When newspapers’ own readers were polled at various times of the year, on average
50-60% wanted their newspaper to join the Cross-Party Royal Charter system, as
opposed to around 10% who did not. For individual newspapers, results were similar
to the average - even the most anti-Leveson papers did not persuade their own
readers that the Cross-Party Royal Charter should be rejected, or that the newspaper
industry’s own proposed systems were preferable.
Most national newspapers therefore pursued a strong editorial agenda in their
news and comment pieces about press regulation that corresponded with their own
interests and that did not fairly represent the views of their readers or the broader
public.
It is difficult not to conclude that coverage of the Leveson report and its aftermath
did not live up to the democratic ideal of a diverse range of voices representing the
views of the British public.
9MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
2. TIMELINE OF EVENTS
29 NOVEMBER 2012 Leveson Report published at 1.30pm. The 1,987-page report included 47 specific recommendations for a system of voluntary self-regulation of the press underpinned by an independent external recognition process. This process was to be supported by legal incentives for those who participated. Later that day the Prime Minister, having had 24 hours advance notice of the Report, rejected Leveson’s use of legislation, while broadly supporting the rest of the recommendations for Press self-regulation. The Deputy Prime Minister delivered a separate statement supporting implementation of Leveson’s recommendations, including statutory underpinning, though took issue with the specific recommendation that oversight of a new regulator should be granted to Ofcom, and also with certain recommendations concerning reform of the Data Protection Act. Labour called for full implementation of Leveson.
4 DECEMBER 2012 At a meeting with the Prime Minister newspaper editors were issued a deadline for reaching an agreement on implementing Leveson.
5 DECEMBER 2012 A meeting of newspaper editors at the Delaunay Restaurant claims consensus on ’40 of 47’ recommendations. However, documents leaked from the meeting indicate that, of Leveson’s 47 recommendations, fewer than half (23) were fully accepted.
10 DECEMBER 2012 Labour publishes a six-clause draft bill outlining underpinning of self-regulation, abandoning initial support for Ofcom as a recognition body.
12 DECEMBER 2012 Times editor James Harding, understood to have been instrumental in co-ordinating newspaper editors’ response to Leveson, resigns. ‘Delaunay agreement’ later said to have collapsed at this point.
13 DECEMBER 2012 Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin announces an initial plan for a Royal Charter to underpin a new press regulator. Newspaper publishers’ associations, including the Press Standards Board of Finance (Pressbof), write to the Culture Secretary to announce that they, not editors, will take responsibility for self-regulatory reform.
31 DECEMBER 2012 An initial draft of a Royal Charter by the Conservatives is distributed to key stakeholders, including newspaper groups.
4 JANUARY 2013 Peter Wright, Editor Emeritus at Associated Newspapers, writes to Oliver Letwin, outlining 14 specific industry concerns with the 31st December draft Charter and specifying ‘red lines’ on issues that the industry would not accept.
31 JANUARY 2013
Campaign group Hacked Off publishes a draft ‘Leveson Bill’.6 JANUARY 2013
Lord Puttnam tables a ‘Leveson amendment’ to the Defamation bill, which would establish a recognition commission for regulatory bodies that provide an arbitration service.
10Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
12 FEBRUARY 2013 First draft of the Royal Charter (the ‘February 12th Charter’) published by the Conservatives. This Charter is a considerable distance from the Leveson recommendations, and is diluted from the draft circulated to newspaper groups on 31st December, including specific areas alterations to conform with industry ‘red lines’ as defined by Peter Wright in his letter of January 4th.
Paul Vickers, Chairman of the newspaper industry Implementation group set up to create a new press regulator, described the 12th February draft Charter as ‘the fruit of two months of intensive talks involving the newspaper and magazine industry and all three main political parties.’
The February 12th Charter: keeps control of the Standards Code in the hands of editors; raises the bar for third-party complaints; gives the newspaper industry a veto on appointments to the regulator; reduces the power of the regulator to direct corrections and apologise; limits the power of investigations; and provides no check in the event of failure. There is nothing to protect the Charter from amendment by ministers. Analysis shows that the February 12th Charter would allow a regulator set up in accordance with the Hunt-Black plan (the newspaper industry’s proposal for reform rejected as insufficient by Leveson) to be recognised, with minimal amendments. Records released by the Government later in 2013 show that during January and February 2013, newspaper executives and editors had more than 30 meetings with the Prime Minister, Oliver Letwin, and Culture Secretary Maria Miller.
Labour and Liberal Democrats both reject the February 12th Charter as unsatisfactory and call for changes to be made through cross-party talks.
14 FEBRUARY 2013 Cross-party talks restart to revise the February 12th Charter.
8 MARCH 2013 Lord Skidelsky tables a Leveson amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform bill which would create a form of statutory arbitration and a recognition commission to oversee a new press regulator.
14 MARCH 2013 David Cameron unilaterally walks out of cross-party talks on the Royal Charter. The following Monday a Commons vote is due on amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill that would implement aspects of the Leveson Report. Speculative Parliamentary arithmetic suggests that Cameron, who opposes these amendments, will lose the vote. Cameron therefore needs to agree a Royal Charter with Labour and the Liberal Democrats if he is to avoid a Parliamentary defeat
15 MARCH 2013 Labour and the Lib Dems publish an alternative version of the February 12th Charter that is much closer to Leveson’s original recommendations.
17 MARCH 2013 David Cameron and Nick Clegg agree on a draft Royal Charter. Royal Charter presented to Ed Miliband and then to victims’ campaign group Hacked Off.
18 MARCH 2013 A motion agreeing the text of the Royal Charter was put to the House of Commons which agreed it on a vote without division. Later that session, the amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill providing incentives to publishers that joined a recognised regulator was passed by 530 votes to 13. Also on 18th March, the House of Lords agreed an amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill that prevented changes to the Royal Charter without two-thirds support in both Houses of Parliament.
11MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
3 MAY 2013 The Government commits to considering the Industry Charter before putting the Cross-Party Charter before the Privy Council. A consultation is launched with a deadline of 24th May.
4 JULY 2013 The decision on the Cross-Party Charter is delayed to give the Privy Council time to consider the Industry Charter.
7 JULY 2013 The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) is announced by newspaper groups as a successor to the Press Complaints Commission.
8 OCTOBER 2013 Industry Charter rejected by Privy Council. PressBoF launches an appeal.
11 OCTOBER 2013 Cross-Party Charter amended slightly to make it map almost exactly to Leveson recommendations (e.g. returning the criteria for the Standards Code to those laid out in the Leveson Report). Concessions also made to industry to allay fears concerning arbitration: publishers to be allowed to opt out of arbitration if ‘serious financial harm’ demonstrated, and the regulator to be given the option of charging a ‘small administration fee’ for arbitration.
24 OCTOBER 2013 Final articles of IPSO are published. Subsequent analysis finds that, of 38 Leveson recommendations for independent and effective self-regulator, IPSO satisfies 12.
30 OCTOBER 2013 Cross-Party Charter sealed by the Privy Council and published. An addition to the 11th October draft makes clear that amendments to the Charter will require the unanimous agreement of the Board of the Recognition Panel (none of whom can be politicians). The timeframe for establishment of the Recognition Panel is amended.
25 APRIL 2013 Some newspaper groups, via Pressbof, propose an alternative Royal Charter (the ‘Industry Charter’). This Charter is further from Leveson than any previous version according to a subsequent report by Enders Analysis. The recognition process is owned by Pressbof; party-political peers are allowed to serve at all levels; the powers of the regulator are diluted; editors retain control of the Standards Code; the investigations process is complex and favours the publishers over the regulator, and the investigations fund to be overseen by those subject to investigation; arbitration to be made optional.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
01/11/2012 01/12/2012 01/01/2013 01/02/2013 01/03/2013 01/04/2013 01/05/2013 01/06/2013 01/07/2013 01/08/2013 01/09/2013 01/10/2013 01/11/2013 01/12/2013
Nu
mb
er o
f a
rtic
les
December
2012
January
2013
February
2013
March
2013
April
2013
May
2013
June
2013
July
2013
August
2013
September
2013
October
2013
November
2013
Leveson Report
published
‘February 12th
Charter’ published
Cross-Party Charter
agreed in the House of
Commons
Industry Charter
rejected by Privy
Council‘Industry Charter’
proposed‘IPSO’ announced
Cross-Party Charter
sealed by the Privy
Council and published
12Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Scope and purpose of the analysis
This project is a continuation of the Media Standards Trust analysis of UK national
press coverage of the Leveson Inquiry.1 If follows directly on from the end of the
previous study, and in most cases uses the same methods, to allow comparisons
between both studies.
The project consists of original research: a content analysis of press regulation in
the UK national press. Since coverage was so extensive – over 2,000 articles – the
majority of the analysis is quantitative, and focuses on the volume, tone and framing
of press regulation over a 12-month period.
This is a descriptive study, and while some contextual analysis is used to contextualise
some of the results, it is not an attempt to determine ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ ways to cover
press regulation or to interpret the policy implications of the Leveson Report/Royal
Charter. These issues have been discussed extensively elsewhere. Instead, this
report is intended to create a record of which arguments were deployed, and how
the UK national press covered a public policy issue with significant implications for
its own industry.
Sampling
The source material is national press coverage of press regulation; specifically, news
articles, whether online or in print, published by the 19 main UK national daily and
Sunday newspapers in the UK. The period of analysis follows directly from Part 1,
beginning on the day of publication of the Leveson Report (29th November 2012)
and ending one year later (29th November 2013). This technically covers 366 days, to
account for the staggered publication of online articles throughout the day.
The sample of publications is based on the Audit Bureau of Circulation’s (ABC) list of
national newspapers, excluding major regional titles such as the Evening Standard
and major Scottish newspapers, and the i, which mainly repackages content from
the Independent.
1 http://mediastandardstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/05/MST-Leveson-Analysis-090513-v2.pdf
3. SAMPLING AND METHODOLOGY
13MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Sampled newspapers
Dailies Sundays
Sun (including Sun on Sunday) Sunday Mirror
Daily Mirror People
Daily Star Daily Star Sunday
Daily Express Sunday Express
Daily Mail Mail on Sunday
The Times Sunday Times
Daily Telegraph Sunday Telegraph
Guardian Observer
Independent Independent on Sunday
Financial Times
The original sample for this analysis includes all news articles published between
29th November 2012 and 29th November 2013, containing any of the following search
phrases:
1. “Leveson”
2. “Royal Charter”
3. “Privy Council”
4. “Independent Press Standards Organisation”
5. “IPSO”
6. “Press Standards Board of Finance”
7. “Pressbof”
8. “Hacked Off”
9. “Press Regulation”
10. “Press Laws”
These searches were applied to three sources: Factiva, Lexis Nexis, and internal
online search functions on each newspaper’s site. Duplicate articles were removed,
and where near-duplicate articles were found, as occasionally happened in online
and print versions of the same article containing the same text, only the longer of
the two articles was retained. Articles which included one or more of these search
terms but which contained no information about press regulation were excluded.
These mostly consisted of stories mentioning other Royal Charters, such as the BBC’s,
or passing mentions of Leveson without any context. Most articles containing the
search terms were relevant for the analysis.
The range of newspaper articles eligible for consideration was limited by whether
they corresponded to four categories: ‘News’ and ‘Feature’ articles, and ‘Leader’ and
‘Opinion articles. This follows the methodology in Part 1 of the analysis, based on
14Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Higgins’ (2006) typology of news stories.2 Therefore, a tiny amount of articles that
contained one or more of the search terms, but did not fit into these categories were
removed.
The final sample consisted of 2,047 articles.
Measuring coverage
The focus of analysis was on the prevalence of certain types of evaluative statements
or opinions about the Leveson Inquiry. This follows the methodological approach of
the previous analysis of Leveson coverage.
In the previous analysis, the arguments or ‘frames’ were: ‘supportive of Leveson’;
‘Leveson as a threat to press freedom’; ‘lack of legitimacy of the Inquiry’, ‘lack of
public interest or relevance of Leveson’. These frames were recorded on the basis
of whether or not they appeared in the text of articles, either attributed to a source
(in the case of a factual news article), or written by a journalist (in opinion or leader
articles, or in the body of a news article).
For the present analysis, this approach was expanded for articles mentioning the
Leveson Report and, latterly, the Cross-Party Charter – with an extended list of
‘frames’ to better suit the circumstances in which the post-Leveson press regulation
debate took place.
The full list of frames were devised after a pilot study which identified which type of
evaluative arguments were being made in support of, or against, the Leveson Report
and/or the Cross-Party Charter. The final list is as follows:
‘Positive’ statements:
• Supportive of Leveson Recommendations: Any statement in support of
(a) the Leveson Report in general, or (b) any of its recommendations.
• Supportive of statutory underpinning of press regulation: either (a)
a statement in support specifically of the Leveson recommendation on
statutory underpinning; or (b) a general statement in support of statutory
underpinning for press regulation.
• Supportive of Royal Charter: Any statement in support of the Cross-Party
Charter, or its specific provisions.
‘Negative’ statements:
• Threat to press freedom: Any reference to either Leveson or any proposed
method of press regulation as a potential threat to press freedom, or to
freedom of expression.
• Criticism of Leveson recommendations/cross-party Royal Charter
provisions: Any critical reference to specific recommendations in the
2 Higgins, M. (2006) ‘Substantiating a political public sphere in the Scottish press: a comparative analysis’, Journalism, 7(1) pp25-44
15MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Leveson Report, or to any of the provisions of the Cross-Party Royal Charter.
• Questions the Legitimacy of the Leveson Report: Critical references that
directly imply that the Leveson Inquiry or Report were flawed, corrupt,
or otherwise illegitimate (including conspiracy, narrowness of remit or
expertise of the judge, misconception in setting-up of the Inquiry, waste of
public money).
• Damage to the UK’s international reputation: Any reference to either of
two approximate arguments: that Britain will no longer set a good example
for press freedom worldwide if Leveson or the Royal Charter system were
to be implemented; or, the implementation of Leveson or the Royal Charter
will be copied by undemocratic governments to crack down on journalists.
• Criticism of the process of agreeing the Royal Charter: Critical references
specifically to the process of agreeing the Royal Charter – references to the
“pizza deal”, “stitch-up”, etc.
These frames were then used to ascertain whether an article was designated:
• ‘Positive-only’ (contained only a combination of supportive frames)
• ‘Negative-only’ (contained only a combination of critical frames)
• ‘Both’ (contained a combination of both supportive and critical frames)
• ‘None’ (contained none of these frames)
In this analysis the focus, for much of the research, is on the prevalence of articles
that contained any of the list of frames outlined here.
In addition to this list, two ‘neutral’ frames were also recorded, to ensure that all
mentions of Royal Charters in the press regulation context were accounted for.
Although these have no bearing on whether the article was ‘positive’ or ‘negative’
in tone, they helped to capture opinions on the Royal Charter process. These were:
Critical of the use of Royal Charter in principle: Any reference critical of
using a Royal Charter in the area of press regulation.
Supports the use of Royal Charter in principle: Any reference in support of
the idea of using a Royal Charter in place of statute to underpin a new system
of press self-regulation.
To summarise: Each article was scanned to see if it contained any references to the
list of eight contextual events listed above. If any of the ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ frames
were recorded in relation to the Leveson Report and/or the Cross-Party Charter,
these were recorded.
A list of other, non-evaluative, variables were also measured as part of this analysis.
The full list of these variables is included in Appendix 3
Some secondary analyses are included in this report. The methods employed in
them are explained in the sections in which they appear.
16Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Validating the methods
Inter-Coder Reliability (ICR) testing was carried out on the framing variables, using
a random sample of approximately 10% of the sample. A full description of the ICR
testing process is described in Appendix 5; the ICR test scores are available to the
public on the Media Standards Trust website.
17MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Overall Figures – Full Sample
The project gathered every print and online article referring to aspects of press
regulation published by the UK national press during a 12 month (or 366-day) period
beginning on the day of publication of the Leveson Report (29th November 2012).1
Table 1 shows the total volume of coverage of press regulation:
Table 1: Total Coverage of Press Regulation, post-Leveson Report (N = 2,047)
Coverage of Press Regulation,
29/11/12 – 29/11/13
2,047 articles
1,153,240 words
Coverage of press regulation in the year beginning 29th November 2012 is extensive.
2,047 articles were published in print and online in the 10 daily and 9 Sunday
national newspapers (full list of titles in Section 3 above), comprising a total of over
1.1 million words (excluding headlines). This is comparable with the Leveson Report
itself, which consisted of 1,987 pages and slightly over one million words.2
Significantly, the amount of coverage over the course of this 12-month sample is
almost identical to the volume of coverage recorded during the 18-month period of
the Leveson Inquiry, signalling a substantial increase in the intensity of coverage.3
Coverage of press regulation following the Leveson Report has also been more
commentary-driven than coverage of the Inquiry itself. Table 2 shows that the
proportion of articles devoted to commentary (leaders and opinion) rose from just
over one quarter (27.6%) over the course of the Leveson Inquiry, to over one third
following the publication of the Leveson Report (35.5%).
Table 2: Proportion of Factual vs. Comment Coverage, pre- and post-Leveson
Report (N = 2,047)
Part 1 (pre-Report) Part 2 (post-Report)
‘Factual’ CoverageNews 1,399 69.4% 1,208 59.0%
Feature 60 3.0% 1124 5.5%
‘Comment’ CoverageLeader 128 6.3% 217 10.6%
Opinion 429 21.3% 510 24.9%
1 The full range of search terms and sampling methods are outlined in Section 3 above.
2 http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/29/leveson-inquiry-report-word-frequencies-statutory-self-regulation
3 From Part 1 of the Analysis: Between 11th July 2011 and 28th November 2012, 2,014 articles were published on the Leveson Inquiry, totalling 1,110,475 words (http://mediastandardstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/05/MST-Leveson-Analysis-090513-v2.pdf, page 7)
4. PRESS REGULATION COVERAGE: OVERALL FIGURES
18Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
As Figure 1 shows, coverage was more extensive in late November and December
2012 (around the publication of the Leveson Report), between February and April
2013 (when the three main Royal Charter drafts – the February 12th draft Charter,
the Cross-Party Charter and the newspaper industry’s Charter – became public
knowledge), and in October 2013 (when the Industry Charter was rejected by the
Privy Council, and the final version of the Cross-Party Charter was sealed).
Figure 1: Number of articles published, by month (N = 2,047)
Table 3 shows that there were substantial differences in the volume of coverage
each national newspaper devoted to the issue. While different styles of publication
(tabloid, mid-market, broadsheet) may be expected to show differing levels of interest
given their varying audiences and news values, there were significant differences
within groups. The Sun, among tabloids, published more articles than the rest of the
daily and Sunday tabloids combined, and more than some broadsheets. In the mid-
market group the Daily Mail took a far greater interest in the subject than the Daily
Express, and within broadsheets the Guardian dominated. 4
4 This rise in Feature articles can be attributed to a large number of lists or infographics explain (a) the Leveson recommendations, or (b) how the various proposed Royal Charter systems would operate
256
357
71
136
398
157
121
89 91
28 31
236
76
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
No
. of
art
icle
s
No view expressed: 626
Positive views only: 216
Negative views only: 834
Both views expressed: 371
Views expressed: 1,421
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Independent on Sunday (N = 21)
Independent (N = 148)
Guardian (N = 403)
Financial Times (N = 97)
Sunday Express (N = 16)
Daily Express (N = 94)
Observer (N = 72)
Times (N = 217)
Daily Star (N = 23)
Daily Telegraph (N = 270)
Sunday Mirror (N = 13)
Mail on Sunday (N = 53)
Daily Mirror (N = 98)
Sunday Times (N = 53)
People (N = 5)
Sun (N = 179)
Sunday Telegraph (N = 33)
Daily Mail (N = 251)
Negative-only'
Both
Positive-only'
None
19MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
The Guardian’s comparatively large volume of coverage is partly explained by its
online presence; just under half of its articles were published online-only. In the
entire sample, while the proportions of online-only coverage fluctuated across
different titles, the majority of articles appeared both in print and online, or print-
only. Overall, 484 articles (30.1% of the total sample) were only published online,
with no print equivalent.
By breaking down the balance of types of coverage (Table 4), more differences
emerge. While individual results for publications with low numbers of articles (e.g.
Sunday tabloids, Sunday Express) can be skewed, there are some significant results.
The Sun is notable for devoting slightly under half (46.9% - 39 leader and 45 opinion
articles) of its coverage to commentary – the largest proportion of any daily national
newspaper. Sunday newspapers, which traditionally devote more space to opinion
pieces and interviews, tend to have more ‘opinion’ and ‘feature’ articles than daily
Table 3: Article breakdown, by title (N = 2,047)
Number of
Articles
Percentage of
Total
Number
Online-only
Percentage
Online-Only
Tabloids
Sun 179 8.7% 6 0.3%
Daily Mirror 98 4.8% 13 13.3%
Daily Star 23 1.1% 2 8.7%
Sunday Mirror 13 0.6% 0 0%
Daily Star Sunday 1 >0.1% 1 100%
People 5 0.2% 1 20%
Mid-Markets
Daily Express 94 4.6% 33 35.1%
Sunday Express 16 0.8% 6 37.5%
Daily Mail 251 12.3% 33 13.1%
Mail on Sunday 53 2.6% 2 3.8%
Broadsheets
Times 217 10.6% 36 16.6%
Sunday Times 53 2.6% 9 17.0%
Daily Telegraph 270 13.2% 100 37.0%
Sunday Telegraph 33 1.6% 7 21.2%
Guardian 403 19.7% 199 49.4%
Observer 72 3.5% 2 2.7%
Independent 148 7.2% 7 4.7%
Ind. on Sunday 21 1.0% 2 9.5%
Financial Times 97 4.7% 25 25.8%
Totals 2,047 100.0% 484 30.1%
20Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
The Guardian’s volume of opinion articles (132 – approximately one quarter of
the total) is evidently partly due to the size of its online forum ‘Comment is Free’,
although only around half (64 of 132) were only published online, indicating that
a substantial proportion of its opinion pieces relating to press regulation were
included in print editions. In contrast, at the Daily Telegraph, which has another
substantial online comment forum in ‘Telegraph Blogs’, only 16 of 65 opinion pieces
were published in the print version.
It is worth noting here that three publishers (News UK, publisher of the Sun, The
Times, and the Sunday Times; DMG Media, publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail
on Sunday; Telegraph Media Group, publisher of the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday
Telegraph) account for over 70% of all leader articles published – 154 out of 217. The
significance of this is explored in Section 6 below.
titles as a proportion of their coverage.
Table 4: Article type, by title (N = 2,047)
Titles News Feature Leader Opinion
Tabloids No. % No. % No. % No. %
Sun 92 51.4% 3 1.7% 39 21.8% 45 25.1%
Daily Mirror 64 65.3% 5 5.1% 11 11.2% 18 18.4%
Daily Star 21 91.3% 1 4.3% 0 0% 1 4.3%
Sunday Mirror 2 15.4% 0 0% 2 15.4% 9 69.2%
Daily Star Sunday 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
People 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 5 100%
Mid-Markets No. % No. % No. % No. %
Daily Express 80 85.1% 0 0% 2 2.1% 12 12.8%
Sunday Express 12 75.0% 1 6.3% 2 12.5% 1 6.3%
Daily Mail 145 57.8% 21 8.4% 47 18.7% 38 15.1%
Mail on Sunday 25 47.2% 3 5.7% 8 15.1% 17 32.1%
Broadsheets No. % No. % No. % No. %
Times 161 74.2% 7 3.2% 21 9.7% 28 12.9%
Sunday Times 24 45.3% 8 15.1% 10 18.9% 11 20.8%
Daily Telegraph 172 63.7% 9 3.3% 24 8.8% 65 24.1%
Sunday Telegraph 11 33.3% 3 9.1% 5 15.2% 14 42.4%
Guardian 229 56.8% 27 6.7% 15 3.7% 132 32.8%
Observer 14 19.4% 6 8.3% 5 6.9% 47 65.3%
Independent 77 52.0% 7 4.7% 16 10.8% 48 32.4%
Independent on Sunday 10 47.6% 3 14.3% 1 4.8% 7 33.3%
Financial Times 68 70.0% 8 8.2% 9 9.3% 12 12.4%
21MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Tone of Overall Coverage – Evaluating Leveson and the
Royal Charter
Section 3 (above) outlines in depth the methodology used to calculate ‘Tone’ in
coverage of press regulation. To recap briefly: for each article, the calculation of
tone is based entirely on the presence of a list of ‘frames’, or specific arguments
about Leveson and/or the Cross-Party Royal Charter (see Section 3 above for a full
list and description). In other words, all 1,421 articles contained at least one of the
arguments featured on the list.
Of the 2,047 total articles in the sample, 1,421 (69.4%) contained one or more
evaluative statements for, or against, Leveson and/or the Cross-Party Charter by a
source or within the text of the article. Unless otherwise stated, the results in the
remainder of this section are derived from the 1,421 articles in which criticism or
support for Leveson or the Charter were recorded. Table 5 shows the prevalence of
the different frames in those articles:
Table 5: Number of instances of different arguments, N = 1,421
Critical/‘Negative’ Frames Number Prevalence
Threat to press freedom/freedom of expression 862 60.7%
Critical of specific Leveson Report/Charter recommendations 481 33.8%
Questions the legitimacy of the Leveson Inquiry 116 8.2%
Damage to UK’s reputation 84 5.9%
Critical of the Charter agreement (‘pizza deal’) 140 9.9%
Supportive/‘Positive’ Frames Number Prevalence
Supportive of Leveson Report 364 25.6%
Supportive of statutory underpinning recommendation specifically5 137 9.6%
Supportive of Cross-Party Charter 236 16.6%
This shows that by far the most common argument was that the Leveson
recommendations and/or the Cross-Party Royal Charter represented a potential
threat to press freedom or to freedom of expression. This argument was recorded in
862 articles in total, or 60.7% of all articles containing any frames. 5
The second most common frame was criticism of specific recommendations of the
Leveson Report, or of the provisions of the Cross-Party Charter, which occurred in
slightly over one-third of relevant articles. Third most common were arguments in
favour of the Leveson Report (in general or for specific recommendations), which
occurred in just under one-quarter, followed by support for the Cross-Party Charter.
While Table 5 lists the instances of different frames in relevant articles, Table 6
shows how these instances of frames translated into a measurement of the tone of
5 This figure does not include two articles where the concept of statutory underpinning was supported, but the specific measures in the Cross-Party Charter were rejected.
22Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
coverage.
Table 6: Framing: Balance of Tone, N = 1,421
Tone Frequency Percent
‘Positive-Only’ 216 15.2%
‘Negative-Only’ 834 58.6%
‘Both’ 371 26.1%
Total 1,421 -
Of the articles that contained frames, 834 – or 58.6% - contained only ‘negative’ frames
– that is, every opinion expressed in those articles was critical of either Leveson or
the Cross-Party Charter, or both. This is considerably more than double the number
of articles that contain both, almost four times the number that contained only
positive evaluative references, and more than the remainder of the total sample of
2,047 articles (626) that reported on press regulation but didn’t contain a view.
In other words, the largest proportion of all articles on press regulation published
by the UK national press during the 12-month period dating from the publication
of the Leveson Report contained only critical evaluative statements about either
the Leveson recommendations or the Cross-Party Royal Charter (i.e. no supportive
statements at all).
Chart 2: Articles containing viewpoints on Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter (N = 2,047)
256
357
71
136
398
157
121
89 91
28 31
236
76
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
No
. of
art
icle
s
No view expressed: 626
Positive views only: 216
Negative views only: 834
Both views expressed: 371
Views expressed: 1,421
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Independent on Sunday (N = 21)
Independent (N = 148)
Guardian (N = 403)
Financial Times (N = 97)
Sunday Express (N = 16)
Daily Express (N = 94)
Observer (N = 72)
Times (N = 217)
Daily Star (N = 23)
Daily Telegraph (N = 270)
Sunday Mirror (N = 13)
Mail on Sunday (N = 53)
Daily Mirror (N = 98)
Sunday Times (N = 53)
People (N = 5)
Sun (N = 179)
Sunday Telegraph (N = 33)
Daily Mail (N = 251)
Negative-only'
Both
Positive-only'
None
23MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
As Table 7 shows, the majority of the national press contained a broadly negative
focus on Leveson and/or the Cross-Party Charter. In the Sun, the Daily Mail and the
Mail on Sunday, over 80% of articles containing evaluative references to Leveson
or the Cross-Party Charter contained only negative references. In the Daily Mail,
‘negative-only’ articles outnumbered ‘positive-only’ by over 33-to-1; in the Sun the
ratio was 29-to-1.
Variations are notable between newspaper publishers – News UK titles all recorded
predominantly negative coverage, as did publications at DMG Media, Trinity Mirror
and Telegraph Media Group. Northern and Shell titles were slightly less negative
overall, while the Guardian (but not the Observer), Independent, Independent on
Sunday, and Financial Times all contained relatively greater proportions of positive
coverage and articles that contained both critical and supportive viewpoints. The
difference in coverage across different publishing groups is explored further in
Sections 5 – 8 below.
Table 8 compares the volume of ‘negative-only’ articles on press regulation, with
Table 7: Tone balance, by title (N = 1,421)
Tabloids Positive-only Negative-only Both Total % Negative
Sun 4 116 21 141 82.3%
Daily Mirror 6 52 20 78 66.7%
Daily Star 1 9 2 12 75.0%
Sunday Mirror 4 6 1 11 54.5%
Daily Star Sunday 0 0 0 0 0%
People 0 3 0 3 100%
Mid-Markets Positive-only Negative-only Both Total % Negative
Daily Express 9 33 26 67 49.3%
Sunday Express 6 5 4 15 33.3%
Daily Mail 5 169 26 200 84.5%
Mail on Sunday 2 25 4 31 80.6%
Broadsheets Positive-only Negative-only Both Total % Negative
Times 16 83 37 136 61.0%
Sunday Times 5 30 10 45 66.7%
Daily Telegraph 20 123 46 189 65.1%
Sunday Telegraph 3 22 5 30 73.3%
Guardian 86 86 64 236 36.4%
Observer 10 26 12 48 54.2%
Independent 22 19 56 97 19.6%
Independent on
Sunday6 2 4 12 16.7%
Financial Times 11 25 33 70 37.1%
24Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
the full sample of 2,047 articles that contained any mention whatsoever of press
regulation in the year following Leveson. Again, the Sun and Daily Mail stand out,
alongside the Sunday Telegraph – approximately two-thirds of coverage of any aspect
of press regulation in those titles contained wholly negative framing.
Table 8: Proportion of negative-only framing in total press-regulation coverage, by title
(N = 2,047)
Total articles,
full sample (N =
2,047)
Articles with
negative-only
frames
Percentage of
total articles,
negative-only
Tabloids
Sun 179 116 64.8%
Daily Mirror 98 52 53.1%
Daily Star 23 9 39.1%
Sunday Mirror 13 6 46.2%
Daily Star Sunday 1 0 0%
People 5 3 60.0%
Mid-Markets
Daily Express 94 33 35.1%
Sunday Express 16 5 31.2%
Daily Mail 251 169 67.3%
Mail on Sunday 53 25 47.2%
Broadsheets
Times 217 83 38.2%
Sunday Times 53 30 56.6%
Daily Telegraph 270 123 45.5%
Sunday Telegraph 33 22 66.7%
Guardian 403 86 21.3%
Observer 72 26 36.1%
Independent 148 19 12.8%
Independent on
Sunday21 2 9.5%
Financial Times 97 25 25.8%
Finally, Table 9 separates out the coverage of Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter as
individual issues. The results show that both attracted a majority of ‘negative-only’
articles, which in the case of the Leveson Report outnumbered ‘positive-only’ articles
by almost 3-to-1. This imbalance was even more pronounced for the Cross-Party
Charter, where over four times as many ‘negative-only’ articles were published than
‘positive-only’ ones.
25MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Table 9: Tone of coverage for the Leveson Report and Cross-Party Charter separately (N = 1,422)
Positive-only Negative-only Both % Negative
Leveson Report (N = 791)6 160 441 190 55.8%
Cross-Party Charter (N = 672) 91 433 148 64.5%
67
6 While these cases contain 42 articles where both the Leveson Report and the Cross-Party Charter were subject to criticism and/or support, the two issues are treated separately.
7 Daily Star Sunday not included as only one article published, containing no views
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
No
. o
f a
rtic
les
No view expressed: 626
Positive view only: 216
Negative view only: 834
Both views expressed: 371
View expressed: 1,421
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Independent on Sunday (N = 21)
Independent (N = 148)
Guardian (N = 403)
Financial Times (N = 97)
Sunday Express (N = 16)
Daily Express (N = 94)
Observer (N = 72)
Times (N = 217)
Daily Star (N = 23)
Daily Telegraph (N = 270)
Sunday Mirror (N = 13)
Mail on Sunday (N = 53)
Daily Mirror (N = 98)
Sunday Times (N = 53)
People (N = 5)
Sun (N = 179)
Sunday Telegraph (N = 33)
Daily Mail (N = 251)
Negative-only'
Both
Positive-only'
None
Chart 3: Balance of tone, by newspaper (N=2,047)7
26Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Summary
Press Regulation Coverage: Overall Figures
• Coverage of press regulation in the UK national press was extensive.
In the year following the publication of the Leveson Report, 2,047 articles
were published across the national daily and Sunday press, an average of
5.6 articles per day as compared to 4.0 per day in the 18 months from July
2011 until publication of the Leveson report in November 2012.8 There were
particularly high levels of coverage in three periods: in the aftermath of
the publication of the Leveson Report; around the agreement on the Cross-
Party Royal Charter in March 2013; and in October 2013, when the Royal
Charter was sealed following the Privy Council’s rejection of the newspaper
industry’s own draft Royal Charter.
• The majority of coverage contained some evaluation of Leveson or the
Charter. Over two-thirds of articles (1,421 of 2,047, or 69.4%) contained
one or more evaluative statements on the Leveson Report and/or the Cross-
Party Royal Charter. This was over three times as much as during the 18
months prior to publication of the Leveson Report (436 of 2,016, or 21.6%),
• A majority of the 1,421 articles – news and opinion – which contained
an evaluative statement contained only negative viewpoints. 835
articles (58.8%) contained only negative or critical viewpoints. 217 (15.3%)
contained only positive or supportive views, and 370 (26.0%) contained
both supportive and critical viewpoints.
• Both the Leveson Report and the Cross-Party Royal Charter received a
majority of negative coverage. 55.8% of articles containing a view on the
Leveson Report were entirely critical (i.e. containing not one single positive
reference), outnumbering positive articles by three to one. This rises to
64.5% of articles on the Cross-Party Charter, where the ratio is four to one.
• Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter were widely portrayed as a
threat to press freedom. In total, 862 articles contained this assertion by
a source or by the journalist - over 40% of all articles on any aspect of press
regulation. As a proportion of the 1,421 articles containing a viewpoint on
Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter, this figure rises to 60.7%.
8 See Part 1 of this analysis: http://mediastandardstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/05/MST-Leveson-Analysis-090513-v2.pdf
27MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
While the previous section presented the overall figures for coverage of press
regulation in the UK national press, the analysis here focuses on how the individual
newspapers covered press regulation.
The focus here is on three areas:
• Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter, including examples of ‘Negative-
only’, ‘Positive-only’ and ‘Both Positive and Negative’ Articles, to illustrate
the nature of coverage
• How other events relevant to press regulation were covered
• The different approaches to coverage by different sections of the press
The results in this section are based – unless otherwise stated – on the subset of 1,421
articles in which viewpoints on press regulation were included.
How the newspapers covered Leveson and the Cross-
Party Charter
As the results of the previous section demonstrated, the UK national press coverage
of press regulation was highly partial and broadly negative about the main proposed
solution: the recommendations in the Leveson Report, most of which were then
incorporated in the Cross-Party Charter.
Over two-thirds of all articles contained an opinion about Leveson and the Charter,
and of those articles, negativity predominated: the number of articles containing
wholly negative views outnumber those that contained only supportive views by
almost four-to-one, and articles containing both critical and supportive viewpoints
by over two-to-one.
While that evidence is significant, demonstrating that the UK national press tended
to oppose the reforms proposed in the Leveson Inquiry, it does not show the degree
of diversity in how the 19 separate titles approached the issue.
This section explores how individual newspapers – grouped, for convenience, by
publisher – covered press regulation. Given the large amount of data, the information
on each newspaper is summarised here. Appendix 1 contains the full set of data for
all 19 newspapers.
For each newspaper, a summary will be included here that lists the following
measures:
• The ratio of articles that contained only negative references to Leveson or
the Royal Charter, against those which contained only positive references.
• The percentage of articles in which Both supportive and critical viewpoints
5. HOW EACH NEWSPAPER COVERED PRESS REGULATION
28Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
are featured
• The prevalence (expressed as a percentage of those articles in which a
view was expressed) of the argument that Leveson and/or the Cross-Party
Charter represented a threat to press freedom or freedom of expression.
News UK Titles
The Sun
Summary of coverage in the Sun
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
29 : 1 14.9% 79.4%
The Sun featured an overall total of 179 articles that mentioned press regulation
– a large volume relative to other tabloids, which may be partly explained by the
paper’s seven-day publication.1
Table 1: The Sun - Press regulation coverage data
Articles: With frame(s): 141 Overall: 179
Tone:
Positive-only: 4
Negative-only: 116
Both: 21
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 82.2%
Negative-to-positive ratio: 29 : 1
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 112 (79.4%) Supports Leveson: 12
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 31 Supports underpinning: 3
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 13 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 13
International Reputation: 9
Critical of March 17th Process: 12
Of these 179 articles, 141 contained a view on Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter
(expressed via one of the ‘frames’ listed in Section 3 above). Negative-only articles
dominated: 116 in total, or 82.2% of all those articles in which one or more views
were expressed. The ratio of negative-only to positive-only articles was 29-to-1, one of
1 Full results for The Sun and all other newspapers are in Appendix 1
29MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
the highest ratios in the sample. Overall, coverage was highly negative – combining
the articles where ‘both’ positive and negative views were expressed with those in
which only one side was represented shows the extent of the imbalance: 137 articles
(97%) contained a negative view, and just 25 (18%) contained a positive one.
As separate issues, the Sun’s coverage of both the Leveson Report and the Cross-
Party Charter was negative – 86.7% (72/83) of articles expressing a view on Leveson
were negative-only, as were 76.7% (46/60) of those where a view on the Charter was
included (these figures for each title can be found in Appendix 1).
The Sun tended to frame press regulation as a threat to press freedom. This frame
was recorded in 112 articles – 79.4% of articles where a view was expressed, and
over 60% of all 179 articles mentioning any aspect of press regulation.
The Times and Sunday Times
Summary of coverage in The Times
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
5.3 : 1 27.0% 61.3%
The Times published a total of 217 articles on press regulation in this period. Of
these 217 articles, around two-thirds (137) contained evaluative statements about
Leveson or the Charter (see Appendix 1). Again, coverage was negative, though
slightly less negative than the Sun (61.3% negative-only, a ratio of over five to one).
Again, Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter each received a majority of negative
coverage, although this time there was a marked difference between the two.
Around half (47.4%) of articles expressing a view on Leveson contained only critical
viewpoints; this figure was 71.4% for articles concerning the Charter. The issue was
most frequently framed as a threat to press freedom – this view appeared in 82
articles (59.9%).
Summary of coverage in the Sunday Times
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
6 : 1 22.2% 77.8%
The Sunday Times published 53 articles on press regulation in this period. 45 of these
articles were evaluative (as opposed to neutral). Two-thirds of evaluative articles
were ‘negative-only’, only five were ‘positive-only’. This represents a negative to
positive ratio of 6:1. The Sunday Times was highly negative towards both Leveson
30Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
(64.3%) and the Cross-Party Charter (71.4%). Almost eight in ten of evaluative articles
contained the ‘threat’ frame (35 articles, 77.8% of those expressing a view).
Overall, all three News UK titles expressed an overwhelmingly negative view of
Leveson and the Charter. The Sun’s balance of 29 negative-only articles to every
positive article is notably high, and is accompanied by the fact that under 15% of Sun
articles contained both critical and supportive views. It is instructive, too, that both
News UK broadsheets also contained a substantial imbalance of negative to positive
articles (5 to 1 in The Times and 6 to 1 in the Sunday Times), and low levels of articles
containing both positive and negative viewpoints (27% and 22.2% respectively).
DMG Media Titles
The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday
Summary of coverage in the Daily Mail
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
33.8 : 1 13.0% 73.5%
The Daily Mail’s volume of coverage is comparable with many of the broadsheet
newspapers – 251 articles, 200 of which contained a view on Leveson or the Cross-
Party Charter. The Daily Mail was, of all newspapers, the most negative, both in
terms of volume and proportion. 169 articles contained only negative viewpoints
(84.5% of those which contained a view), compared with just five that contained
only positive views – a ratio of over 33:1. Again the ‘threat frame’ was extremely
common, expressed in 147 articles, but other critical frames were also present – 74
articles contained specific criticisms of the Leveson recommendations, 31 questioned
the legitimacy of Leveson, 41 were critical of the process of agreeing the Cross-Party
Charter on March 17th, and 12 contained the criticism that the UK’s international
reputation would be harmed by Leveson.
Summary of coverage in the Mail on Sunday
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
12.5 : 1 12.9% 74.2%
The Mail on Sunday was also overwhelmingly negative, although with a smaller
number of articles overall (53, of which 31 expressed a view), which amplifies the
effect of small variations in numbers. In total, 80.6% of articles expressing a view
contained only negative statements on Leveson/the Charter, a ratio of more than 12
31MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
negative-only articles to one positive-only. As with all titles discussed so far, both
Leveson (78.5% Negative-only) and the Cross-Party Charter (89.5% Negative) were
subject to a majority of negative coverage. Again, the ‘threat’ frame was the most
prominent, appearing in 23 (74.2%) articles, where a view was expressed.
Telegraph Media Group
The Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph
Summary of coverage in the Daily Telegraph
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
6.2 : 1 24.3% 75.7%
After the Guardian and the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph published the third-
highest number of articles containing a view on Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter
– 189 – out of a total of 270 articles on press regulation in this period. The Sunday
Telegraph was less prolific, publishing 30 articles in which a view was expressed, out
of a total of 33. Both newspapers contained a majority of negative viewpoints (65.1%
‘negative-only’ in the Daily Telegraph; 73.3% in the Sunday Telegraph; respective
negative to positive ratios of over 6:1 and over 7:1). The ‘threat’ frame was similarly
prevalent, articulated in 75.7% of those Daily and 86.7% of Sunday Telegraph articles
where a view was expressed.
Summary of coverage in the Sunday Telegraph
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
7.3 : 1 16.7% 73.3%
Though the balance was towards negative, the Daily Telegraph did contain a higher
degree of positive framing than noted in the titles discussed so far: 41 articles
contained one or more statement that was supportive of the Leveson Report (21.7%
of the total), and 26 contained one or more statement that was supportive of the
Cross-Party Charter (13.8%). However, these accounted for fewer than half of the
references to a perceived ‘threat to press freedom’ alone.
32Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Trinity Mirror
The Daily Mirror
Summary of coverage in the Daily Mirror
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
8.7 : 1 25.6% 82.1%
The Daily Mirror published a total of 98 articles on press regulation in this period, of
which 78 (79.6%) expressed a view. As with its tabloid rival the Sun, a majority of the
articles in the Daily Mirror that expressed a view were negative-only (66.7% of 78
articles expressing a view). This was a relatively smaller proportion in comparison
to the Sun, and the Mirror’s ‘positive-only to negative-only’ ratio, at slightly under
nine to one, was also less pronounced (although still markedly negative). This is
partly explained by the Mirror’s different approach to Leveson (54.1% negative-
only) and the Cross-Party Charter (76.7% negative-only). Again, however, the ‘threat’
frame dominated, appearing in 82.1% of articles expressing a view.
The Sunday Mirror and Sunday People
Summary of coverage in the Sunday Mirror
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
1.5 : 1 9.1% 54.5%
Summary of coverage in the Sunday People
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
N/A: 3/3 Negative-only 0% 100%
Trinity Mirror’s Sunday titles contained a very small number of articles: 13 overall
for the Sunday Mirror and just five in the People. The numbers for the People are so
small that valid comparison is difficult, but similarities of coverage are apparent:
of the three articles in which a view was expressed, all were negative-only, and all
contained the ‘threat’ frame.
The Sunday Mirror diverges slightly in that the percentage of negative-only articles
is significantly smaller (54.5%, with 50% of articles expressing a view about the
33MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Cross-Party Charter containing only positive opinions). This would appear in part
to be down to the very small number of articles (6 negative-only vs 4 positive-only),
and the effect of a weekly column by Lord Prescott broadly supporting the Cross-
Party Charter on more than one occasion.
Northern and Shell
The Daily Express and Sunday Express
Summary of coverage in the Daily Express
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
3.7 : 1 38.2% 64.7%
The Daily Express published 94 articles on press regulation in this period, of which
72.3% - 68 articles – expressed a view. The Sunday Express published 16 articles on
press regulation in this period of which 93.8%% - 15 articles – expressed a view.
While every newspaper covered so far has followed a similar formula of: a majority
of negative coverage; high ratios of positive-to-negative coverage; and a high
prevalence of the ‘threat’ frame, the Express titles were less systematically negative
in their coverage of Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter. ‘Negative-only’ articles
accounted for 48.5% of articles containing views in the Daily Express, although these
still outnumbered ‘positive-only’ articles by almost four to one, and the ‘threat’
featured in almost two-thirds of articles expressing a view.
Summary of coverage in the Sunday Express
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
Both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
0.8 : 1 26.7% 53.3%
The Sunday Express was considerably less negative – it is the only title so far
mentioned where there were more ‘positive-only’ (6) articles than ‘negative-only’
(5). As with the Sunday Mirror this may be in part down to the small sample (16
articles overall, with 15 containing one or more frames), although it is also the case
that there were more articles supporting Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter (10 in
total) than contained the ‘threat’ frame (8), partly due to a small number of articles
(4 in total) that contained quotes or references to victims or members of the Hacked
Off campaign.
34Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
The Daily Star and Daily Star Sunday
Summary of coverage in the Daily Star
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
9 : 1 16.7% 83.3%
The Daily Star published 23 articles on press regulation in this period. Of the articles
that expressed a view, 9 (or 75%) were negative-only, compared to just one positive-
only article. As with the Express, the sample size is much smaller than in most of the
other nationals. The threat frame appeared in 10 of 12 articles in which any view
was expressed.
Summary of coverage in the Daily Star Sunday
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
N/A: No views N/A N/A
The Daily Star Sunday featured just one article on press regulation (according to the
sampling technique applied in this project), and this did not feature an evaluative
statement about Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter. This indicates that the title did
not believe its audience would be interested in the issue.
Guardian Media Group
The Guardian
Summary of coverage in the Guardian
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
Both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
1 : 1 27.3% 35.2%
The Guardian represents a substantial departure from the style of coverage analysed
up to this point. Indeed, the difference in coverage in the remaining titles discussed
here is such that it is possible to explore structural differences in how certain
sections of the national press covered the issue. These structural differences will be
explored further in the last part of this section.
35MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Table 2 shows the contrast in coverage, in comparison with the Sun’s figures in Table
1 (data for all newspapers is set out in Appendix 1). The Guardian covered the issue
extensively – 405 articles in total, of which 236 contained one or more evaluative
statements about Leveson or the Charter. Of these, 36.4% contained only negative
viewpoints, with an almost equal proportion of ‘positive-only’ articles. Significantly,
only 35.2% of articles expressing a view contained the ‘threat’ frame. While many
articles did contain one or more critical/negative frames, there were a greater
number of instances of articles containing positive frames: 101 articles contained
statements supportive of the Leveson recommendations, 60 articles contained
statements supportive of the Cross-Party Charter, for instance.
The Observer
Summary of coverage in the Observer
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
2.6 : 1 21.7% 30.4%
For a Sunday title, the Observer contained a relatively high number of stories on
press regulation – 70 in total, more than one per week of the sample – of which
48 contained a viewpoint. Coverage was more negative than the Guardian, with
26 articles (54.2%) containing only negative viewpoints, more than double the
proportion that contained only positive views or that contained both positive and
negative perspectives. The ‘threat’ frame was, in keeping with the Guardian, far less
prevalent than in other titles, and was overshadowed by a critical focus on specific
aspects of the Leveson recommendations and/or the provisions in the Cross-Party
Charter.
Independent Print Ltd.
The Independent
Summary of coverage in the Independent
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
0.9 : 1 57.7% 30.9%
While the Guardian contained a greater proportion of ‘positive-only’ articles relative
to other newspapers so far, the Independent is notable in the space devoted to
articles containing both positive and negative viewpoints. While the focus on press
36Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
regulation was significantly lower than at the Guardian (148 articles, of which 97
expressed a view), less than one in five articles was ‘negative-only’, while 57.7%
contained both critical and supportive viewpoints. A comparably low proportion
of articles contained the ‘threat’ frame, and again it was not the most prevalent
frame; like the Guardian and Observer more articles contained specific criticisms
of recommendations, and more frames were supportive of Leveson and the Cross-
Party Charter.
The Independent on Sunday
Summary of coverage in the Independent on Sunday
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
0.3 : 1 33.3% 33.3%
The Independent on Sunday contained very few articles on press regulation overall,
so comparisons should be treated with care. However, similar characteristics to
the Independent and the GMG titles can be seen: a low proportion of ‘negative-only’
articles, more articles with positive references, and less common reference to the
‘threat’ frame, which appeared in just four out of 12 articles in which any view was
expressed.
Pearson
The Financial Times
Summary of coverage in the Financial Times
Negative vs. Positive
Articles
% articles where
Both views
represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame
2.3 : 1 47.8% 37.2%
Finally, the FT published 97 articles overall, of which 69 expressed a view. Of these,
like the Independent, the greatest proportion contained both positive and negative
viewpoints (33 articles, or 47.8%). Negative-only articles outnumbered positive-only
articles by over two to one, but the threat frame was not as prominent, being present
in 37.7% of articles, fewer than those articles mentioning specific reservations about
the recommendations for reform of regulation in the Leveson Report or the Cross-
Party Charter.
Overall, as this analysis has shown, three things have characterised the coverage of
Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter in the UK national press (see Table 2):
37MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
• In most newspapers the overwhelming majority of evaluative coverage was
negative. This fluctuated across different titles; in 15 out of 19 newspapers
the proportion of articles containing only negative viewpoints outweighed
the proportion containing only positive viewpoints. The Daily Mail had over
33 negative-only articles for every one positive-only article; the Sun had 29
negative-only articles for every positive-only article. Several broadsheets
also contained this imbalance, though in a less pronounced manner.
• The proportion of evaluative articles where both critical and supportive
viewpoints were included was generally low – in only two titles (the
Independent and the Financial Times) did a large proportion of such articles
contain both sides of the argument.
• The ‘threat’ frame was overwhelmingly dominant. In many titles it appeared
in over three-quarters of evaluative articles.
Table 2: Comparing newspaper coverage - key indicators
TitleNegative-only :
Positive-only
Percentage where Both
views represented
Prevalence of ‘threat’
frame in articles
expressing a view
Daily Mail 33.8 : 1 13.0% 73.5%
Sun 29 : 1 14.9% 79.4%
Mail on Sunday 12.5 : 1 12.9% 74.2%
Daily Star 9 : 1 16.7% 83.3%
Daily Mirror 8.7 : 1 25.6% 82.1%
Sunday Telegraph 7.3 : 1 16.7% 73.3%
Daily Telegraph 6.2 : 1 24.3% 75.7%
Sunday Times 6 : 1 22.2% 77.8%
Times 5.3 : 1 27.0% 61.3%
Daily Express 3.7 : 1 38.2% 64.7%
Observer 2.6 : 1 21.7% 30.4%
Financial Times 2.3 : 1 47.8% 37.2%
Sunday Mirror 1.5 : 1 9.1% 54.5%
Guardian 1 : 1 27.3% 35.7%
Independent 0.9 : 1 57.7% 30.9%
Sunday Express 0.8 : 1 26.7% 53.3%
Independent on Sunday 0.3 : 1 33.3% 33.3%
People N/A: 3/3 Negative-only 0% 100%
Daily Star Sunday N/A: No views N/A N/A
38Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Chart 1: Number of negative articles for every positive article, by newspaper (N=1,421)1
There is, however, evidence of a structural difference in how certain publishers
covered the issue. In general, the Guardian and Independent titles, along with the
FT, tended to have a closer ratio of negative-only to positive-only articles (ranging
from 2.6 : 1 in the Observer to 0.3 : 1 in the Independent on Sunday), and a greater
percentage of evaluative articles containing both critical and supportive views of
Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter, and proportionally fewer references to the
threat to press freedom. 2
2 Daily Star Sunday not included, as no articles contained any views; People not included, because 3/3 articles were negative
Ratio: Number of Negative articles to every Positive article, by newspaper (N = 1,421)Independent on Sunday (N = 21)0.3Sunday Express (N = 16)0.8Independent (N = 148)0.9Guardian (N = 403) 1Sunday Mirror (N = 13)1.5Financial Times (N = 97)2.3Observer (N = 72) 2.6Daily Express (N = 94)3.7Times (N = 217) 5.3Sunday Times (N = 53)6Daily Telegraph (N = 270)6.2Sunday Telegraph (N = 33)7.3Daily Mirror (N = 98)8.7Daily Star (N = 23) 9Mail on Sunday (N = 53)12.5Sun (N = 179) 29Daily Mail (N = 251)33.8
NB - Daily Star Sunday not included, as no articles contained any views, People not included, because 3/3 articles were negative
0.3
0.8
0.9
1
1.5
2.3
2.6
3.7
5.3
6
6.2
7.3
8.7
9
12.5
29
33.8
Independent on Sunday (N = 21)
Sunday Express (N = 16)
Independent (N = 148)
Guardian (N = 403)
Sunday Mirror (N = 13)
Financial Times (N = 97)
Observer (N = 72)
Daily Express (N = 94)
Times (N = 217)
Sunday Times (N = 53)
Daily Telegraph (N = 270)
Sunday Telegraph (N = 33)
Daily Mirror (N = 98)
Daily Star (N = 23)
Mail on Sunday (N = 53)
Sun (N = 179)
Daily Mail (N = 251)
39MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
How other relevant events were covered
The results for each of the national newspapers show that coverage of Leveson and
the Cross-Party Charter was, in the majority of papers, overwhelmingly negative.
Table 3 compiles the balance of coverage in each newspaper for both the Leveson
Report and recommendations, and the Cross-Party Charter as separate issues.
The percentages in Table 3 denote the largest proportion of articles for each title,
by tone category: those that are wholly negative, wholly positive, or contain both
negative and positive viewpoints. For instance, of the Sun articles that contained a
viewpoint on the Cross-Party Charter, 76.7% contained only negative views, while,
of Independent articles about Leveson, 40.4% contained both positive and negative
opinions (more than the proportion of negative-only or positive-only articles).
Table 3: Balance of Coverage of Leveson and Cross-Party Charter (N = 1,421)
Title No. of articles Balance: LevesonBalance: Cross-Party
Charter
Sun 141 86.7% Negative 76.7% Negative
Daily Mirror 78 54.1% Negative 76.7% Negative
Sunday Mirror 11 66.7% Negative 50.0% Positive
People 3 100% Negative 100% Negative
Daily Star 12 83.3% Negative 66.7% Negative
Daily Star Sunday 0 N/A N/A
Daily Express 68 = Negative & Both 74.1% Negative
Sunday Express 15 50.0% Positive 66.7% Negative
Daily Mail 200 86.2% Negative 85.0% Negative
Mail on Sunday 31 76.5% Negative 89.5% Negative
Times 137 47.4% Negative 71.4% Negative
Sunday Times 45 64.3% Negative 71.4% Negative
Daily Telegraph 189 61.2% Negative 70.5% Negative
Sunday Telegraph 30 46.2% Negative 94.4% Negative
Guardian 238 45.0% Positive 46.8% Negative
Observer 46 57.7% Negative 53.8% Negative
Independent 97 40.4% Both 66.7% Both
Independent on Sunday 12 = Positive & Both 80.0% Positive
Financial Times 69 51.2% Both 42.9% Negative
40Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
This is in itself a significant conclusion. However, the issue of press regulation
became more complex in the year following Leveson, as the timeline in Section 2
(above) illustrates. While this project was primarily based around analysing the
coverage of Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter, a secondary analysis was also
undertaken to see how other related issues were covered during the time period of
the study.
The additional six events chosen for analysis (also outlined in full in Section 3 above)
were:
• The February 12th Draft Royal Charter, drafted by the Conservatives in
consultation with the newspaper industry
• David Cameron’s decision to suspend cross-party talks on a new Charter
on March 14th
• The Industry Royal Charter presented as a rival to the Cross-Party Charter
in April 2013
• IPSO – the Independent Press Standards Organisation: the newspaper
industry’s new regulator, launched in July 2013
• The Privy Council’s decision to reject the Industry Charter in early October
2013
• The Privy Council’s sealing of the Cross-Party Charter in late October 2013
The reasons for choosing this list are set out in the timeline in Section 2: briefly, these
were the most significant events relating to the implementation of a new system of
press regulation, and each received a high number of articles (although some events
attracted more articles than others).
Because of the scope of the project and the scale of the frame analysis of articles
about Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter, it was decided that a similar analysis of
a further six events would be unrealistic. Instead, these six events were measured
in terms of whether coverage was ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ (or both); the ‘tone’
frames were not applicable in this case. The full dataset for this project contains an
explanation for decisions in all these cases, and is accessible on the Media Standards
Trust website.3
In total, 388 articles contained an evaluative statement (‘positive’, ‘negative’, or
‘both’) on these issues. As the first column of Table 4 shows, some articles contained
evaluative references to more than one of these events. In all, there were 440
instances across the 388 articles of evaluative references to the different separate
events.
Table 4 also shows the spread of articles containing views on the events. The volume
of coverage for the single events (Cameron’s decision to end talks, the decisions
to reject or seal the rival Charters) was, as may be expected, lower than for the
published documents or ongoing events, such as the Industry Charter.
3 http://mediastandardstrust.org/mst-news/media-standards-trust-content-analysis-how-the-uk-press-covered-leveson-and-the-royal-charter-dataset-published/
41MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
The Industry Charter, created and submitted to the Privy Council by the newspaper
industry funding body, Pressbof, received the most coverage, with 130 articles where
a view was expressed. The majority (75) of those articles contained only supportive
views – 57.7%, as compared with 35 (26.9%) that contained only critical views. Only
20 (15.4%) articles contained both.
119 articles contained a positive and/or negative reference to the February
12th Charter, with the press somewhat more split, and a plurality (50 articles, or
42.0%) containing both supportive and critical viewpoints. This perhaps reflects
the fact that there was a great deal of uncertainty around the issue of the use of a
Royal Charter in place of statute to underpin press regulation, and a high degree
of speculation on what the content of the Charter would be in the weeks before
the details were announced . Overall, there were more than double the articles
containing only positive views on the draft Charter than there were negative-only
articles. Uncertainty was also evident in the coverage of Cameron’s decision to end
the cross-party negotiations over the final form of what would eventually become
the Cross-Party Charter.
Event
(in chronological order)
No. of articles
where event is
referenced
Positive-only
(with %)
Negative-only
(with %)
Both
(with %)
Feb 12th Royal Charter 119 47 (39.5%) 22 (18.5%) 50 (42.0%)
Cameron’s Decision 30 11 (36.7%) 11 (36.7%) 8 (26.7%)
Industry Charter 130 75 (57.7%) 35 (26.9%) 20 (15.4%)
IPSO 81 53 (65.4%) 13 (16.0%) 15 (18.5%)
Industry Charter Rejected 55 4 (7.3%) 48 (87.3%) 3 (5.5%)
Cross-Party Charter Sealed 25 2 (8.0%) 15 (60.0%) 8 (32.0%)
The third most-covered of these events was the Independent Press Standards
Organisation, launched in April 2013 (and later finalised in October). The majority
of the 81 articles where a view was expressed – 53, or 65.4% - contained only positive
views on IPSO. In contrast, the decision by the Privy Council to reject the Industry
Charter on October 8th was subject to an overwhelming majority of negative
coverage: 87.3% or articles on that topic contained only negative views. The sealing
of the Cross-Party Charter around three weeks later attracted fewer articles, but also
received a majority of negative-only articles.
This suggests that most newspapers tended to be considerably less critical of industry-
backed initiatives than of events beyond the control of aspects of the industry. Table
6 explores this further, compiling the tone of coverage of each of the events by title.4
4 All of the information in Table 5 is derived from the data tables in Appendix 1
Table 4: Articles containing evaluative statements on events in press regulation
42Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Table 5: ‘Predominant tone’ of coverage of events, by title (N = 1,421)
TitleFeb 12th
RCCameron
Industry
CharterIPSO Rejected Sealed
Sun 70.0% Pos = Pos & Neg 100% Pos 100% Pos 75.0% Neg= Neg &
Both
Daily Mirror 55.7% Pos =Pos & Neg 75.0% Neg 100% Pos 100% Neg 66.7% Neg
Sunday Mirror 100% Neg 100% Pos
People 100% Pos
Daily Star = Pos & Neg 100% Neg
Daily Star Sunday
Daily Express 100% Pos 100% Pos 42.9% Both = Pos & Neg 100% Neg
Sunday Express 66.7% Neg 100% Pos 100% Pos 100% Neg
Daily Mail 66.7% Pos 100% Both 83.3% Pos 88.9% Pos 100% Neg= Neg &
Both
Mail on Sunday 100% Pos = Pos & Neg 100% Pos 100% Pos
Times 55.6% Pos= Neg &
Both53.8% Pos 75.0% Pos 83.3% Neg = Pos & Neg
Sunday Times 50% Pos 100% Pos 85.7% Pos 100% Pos 100% Neg 66.7% Neg
Daily Telegraph 45.0% Pos 66.7% Neg 76.2% Pos 70.0% Pos 85.7% Neg 100% Neg
Sunday Telegraph 100% Pos 100% Pos 100% Neg 100% Neg
Guardian 48.3% Both 66.7% Both 54.5% Neg 52.6% Neg 83.3% Neg 100% Neg
Observer 66.7% Neg 100% Neg 66.7% Pos 100% Pos 100% Neg 100% Neg
Independent 75.0% Both= Neg &
Both55.6% Both 60.0% Both = Pos & Neg 100% Both
Independent on Sunday 100% Pos 100% Neg 100% Pos = Pos & Neg
Financial Times 77.8% Both 66.7% Pos 66.7% Both = Pos & Neg 66.7% Both
43MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
The information here shows two overall trends:
First, there is, for the most part, a significant degree of uniformity of tone on the
various issues. For example, 12 out of 19 newspapers contained a majority (always
over 75%) of negative-only articles on the rejection of the Industry Charter by the
Privy Council. Likewise, IPSO received a majority of positive-only coverage across
most newspapers, as did the Industry Royal Charter. Opinion was more balanced
on Cameron’s decision to end cross-party negotiations, and while significantly more
newspapers had a majority or plurality of positive-only coverage of the February
12th Charter, the level of support tended to be slightly lower.
Second, there is an apparent difference in the structure of coverage in the
Independent titles and the Financial Times, in comparison with the rest. These three
newspapers were more likely to contain articles that provided a balance of both
critical and supportive viewpoints on the various issues. This reinforces trends
observed elsewhere in this section that there are substantial differences in how
different sections of the newspaper industry have covered press regulation.
44Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Two styles of coverage
The combined evidence of coverage of Leveson and the Royal Charter broken down
by the different titles, and the way that the various titles dealt with other issues related
to press regulation indicate that, although there has been a degree of conformity
in how press regulation has been covered, there appear to be divergences in how
different sections of the press have covered the issue. A substantial portion of the
press contained a significant majority of negative coverage of both Leveson and the
Cross-Party Charter, a high level of polarisation in coverage (i.e. low levels of articles
that contain ‘both’ critical and supportive viewpoints), and a very high prevalence of
articles containing claims that the Leveson recommendations represented a threat
to press freedom.
Another grouping of newspapers followed a less polarised approach – or in the
case of the Guardian a polarised approach in which negative and positive articles
featured in similar proportions – and all of these contained a significantly higher
proportion of articles containing a balance of viewpoints
The analysis below shows that a substantial difference in tone and focus of coverage
can be found between two groups of newspapers: those newspapers that are
published by News UK, DMG Media, Trinity Mirror, Telegraph Media Group and
Northern & Shell – which have been strongly negative towards Leveson and the
Royal Charter; and those published by Guardian Media Group, Independent Print
Ltd and Pearson.5 This was tested by measuring the results of three indicators across
both groups, as shown in Table 6.
News UK, DMG Media, Trinity
Mirror, Telegraph Media
Group, Northern & Shell
Guardian Media Group,
Independent Print Ltd, Pearson
Percentage of articles
‘Negative-only’70.5% 34.2%
Percentage of articles ‘Positive-
only’8.4% 29.2%
Percentage of articles
containing ‘Both’ viewpoints21.1% 36.6%
‘Negative-only’ to ‘Positive-
only’ Ratio8.3 : 1 1.2 : 1
Prevalence of ‘Threat’ frame in
evaluative articles73.3% 34.4%
5 It could be argued that the Northern & Shell titles represent a slight anomaly (the Daily Star and its Sunday partner contained very low levels of coverage relative to comparable, while the Express titles diverged in their levels of negativity). They have been included in the first group due to their strongly negative approach to the Cross-Party Charter, and the high prevalence of the ‘Threat’ frame in the Daily Express and Daily Star.
Table 6: How different sections of the press covered Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter (N = 1,421)
45MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
As the results of Table 6 show, both groups score very differently on all measures.
Among the first group, 70.5% of articles (677 of 960) where a view was expressed
on Leveson and/or the Cross-Party Charter contained only negative or critical
viewpoints. For the second group, this proportion was less than half – 34.2% (158 of
462 relevant articles. Translating this into the total sample of 2,047 articles (including
those that contained no evaluative opinions on Leveson), while approximately one
fifth (21.3%) of articles published in the second group contained only negative
viewpoints, over half (51.8%) of the first group did.
Likewise, the ratio of ‘positive-only’ to ‘negative-only’ articles was far higher in
the first group: for every positive-only article, there were more than eight articles
containing only critical viewpoints. In comparison, the second group (Guardian/
Observer/Independent/Independent on Sunday/FT) had similar proportions of
negative and positive articles, a ratio of 1.2 : 1.
In addition, the first group was far more likely to publish articles containing the
argument that Leveson and/or the Cross-Party Charter represented a threat to press
freedom. Over three-quarters of articles where a view was expressed contained this
frame. In the second group this figure was again less than half: 34.4%.
Assuming these measures represent a substantially different approach to covering
the issue of press regulation (or at least the most significant aspects of press
regulation during the study period – Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter), two
issues are of particular significance here:
1. The newspapers in the first group, presenting coverage that is strongly
anti-Leveson and far more likely to include the threat frame, accounts for
over 90% of weekly circulation of national newspapers, and approximately
three-quarters of the different titles in the national newspaper market.
2. The publishers in the first group – with the partial exception of Northern
& Shell – publicly rejected Leveson’s recommendations, rejected the Cross-
Party Charter, and have been active in setting up IPSO.
46Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Summary
• The majority of national newspapers contained a high proportion of
negative-only coverage of Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter. Certain
newspapers featured a significant majority of negative-only coverage: for
every article in the Daily Mail that contained only positive viewpoints, there
were more than 33 that contained only critical views. In the Sun, this ratio
was 1 : 29. Of 18 newspapers that published articles with viewpoints on
Leveson or the Charter,6 14 contained more negative-only than positive-
only articles; in nine titles the imbalance was by a ratio of over five to one.
• Only a minority of coverage – news and opinion – sought to be balanced.
Articles, including news articles, tended to express one single view without
reference to opposing views: in 15 of 18 newspapers containing articles
where views were expressed, the proportion where both positive and
negative viewpoints were included was below 30%; in seven titles it was
below 20%.
• Coverage of Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter was mostly negative ,
as contrasted with coverage of the newspaper industry’s Royal Charter
and the newspaper industry plans for a new regulator (IPSO) which
was mostly positive. While on average only 15.3% of articles containing
a view on Leveson or the Charter were wholly positive, 57.7% of articles
with a view on the newspaper Industry’s Charter were positive, as were
65.4% of articles containing a view on IPSO. The results suggest that the
majority of newspapers gave strong support to the newspaper industry’s
own initiatives, and were highly critical of those initiatives that were not
led by the newspaper industry.
• There was a structural difference in how sections of the national press
covered Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter. After observing differences
in coverage across groups of publishers, a separate analysis of those titles
published by News UK, DMG Media, Telegraph Media Group, Trinity Mirror,
and Northern & Shell found that those titles contained highly negative
coverage (70.5% of articles containing a view were ‘negative-only’), a lower
proportion of positive coverage (on average, around one positive article for
every eight negative articles published), with the ‘threat to press freedom’
frame appearing in 74.5% of articles containing a view. Significantly, this
group accounts for over 90% of weekly national newspaper circulation, and
three-quarters of the national newspaper market. In contrast, those titles
published by Guardian Media Group, Independent Print Ltd, and Pearson
contained half as many negative articles proportionally (34.2% of articles),
less than half as many instances of the ‘threat to press freedom’ frame
(34.4% of articles), a roughly equal ratio of positive to negative articles (1 :
1.2), and were almost twice as likely to publish articles that contained both
supportive and critical viewpoints.
6 Of the 19 national newspapers featured in the study, one – the Daily Star Sunday – did not feature any articles in which critical or supportive views of aspects of press regulation were included.
47MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
This section analyses the coverage of press regulation in Leader and Opinion articles.
As Section 5 showed, there was a substantial increase in the proportion of coverage
devoted to commentary following the Leveson report – leader and opinion articles
make up around one-third of all national press coverage of press regulation during
the year following publication.
Leader and comment articles are of particular interest in this analysis. They contain
definite, attributable opinions, as opposed to a record of a source’s viewpoint
(although the latter is also significant). They also, in the case of leader articles in
particular, contain an authoritative, persuasive voice with a demagogic purpose
beyond merely recording a view.
This analysis is not trying to evaluate whether the arguments being made are in
any sense ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ – instead, the purpose is to record how opinions were
expressed by national newspapers and their columnists on Leveson and the Royal
Charter. Section 8 (below) will look separately at how press regulation was covered
in factual reporting.
Table 1: Breakdown of commentary articles, all newspapers (N = 2,047)
Type of Article Overall Total
Contains evaluative
opinion of Leveson or
Cross-Party Charter
Percentage
containing
evaluative opinion
Leader 217 197 90.8%
Opinion 510 369 72.4%
- Guest opinion 101 79 78.2%
Table 1 shows the breakdown of leader and opinion articles that were published
in the UK national press between 29th November 2012 and 29th November 2013.
Unsurprisingly, leader and opinion articles dealing with press regulation were highly
likely to contain an evaluative viewpoint on Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter.
Over 90% of leader articles, and almost three-quarters of opinion pieces contained
one or more of the evaluative frames used to measure the tone of coverage.
As with the rest of the analysis, this means those articles that contain one or more
of the evaluative frames about Leveson or the Royal Charter. While in factual news
articles one central topic is the main subject, many newspapers publish leader
articles that deal with two or three separate issues. In practice, many of the leaders
analysed here were primarily focused on press regulation. A full list of all leaders
6. COVERAGE OF PRESS REGULATION IN LEADER AND OPINION ARTICLES
48Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
(and the reasons for their categorisation on the basis of tone) is included in Appendix
2.
This section considers how Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter were represented
in leader and opinion articles, respectively.
Leader Articles
As Table 2 shows, the number of leader articles published was not evenly distributed
across titles; the Daily Mail and the Sun published the most (39 and 47 respectively),
although there was consistency in the high proportion of leaders containing
evaluative frames regarding Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter.
Of 197 leader articles in which a view was expressed on Leveson or the Cross-Party
Charter, 156 were negative-only – 79.2%. While the People, Daily Star and Daily
Star Sunday contained no leaders, of the remaining 16 titles over half published
a significant majority of negative-only leader articles. At the Sun and the Daily
Mail, which together accounted for over two-fifths of leaders containing a view on
Leveson or the Charter, the balance was over 90% negative.
The balance was similar in six other titles. In every one of the Daily Mirror’s leaders
which contained a view, that view was negative-only; similarly with the Mail on
Sunday. 85% of Times leaders were negative-only, as were 89.5% of Daily Telegraph
leaders and 80% of those in the Sunday Times. Negative-only majorities in the Sunday
Telegraph and Financial Times were slightly lower, at 60% and 62.5% respectively,
while at each of the Express titles only one out of a total of two articles was negative-
only.
Proportions were much lower at the Guardian (25%) and Independent (15.4%) as
well as at their respective Sunday sister titles (although these numbers were tiny –
1/4 in the Observer and 0/1 in the Independent on Sunday).
49MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Table 2: Number of leader articles, by title
Title
Total Number
of Leader
articles
Leaders
containing
evaluative
frame(s)
‘Negative-
only’ Leader
articles
Percentage
‘Negative-
only’
Sun 39 36 35 92.2%
Daily Mirror 11 10 10 100%
Sunday Mirror 2 2 2 100%
People 0 0 0 0
Daily Star 0 0 0 0
Daily Star Sunday 0 0 0 0
Daily Express 2 2 1 50.0%
Sunday Express 2 2 1 50.0%
Daily Mail 47 46 44 95.7%
Mail on Sunday 8 7 7 100%
Times 21 20 17 85.0%
Sunday Times 10 10 8 80.0%
Daily Telegraph 24 19 17 89.5%
Sunday Telegraph 5 5 3 60.0%
Guardian 15 12 3 25.0%
Observer 5 4 1 25.0%
Independent 16 13 2 15.4%
Independent on Sunday 1 1 0 0%
Financial Times 9 8 5 62.5%
Total 217 197 156 -
Table 3 shows the overall breakdown of tone across all 197 leaders. While just 34
leaders (17.3%) contained both positive and negative views, this may be explained
by the fact that it is usually the purpose of leader articles to assert an unambiguous
position on a topical policy issue. More significant is very low number of positive-
only leaders (7 in total, or 3.6% of those where a view is expressed), and the balance
of ‘negative-only’ to ‘positive-only’ articles (over 22 negative leaders for every
positive).
Table 3: Tone of leader articles where a view is expressed (N = 197)
Tone Number Percentage
Positive-only 7 3.6%
Negative-only 156 79.2%
Both 34 17.3%
Total 197 100%
50Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Figure 1 shows the relative imbalance:
Figure 1: Breakdown of leader articles by tone, all newspapers (N = 197)
Positive-only:
Negative-only:
Both:
7
156
34
As with Section 6, an analysis of the data in Table 2 indicates that there is a difference
between how different sections of the press covered the issue. Apart from the Financial
Times, in which five out of eight leaders were negative, the split between sections seems to
have been maintained. Table 4 shows the balance of leaders in the titles published by News
UK, DMG Media, Trinity Mirror, Telegraph Media Group and Northern & Shell. 145 of 159
leaders were negative (91.2%), and just one (representing 0.6% of the total) was positive.
Table 4: Tone of leader articles where a view is expressed, News UK/DMG Media/
Trinity Mirror/TMG/Northern & Shell
Tone Number Percentage
Positive-only 1 0.6%
Negative-only 145 91.2%
Both 13 8.2%
Total 159 100%
51MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
However, the sole ‘positive-only’ leader was published in the Daily Mail online on
28th November 2012, and in the print edition on the 29th1. It was therefore gathered in
the sample (which began on 29th November 2012), but was actually published before
the Leveson Report was published. It is included here for consistency, although it
would be accurate to claim that none of the newspapers of these news organisations
published a single positive leader on Leveson or the Cross-Party Royal Charter in the
year following the publication of the Leveson Report.
Figure 2: Breakdown of leader articles by tone, News UK/DMG Media/Trinity
Mirror/TMG/Northern & Shell (N = 159)
Continuing the analysis of this subset of titles, it is clear that – as was shown in
Section 6 above – there was a very high degree of consistency in the tone of how
these newspapers covered the issue of press regulation. As Table 5 shows, there was
unanimity in the opinions expressed on certain events related to press regulation
in the leader articles of these titles. All mentions of the Industry Royal Charter,
which featured in 19 leaders, were favourable, as were all eight mentions of IPSO.
Conversely, every mention of either the rejection of the Industry Charter, or the
sealing of the Cross-Party Charter, was critical.
1 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2240069/PPI-mis-selling-Silencing-cold-claim-sharks.html
Positive-only:
Negative-only:
Both:
1
145
13
52Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Table 5: Leaders on press regulation events: News UK/DMG Media/Trinity
Mirror/TMG/Northern & Shell
EventNo. of leaders
mentioning eventTone
Industry Royal Charter 19 19/19 Positive
IPSO 8 8/8 Positive
Rejection of Industry Charter 8 8/8 Negative
Sealing of Cross-Party Charter 7 7/7 Negative
The threat frame was also much more prevalent in this subgroup of titles. As Table
6 demonstrates, the proportion of leader articles in those titles that included the
threat frame was 85.5% (136 out of 159 leaders). In the leaders published by titles
from Guardian Media Group, Independent Print Ltd and Pearson that expressed a
view, just 34.2% contained the ‘threat’ frame.
Table 6: Threat frame prevalence in leaders in which a view on Leveson or the
Cross-Party Charter was expressed, by subgroup
Number
of leaders
Percentage
of leaders
Threat prevalence (all leaders), N = 197 149 75.6%
Threat prevalence (Subgroup 1 – News UK,
etc), N = 159136 85.5%
Threat prevalence (Subgroup 2 – GMG, etc), N
= 3813 34.2%
While a deeper analysis of the repetition of the claim that Leveson and the Royal
Charter represented a threat to press freedom is explored in Section 9 below, the
headlines of some leaders give an indication of the language deployed to frame
press regulation. The full list of leaders and their headlines is included in Appendix
2, but some examples are illustrative:
• ‘Crackdown that could stifle your right to know’, Daily Mail, 30th November
2012
• ‘Lords a-leaping to gag the press’, Sunday Times, 10th February 2013
• ‘A tawdry alliance and a threat to a free press’, Daily Mail, 15th March 2013
• ‘A muzzled media will make victims of us all’, Daily Telegraph, 18th March
2013
• ‘Press freedom: no longer made in Britain, Sunday Times, 24th March 2013
• ‘An ominous threat to shackle our free press’, Daily Telegraph, 5th October
2013
• ‘A dire day for freedom’, Daily Mirror, 9th October 2013
• ‘Shadowy figures who would like to muzzle the press’, Sunday Telegraph, 3rd
November 2013
53MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Opinion Articles
In total, 510 opinion articles were published during the sample, of which 369
contained one or more of the evaluative frames regarding Leveson or the Cross-Party
Charter. Again, articles that are designed to represent an opinion were less likely to
contain both supportive and critical viewpoints, as Table 7 shows: just 42 articles
– 11.4% of the total – contain both supportive and critical viewpoints. Positive-
only opinion pieces account for just 14.9% of the total, while those containing only
negative views accounted for 73.7% of the total.
Table 7: Opinion articles containing a view on Leveson or the Cross-Party
Charter (N = 369)
ToneOpinion articles containing
one or more framesPercentage
Positive-only 55 14.9%
Negative-only 272 73.7%
Both 42 11.4%
As Table 8 shows, of the 17 newspapers that published opinion articles expressing
a view on Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter, nine – more than half – published
none that were positive. At the Daily Mirror, Daily Express, and Daily Mail every
opinion piece published was negative. At the Sun (40 of 41 negative-only), the
Daily Telegraph (53 of 55 negative-only), and the Sunday Telegraph (13 of 14), the
proportion of negativity was also extremely high. A relatively high number of
negative opinion articles was also present in the Observer, attributable in large part
to former Guardian editor, Peter Preston, who accounted for 17 of the Observer’s 24
critical opinion articles over the course of the year.
54Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Table 8: Tone of opinion articles in which a view on Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter was
expressed, by title
Title Total Positive-only Negative-only Both
Sun 41 0 40 1
Daily Mirror 16 0 16 0
Sunday Mirror 7 4 3 0
People 3 0 3 0
Daily Star 0 0 0 0
Daily Star Sunday 0 0 0 0
Daily Express 12 0 12 0
Sunday Express 1 0 1 0
Daily Mail 32 0 32 0
Mail on Sunday 10 2 4 4
Times 21 2 16 3
Sunday Times 10 0 8 2
Daily Telegraph 55 0 53 2
Sunday Telegraph 14 0 13 1
Guardian 75 29 31 15
Observer 29 4 24 1
Independent 31 10 10 11
Independent on Sunday 3 3 0 0
Financial Times 8 1 5 2
Total 369 55 272 42
This again demonstrates the difference between the subgroups that have been
analysed up to this point. Of the 223 opinion articles featured in the group of titles
published by News UK et al, 202 were critical of Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter
(90.6%), and only 8 (3.6%) were positive (Table 9):
Table 9: Tone of opinion articles, by News UK/DMG Media/TMG/Trinity Mirror/
Northern & Shell
ToneOpinion articles containing
one or more framesPercentage
Positive-only 8 3.6%
Negative-only 202 90.6%
Both 13 5.8%
Total 223 100%
Finally, Table 10 shows how the subgroup of articles published by News UK, DMG
55MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Media, Trinity Mirror, Telegraph Media Group, and Northern & Shell portrayed
Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter in leader and opinion articles. Combined, these
titles published 382 articles that contained opinions by journalists (named, or leader-
writers) about Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter. 223 of these were opinion pieces,
159 were leaders. Though not all of these articles was solely about press regulation,
nonetheless they each contained one or more of the ‘negative’ or ‘positive’ frames
that denoted a critical or supportive viewpoint of Leveson or the Charter. Only 9
(2.4%) were positive-only. Over 38 times as many were negative-only (347, or 90.8%),
and a tiny amount included both (6.8%). In 324 of these articles it was alleged that
Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter represented a threat to press freedom – 84.8% of
the total (Table 10).
The scale of negativity is significant in itself, but it is matched in its consistency. Over
90% of opinion and leader articles concerning Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter, in
over 90% of the UK national press (by weekly circulation) were negative.
Table 10: Tone and ‘Threat’ frame in leader and opinion articles combined:
News UK/DMG Media/TMG/Trinity Mirror/Northern & Shell titles
Leader Opinion Combined
Number of articles 159 223 382
Number, ‘negative-only’ 145 202 347
Percentage ‘negative-only’ 91.2% 90.6% 90.8%
Ratio, ‘negative-only’ : ‘positive-only’ 145 : 1 25.3 : 1 38.6 : 1
Number containing ‘Threat’ frame 136 188 324
Percentage containing ‘Threat’ frame 85.5% 84.3% 84.8%
56Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Summary
• Leader articles and opinion articles were, by a very large margin,
hostile to Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter. Out of 197 leader articles
in which a view was expressed on Leveson or the Charter, 156 (79.2%) were
negative-only and just 7 (3.6%) were positive-only. In addition, 272 of 369
opinion articles (73.7%) were negative-only, with 55 (14.9%) positive-only.
• Newspapers belonging to News UK, DMG Media, Trinity Mirror,
Telegraph Media Group and Northern & Shell were far more likely to
be negative than those published elsewhere. The relevant opinion and
leader articles published by this group of titles were extremely hostile to
Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter:
- 90.8% of all such articles were negative-only (347 of 382);
- For every positive-only opinion or leader article published by these
newspapers, more than 30 negative-only articles were published;
- 84.8% of leader or opinion articles by these titles contained the
argument that Leveson or the Charter represented a threat to press
freedom.
57MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
While Section 7 demonstrated that the ‘commentary’ devoted to press regulation
tended to be overwhelmingly hostile to the Leveson Report and the Cross-Party
Royal Charter, this section looks at the nature of ‘factual’ coverage in the national
press.
‘Factual coverage’ in this analysis denotes articles intended to provide new
information to the reader – News articles (reports providing new or recently-
acquired information), and Feature articles (providing detail and context on a topic
“in a manner not necessarily subject to the constraints of timeliness demanded
of a news item”).1 ‘Feature’ articles tended to consist of interviews, timelines, or
summaries of how proposed regulatory systems might work, or of the range of
opinions by sources on a given aspect of press regulation.
Table 1 shows that 1,208 ‘News’ and 112 ‘Feature’ articles containing some reference
to press regulation were published in all UK newspapers in the year following the
publication of the Leveson Report. Of these articles, 806 ‘News’ articles (66.7%)
contained one or more of the frames denoting ‘tone’, as did 49 ‘Feature’ articles
(43.8%).
Table 1: Breakdown of factual articles, all newspapers (N = 2,047)
Type of Article TotalContains evaluative opinion of Leveson or
Cross-Party Charter, with percentage
News 1,208 806 (66.7%)
Feature 112 49 (43.8%)
In other words, two-thirds of news reports contained evaluative viewpoints, either
by sources or as part of the editorial content of the article. This was a considerably
higher rate than that recorded during the Leveson Inquiry itself. The previous
Media Standards Trust analysis of national press coverage of Leveson from 11th July
2011 until 28th November 2012 found that just 14.7% of news articles (and 16.7% of
features articles) on press regulation contained views for or against Leveson (Table
2).
1 See ‘Informative discourse types’, in Higgins, M. (2006) ‘Substantiating a political public sphere in the Scottish press: A comparative analysis’, Journalism, 7(1), pp25-44
7. COVERAGE OF PRESS REGULATION IN FACTUAL ARTICLES
58Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Table 2: Comparison of evaluative opinion in factual articles, pre- and post-
Leveson Report
Type of
Article
Factual articles containing
evaluative viewpoints, 11th
July 2011 – 28th Nov 2012 (N
1,459)
Factual articles containing
evaluative viewpoints, 29
Nov 2012 – 29 Nov 2013 (N =
1,320)
News 206/1,399 (14.7%) 806/1,208 (66.7%)
Feature 10/60 (16.7%) 49/112 (43.8%)
All Factual 216/1,459 (14.8%) 855/1,320 (64.7%)
Chart 1: Percentage of Factual articles containing negative or positive
viewpoints, before and after Leveson
14.8%
64.7%
85.2%
35.3%
Before Leveson Report (1,459Factual articles, June 2011 - Nov
2012)
After Leveson Report (1,320 articles,Nov 2012 - Nov 2013)
Neutral (contains noevaluative viewpoints)
Contains one or moreevaluative statements
Neutral (contains no
evaluative viewpoints)
Contains one or more
evaluative viewpoints
59MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Analysis – News articles
This section focuses on ‘News’ articles –conventional news reports of press regulation
gathered in the sample. Specifically, it looks at a breakdown of those News articles
published in the national press in which a view on Leveson or the Royal Charter was
expressed. Table 3 shows the balance of tone in those News articles.
Table 3: Tone of News articles where a view is expressed (N = 806)
Number of Articles Percentage
Negative-only 377 46.8%
Positive-only 148 18.4%
Both 281 34.9%
This shows that, in 377 News articles (46.8% of those where a view was expressed),
only views critical of Leveson or the Royal Charter were included. This was more
than double the amount of articles containing only positive views (148, or 18.4%),
and significantly more than those articles where both positive and negative opinions
were included.
Table 4 shows the breakdown of News articles containing a view, by newspaper title.
As with the Leader and Opinion articles discussed in the previous section, certain
publishers published a far greater proportion of articles that were ‘negative-only’.
The Daily Mail published 112 News articles containing viewpoints on Leveson or
the Cross-Party Charter. 74.1% of those News articles (83 in total) contained only
negative views. This compared with just four articles containing only positive
opinions. Every article in the Mail on Sunday containing a view was negative-only
(13 in total).
More than half of all News articles containing an opinion published in The Sun, the
Times, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Star contained only negative views, as did
more than 40% in the Sunday Times, Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph.
Such articles published in the Express and Sunday Express tended to be less likely to
contain exclusively negative views, and the Sunday Express published considerably
more positive-only than negative-only articles, although the very low number of
articles published by that title means that the result is more susceptible to being
skewed.
60Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Table 4: Tone in News articles containing a view, by title (N = 806)
Title
News articles
containing
evaluative
frame(s)
‘Positive-
only’
‘Negative-
only’‘Both’
Percentage
‘Negative-
only’
Sun 61 4 38 19 62.3%
Daily Mirror 51 5 26 20 51.0%
Sunday Mirror 2 0 1 1 50.0%
People 0 0 0 0 N/A
Daily Star 11 1 8 2 72.7%
Daily Star Sunday 0 0 0 0 N/A
Daily Express 54 9 20 25 37.0%
Sunday Express 11 6 2 3 18.2%
Daily Mail 112 4 83 25 74.1%
Mail on Sunday 13 0 13 0 100%
Times 93 14 49 30 52.7%
Sunday Times 18 4 8 6 44.4%
Daily Telegraph 109 20 51 38 46.8%
Sunday Telegraph 9 3 4 2 44.4%
Guardian 145 53 50 42 34.5%
Observer 11 5 1 5 9.1%
Independent 51 9 7 35 13.7%
Independent on Sunday 7 2 2 3 28.6%
Financial Times 48 9 14 25 29.2%
Total 806 148 377 281 -
Levels of ‘negative-only’ articles published by the Guardian, Observer, Independent,
Independent on Sunday and Financial Times were also comparatively low (although
for the Sunday titles the effect of low numbers is again significant).
Table 5 builds on the evidence in Table 4 and demonstrates, as noted in previous
sections, that there was a substantial difference between how different publishers
covered press regulation in News articles.
61MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
In titles published by News UK, DMG Media, Trinity Mirror, Telegraph Media Group
and Northern & Shell – accounting around 90% of newspaper circulation and three-
quarters of national titles – factual news coverage was:
• Twice as likely than that of the other publishers to contain only negative
viewpoints
• Less than half as likely to contain only positive viewpoints
• Significantly less likely to contain both positive and negative viewpoints
• Almost twice as likely to contain the claim that Leveson or the Royal Charter
represented a threat to press freedom
Table 5: How different sections of the press covered Leveson and the Cross-
Party Charter - News articles (N = 806)
News UK, DMG Media,
Trinity Mirror,
Telegraph Media
Group, Northern &
Shell
Guardian Media Group,
Independent Print Ltd,
Pearson
Percentage of articles
‘Negative-only’55.7% 28.2%
Percentage of articles
‘Positive-only’12.9% 29.8%
Percentage of articles
containing ‘Both’
viewpoints
31.4% 42.0%
‘Negative-only’ to
‘Positive-only’ Ratio4.3 : 1 0.9 : 1
Prevalence of ‘Threat’
frame in evaluative
articles
65.8% 38.2%
62Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Summary
• A majority of factual news coverage (i.e. news reports and features)
contained statements for or against Leveson or the Royal Charter. 806
News articles (66.7% of the total) and 49 Feature articles (43.8%) contained
evaluative viewpoints on Leveson or the Charter. For News articles, this
was a fourfold increase on the same measure of coverage in the 18 months
prior to the Leveson Report (14.7%). Of these 806 News articles, almost
half (46.8%) contained negative-only viewpoints.
• As with opinion-based coverage, most of the press focused considerably
more on critical views of Leveson and the Charter. Titles published
by News UK, DMG Media, Trinity Mirror, Telegraph Media Group and
Northern & Shell were again far more likely to publish articles containing
views hostile to Leveson than titles published elsewhere:
- 55.7% of all News articles by these five publishers contained only
negative viewpoints, compared with 28.2% in titles published by
Guardian Media Group, Independent Print Ltd and Pearson;
- There were considerably fewer articles containing only
supportive viewpoints (12.9% versus 29.8%)
- The ‘threat to press freedom’ frame was more prevalent in the
newspapers of these five publishers, being present in 65.8% of
articles in which any viewpoint was expressed. This compared
with 38.2% of such articles by other publishers
63MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
In the analysis of the ‘tone’ of articles that underpins this project, one frame stands
out as having been consistently deployed – by sources or by journalists – in articles
about press regulation: that Leveson (and latterly the Cross-Party Charter) represents
a threat to press freedom, or to freedom of expression.
In total, 862 articles included this frame (Table 1). Therefore the ‘threat to press
freedom’ frame appeared in over 60% of the 1,421 articles in which any view on
Leveson or the Royal Charter was expressed, and in over 40% of all articles in which
any mention of press regulation was included anywhere in the article (2,047 in total).
It was by some margin the most common way the national press represented the
reforms outlined in the Leveson Report and the subsequent Royal Charter. As Table
1 indicates, it was frequently included in leader articles: of 217 leaders published
between 29th November 2012 and 29th November 2013, the ‘threat’ frame occurred
in 149, or 69%.
Table 1: Types of article containing ‘Threat’ frame (N = 862)
Frequency Percentage (of 862 articles
containing ‘threat’ frame)
News 458 53.1%
Feature 29 3.4%
Leader 149 17.3%
Opinion 226 26.2%
Total 862 100%
The issues that the Leveson Inquiry and its subsequent report dealt with are
complex, and there are many different interpretations of what the implications of
its recommendations mean for the press and public life. These have been dealt with
extensively elsewhere, but it is clear that there is no consensus on whether or not
Leveson represents a threat to press freedom or to the right of freedom of expression
(although the following section of this report outlines how public opinion tended not
to support this belief). Some organisations and individuals have published eloquent
and evidence-based arguments on how they view the proposals in Leveson/the Royal
Charter as incompatible with the role of journalism in society. However, often – as
this section shows – the articles published in the national press provided no basis
or rationale to support their claim that Leveson or the Royal Charter represents a
threat to press freedom.
This section also shows that, in most cases, the assertion that Leveson and the
Royal Charter represents a threat to press freedom was presented as fact without
supporting evidence, and often accompanied by emotive language to re-emphasise
the unsubstantiated threat.
8. HOW THE ‘THREAT TO PRESS FREEDOM’ WAS PORTRAYED
64Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
The purpose of this section is to explore and illustrate how the ‘threat to press
freedom’ frame was deployed, and to analyse how different publishers approached
the issue.
The ubiquity of the ‘Threat’ frame – uses and evidence
Table 2 indicates how often different titles used the ‘Threat’ frame, and how
prevalent it was in all the articles published in which any view was expressed. As
the results show, certain publications were far more likely to include it, not just in
terms of absolute numbers, but in most articles in which any view was expressed.
Table 2: Prevalence of ‘Threat’ frame, by title
Title
No. of all articles
containing any
frames, published
by title (N = 1,421)
No. of articles with
‘Threat’ frame
(N = 862)
Percentage of all articles
expressing a view (N = 1,421),
in which the ‘Threat’ frame
was recorded
Sun 141 112 79.4%
Daily Mirror 78 64 82.1%
Sunday Mirror 11 6 54.5%
People 3 3 100%
Daily Star 12 10 83.3%
Daily Star Sunday 0 N/A: No frames N/A
Daily Express 67 44 64.7%
Sunday Express 15 8 53.3%
Daily Mail 200 147 75.4%
Mail on Sunday 31 23 74.2%
Times 136 84 61.3%
Sunday Times 45 35 77.8%
Daily Telegraph 189 143 75.7%
Sunday Telegraph 30 26 86.7%
Guardian 236 85 36.1%
Observer 48 14 30.4%
Independent 97 30 30.9%
Independent on Sunday 12 4 33.3%
Financial Times 70 26 37.7%
65MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
In fact, four newspapers – the Daily Mail, the Sun, The Times and the Daily Telegraph
– together account for over half of all articles containing the ‘Threat’ frame (486
articles, or 56.4% of the total). Once their Sunday counterparts are added (The Mail
on Sunday, the Sunday Times and the Sunday Telegraph), this proportion rises to 66%
(570 articles).
Although this represents a large number of articles in the absolute sense, the
proportion of coverage by these titles that include the ‘Threat’ frame is also very high.
The Sun’s 112 articles containing the frame accounted for 79.4% of all Sun articles
in which any view was expressed. This figure was 75.4% in the Daily Mail, 75.7% in
the Daily Telegraph, and 61.3% in The Times. In comparison, in the Guardian, which
also published a large number of articles containing the frame (85), this accounted
for just 36.1% of all articles in which a view was expressed.
If the split between sections of the press noted in all previous sections is considered,
the results in Table 2 demonstrate that those newspapers published by News UK,
Trinity Mirror, DMG Media, Telegraph Media Group and Northern & Shell were far
more likely to focus on the threat frame.
Of 1,421 total articles in which a view on Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter was
expressed, 958 were by titles owned by this group of publishers. Of these, 703 articles
(73.4%) included the threat frame. By contrast, titles published by Guardian Media
Group, Independent Print Ltd and Pearson accounted for 159 articles in which the
‘Threat’ frame was included. This was 34.3% of the 463 articles expressing any view.
Table 3 shows how the ‘Threat to press freedom’ frame was presented to the public
by the national press: usually with no evidence to support the claim; rarely including
the counter-argument made in Parliament and by civil society groups and others –
Proportion of articles containing tone (N = 1,421), in which the 'Threat' frame is included
Observer (N = 48)30.4%Independent (N = 97)30.9%Independent on Sunday (N = 12)33.3%Guardian (N = 236)36.1%Financial Times (N = 70)37.7%Sunday Express (N = 15)53.3%Sunday Mirror (N = 11)54.5%Times (N = 136)61.3%Daily Express (N = 67)64.7%Mail on Sunday (N = 31)74.2%Daily Mail (N = 200)75.4%Daily Telegraph (N = 189)75.7%Sunday Times (N = 45)77.8%Sun (N = 141) 79.4%Daily Mirror (N = 78)82.1%Daily Star (N = 12)83.3%Sunday Telegraph (N = 30)86.7%People (N = 3) 100.0%
How newspapers presented the 'threat to press freedom'Yes No
Threat' claim supported by evidence29.9% 70%Article contains counter-argument to threat claim15% 85%Threat' claim ascribed to identified, quoted source(s)41% 59%
30.4%
30.9%
33.3%
36.1%
37.7%
53.3%
54.5%
61.3%
64.7%
74.2%
75.4%
75.7%
77.8%
79.4%
82.1%
83.3%
86.7%
100.0%
Observer (N = 48)
Independent (N = 97)
Independent on Sunday (N = 12)
Guardian (N = 236)
Financial Times (N = 70)
Sunday Express (N = 15)
Sunday Mirror (N = 11)
Times (N = 136)
Daily Express (N = 67)
Mail on Sunday (N = 31)
Daily Mail (N = 200)
Daily Telegraph (N = 189)
Sunday Times (N = 45)
Sun (N = 141)
Daily Mirror (N = 78)
Daily Star (N = 12)
Sunday Telegraph (N = 30)
People (N = 3)
29.9%
15%
41%
70%
85%
59%
Threat' claim supported byevidence
Article contains counter-argument to threat claim
Threat' claim ascribed toidentified, quoted source(s)
Yes
No
Chart 1: Proportion of articles expressing a view (N = 1,421), in which the ‘Threat’ frame is included
66Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
that Leveson or the Royal Charter safeguarded, or did not threaten, press freedom;
and not usually based on a claim by a source.
It is perhaps most significant that in 604 articles (70.1% of those in which the ‘Threat’
frame appeared), no evidence was put forward to support the claim that Leveson or
the Charter threatened press freedom; instead, it was usually presented as part of an
article with no explanation or context. Examples of this are included below.
Similarly, despite the lack of consensus on the implications of the Leveson
recommendations for press freedom, the counter-balancing arguments (either that
Leveson or the Charter safeguarded press freedom, or that they posed no threat to
press freedom) were rarely included. These viewpoints were included in only 14.8%
of articles containing the ‘Threat’ frame.
Finally, more often than not, the claim that Leveson or the Charter posed a threat
to press freedom was made without a quote by an identified source. In 506 articles
(58.7% of the total), the frame occurred without any supporting quote.
Table 3: Presenting the ‘Threat’ frame (N = 862)
Yes No
‘Threat’ claim supported by evidence 258 (29.9%) 604 (70.1%)
Article contains counter-argument 128 (14.8%) 734 (85.2%)
‘Threat’ frame statement ascribed to
identified, quoted source(s)356 (41.3%) 506 (58.7%)
Proportion of articles containing tone (N = 1,421), in which the 'Threat' frame is included
Observer (N = 48)30.4%Independent (N = 97)30.9%Independent on Sunday (N = 12)33.3%Guardian (N = 236)36.1%Financial Times (N = 70)37.7%Sunday Express (N = 15)53.3%Sunday Mirror (N = 11)54.5%Times (N = 136)61.3%Daily Express (N = 67)64.7%Mail on Sunday (N = 31)74.2%Daily Mail (N = 200)75.4%Daily Telegraph (N = 189)75.7%Sunday Times (N = 45)77.8%Sun (N = 141) 79.4%Daily Mirror (N = 78)82.1%Daily Star (N = 12)83.3%Sunday Telegraph (N = 30)86.7%People (N = 3) 100.0%
How newspapers presented the 'threat to press freedom'Yes No
Threat' claim supported by evidence29.9% 70%Article contains counter-argument to threat claim15% 85%Threat' claim ascribed to identified, quoted source(s)41% 59%
30.4%
30.9%
33.3%
36.1%
37.7%
53.3%
54.5%
61.3%
64.7%
74.2%
75.4%
75.7%
77.8%
79.4%
82.1%
83.3%
86.7%
100.0%
Observer (N = 48)
Independent (N = 97)
Independent on Sunday (N = 12)
Guardian (N = 236)
Financial Times (N = 70)
Sunday Express (N = 15)
Sunday Mirror (N = 11)
Times (N = 136)
Daily Express (N = 67)
Mail on Sunday (N = 31)
Daily Mail (N = 200)
Daily Telegraph (N = 189)
Sunday Times (N = 45)
Sun (N = 141)
Daily Mirror (N = 78)
Daily Star (N = 12)
Sunday Telegraph (N = 30)
People (N = 3)
29.9%
15%
41%
70%
85%
59%
Threat' claim supported byevidence
Article contains counter-argument to threat claim
Threat' claim ascribed toidentified, quoted source(s)
Yes
No
‘Threat’ claim supported
by evidence
Article contains counter-
argument to threat claim
‘Threat’ claim ascribed to
indentified, quoted source(s)
Yes
No
Chart 2: How newspapers presented the ‘threat to press freedom’
67MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
In total, 375 articles were published in which the ‘Threat’ frame was included, but
without supporting evidence to justify the claim and where the claim was not based
on a quote from an identified source.
Table 4 contains a breakdown of these 375 articles, by publishing group. 337 were
published by titles owned by News UK, DMG Media, Telegraph Media Group, Trinity
Mirror and Northern & Shell – this accounted for 47.9% of all articles published by
those titles in which the ‘Threat’ frame was featured. By contrast, 23.9% of articles
containing the ‘Threat’ frame published by titles owned by Guardian Media Group,
Independent Print Ltd and Pearson contained no supporting evidence or quote.
Table 4: ‘Threat’ articles with no evidence or source quote, by publisher
‘Threat’ articles
without evidence
or source quote
Combined articles without
evidence or source quote
(with percentage)
News UK 114
337 of 703 (47.9%)
DMG Media 91
Telegraph Media Group 70
Trinity Mirror 43
Northern & Shell 19
Guardian Media Group 19
38 of 159 (23.9%)Independent Print Ltd 10
Pearson 9
68Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
How the perceived threat was described
The evidence shows, therefore, that where the claim was made that Leveson or
the Royal Charter represents a threat to press freedom it was rarely supported by
evidence or rationale. Nor were opposing views included.
Instead, in many cases, the claim was accompanied by emotive language and further
assertions about the dangers associated with Leveson and the Charter.
A survey of the 2,047 articles indicates that the language used was highly emotive.
A survey of repeated phrases used in the full sample of articles (over one million
words) finds the following used frequently:
Table 5: Recurring phrases in newspaper coverage of press regulation (2,047 articles)
Phrase Number of mentions
‘Press freedom’ 732
‘Free press’ 652
[MPs’] ‘expenses’ 349
‘Chill’/‘Chilled’/‘Chilling’ 237
- ‘Chilling effect’ 75
‘300 years’ [refers to last press licensing laws] 167
- ‘300 years of press freedom’ 49
‘Curb’/‘Curbs’/‘Curbed’ 152
‘License’/‘Licensed’/‘Licensing 126
‘Draconian’ 119
‘Shackle’/‘Shackles’/‘Shackled’/‘Shackling’ 110
‘Political interference’ 89
‘Muzzle’/‘Muzzled’/‘Muzzling’ 82
‘State Control’ 80
‘Free Speech’ 70
‘Stitch-up’/‘Stitched-up’ 44
‘Political control’ 37
‘1695’ [year Government licensing of the Press ended] 34
‘Centuries of press freedom’ 26
‘Threat to press freedom’ 26
‘Government control’ 15
‘Totalitarian’ 14
‘Zealots’ 12
- ‘Press-hating zealots’ 7
While this doesn’t necessarily provide a scientific analysis of the way the ‘threat’
69MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
frame was articulated (nor does it count the mentions of possible threats to press
freedom couched in more temperate words), it does show that the framing was
generally judgmental and dramatic. Although it is possible that these phrases may
have been repeated in single articles, it is not likely that this was widespread, and so
it can be estimated that the 581 mentions of ‘curbs’, ‘muzzles’, ‘shackles’ or ‘chilling’
(or a derivative of those words) were spread across hundreds of articles.
Several examples illustrate both the emotive language used, and the tendency of
claims to be presented as statements of fact in the body of news articles:
Parties agree state controls on the press (Daily Telegraph, 12th Oct 2013)
THE newspaper industry has criticised politicians’ plans for the state to “impose” rules on the press for the first time in more than 300 years.[…]
Regulation will be imposed on press (Daily Telegraph, 9th Oct 2013)
THE first rules on state regulation of the press for more than 300 years will be set out this week after politicians rejected the newspaper industry’s plans for self–regulation.[…]
Media check (Sunday Times, 3rd Nov 2013)
The Queen approved a royal charter that paves the way for state oversight of the press, in a move it is feared will end centuries of press freedom. Publishers failed in a last-ditch attempt at the High Court and Court of Appeal to halt the government’s plans, saying there had not been proper consultation.[…]
Ex-cop’s rap for Leveson(Daily Mirror, 21st Feb 2013)
LORD Leveson’s plans to curb press freedom could mean corruption goes unexposed, a police chief warned yesterday.[…]
70Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Papering over the cracks: Leveson proposals will come back to bite British democracy, warns Watergate legend (Daily Mirror, 30th Nov 2012)
Lord Leveson sparked fears for the future of investigative journalism yesterday by proposing draconian curbs on reporters. […]
Warning that press regulation will send ‘wrong signal’ to Commonwealth (Times, 12th April 2013)
Government plans to shackle the press with flawed and hasty legislation violate “a basic principle of democracy” and risk giving the world’s dictators ammunition to silence their own people “by drawing ugly examples from Britain”.
The stark warning from the Commonwealth Journalists’ Association (CJA) comes amid growing concerns from rights campaigners that Britain is squandering its position as a bastion of free speech by introducing statutory regulation of the press for the first time in more than 300 years.[…]
Each of these excerpts from articles contains a reference to the threat to press
freedom as a part of the body of the article (rather than directly quoted from a
source), and presented as a statement of fact. In addition, they show typical examples
of the language used to describe Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter: “plans to curb
press freedom”; “Government plans to shackle the press”, and so on.
The highly emotive language that was used in leader columns and opinion pieces
after the Leveson Report was published then infiltrated news reports and features.
By the time the Royal Charter was approved by the three Parties in March the emotive
language was being used in commentaries and news reports almost interchangeably.
The example below also shows that the language used about the threat to press
freedom was even replicated across different opinion pieces, by different authors.
The example below shows that, on 15th March 2013 (immediately before the
agreement of the Cross-Party Charter), an opinion piece by the Sun’s Associate Editor
Trevor Kavanagh shared sections of text with another column by Andrew Nicoll,
Political Editor of the Scottish Sun.
71MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
The Sun, 15th March 2013
If MPs seize the presses. it is
YOU who will lose out; FIGHT
OVER NEWSPAPER
CONTROL TREVOR Kavanagh
ANYONE who fears for a free Press if it ever fell under political control needs
only to look at yesterday's all-party fiasco on newspaper legislation.
The spat between David Cameron and an alliance of Labour, Lib Dems and
Tory rebels was pure, bloody-minded politics in action.
What began as an attempt to bring newspapers to heel has turned into a bitter
partisan struggle between the Prime Minister and his political enemies.
Ed Miliband knew David Cameron would never accept a Press law — and he
pushed him to the limit in order to place him in the wrong.
But the real casualty threatens to be the irreversible loss of a truly free Press
that protects the interests of all parties.
The newspaper industry has long abandoned hope that Britain might follow
America, the Land Of The Free, and adopt true freedom of speech as the
bulwark of a free people.
You can be outspoken and even offensive, as long as you don't endanger life,
like crying "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. We acknowledge that extreme cases
of Press intrusion are unforgivable.
But sweeping and often contradictory Leveson proposals risk an irreparable
blow to foundations of true democracy.
On the one hand, Labour and the Lib Dems want legal underpinning which
would expose investigative journalism to political meddling.
On the other, Mr Cameron seeks a royal charter, separate from politicians, but
open to pressure for change from ministers in any future government.
For the Press, this is a choice between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea.
For the public, it would mean surrendering the safeguard of a traditionally
robust newspaper industry which for 300 years — and for all its faults — has
been the defender of the ordinary citizen against the rich and powerful.
Newspapers believe there is a third way — a powerful, responsive and
accountable body to regulate the industry free from political influence. Rivals
— who would traditionally fight each other to the last ditch — are working
hard to win the elusive prize of agreement across all titles.
The object is to deliver everything Leveson requires.
But without the destructive elements which could cripple an industry already
threatened with eclipse by the internet, which risks no such regulation.
Without a free Press, we will suffer ever more suffocating bureaucracy and
more undiscovered corruption in our public life.
Think of the Hillsborough cover-up, the conspiracy of silence over the Mid
Staffs hospital deaths and the increasingly draconian action of our secretive
police.
Look across the Channel, where it is an offence for officials to criticise the EU
and where scandalous French presidential candidates are protected by privacy
laws from exposure.
That is how politicians like it. They don't want the media probing into their
expenses or tax-free perks.
Others who become rich at our expense hide behind super-injunctions, gagging
orders and the oppressive laws of libel to stop us learning of their misdeeds
and hypocrisy.
It's the ordinary man and woman — including millions of Sun readers — who
will lose out if politicians seize control of the presses.
The Scottish Sun, 15th March 2013
If MSPs seize the presses. it is
YOU who will lose out; FIGHT
OVER NEWSPAPER
CONTROL Andrew Nicoll
ANYONE who fears for a free press in Scotland has good reason to be worried
today.
This afternoon the committee set up by Alex Salmond in the wake of the
Leveson report into the Press will issue its findings.
The committee, led by judge Lord McCluskey and made up of a mix of people
of whom you've never heard, didn't take evidence from one single Scottish
newspaper editor or publisher.
Despite that, it's likely they will go far beyond anything Westminster is
planning and recommend some form of statutory underpinning to control the
Scottish Press.
This will strike at the very heart of our democracy and at a hugely important
time in Scotland's political history. And you, as a newspaper reader, should be
worried.
It means surrendering the safeguard of a traditionally robust newspaper
industry which for 300 years — and for all its faults — has been the defender
of the ordinary citizen against the rich and powerful.
No one would disagree that extreme cases of press intrusions are unforgivable.
No one would disagree that some journalists have dragged the industry's
reputation into the gutter. But is there any evidence that the Scottish Press
behaved in the same cavalier fashion as some of Fleet Street's worst? The
fiasco over a new press law south of the border has provided Salmond with the
perfect opportunity to force through new legislation in Scotland.
No doubt he'll point to the splits in the Coalition, the break-up of talks and the
lack of any political consensus to say that if Westminster can't get its house in
order, then Holyrood can.
Liberty And none of the dissenting voices, none of the objections, will matter.
Salmond has a majority in parliament and can force through any law he sees
fit.
David Cameron is risking a split with his LibDem Coalition partners — a split
Labour is eager to exploit — by stopping short of unworkable legal restraints
on the Press.
In a world where extremists and criminals can play the Human Rights card
because they have a pet cat, the Prime Minister knows that throwing padlocks
around the Press will never survive scrutiny in the courts. When he is speaking
out for liberty in Libya and Syria, Zimbabwe and Russia, he knows that legal
restraints on the Press will make Britain a laughing stock.
But Alex Salmond wants something even tougher.
This could put newspapers, not just this one with a huge circulation and
readership, but small, local papers selling just a few thousand copies, in
jeopardy by exposing them to a simple choice — risk massive fines by
refusing to join the government licensed scheme or keep quiet and toe the line.
But, for some reason, when newspaper circulations are under increasing
pressure from the internet the regulations won't apply to the web.
The editors of almost every single newspaper in Scotland are opposed to
statutory control of the Press.
What a pity that Salmond's committee didn't seek their views — and perhaps,
more importantly, they didn't seek yours either.
Remember: Politicians don't want your newspapers probing into their expenses
or dodgy flat deals. Others who become rich at your expense hide behind
superinjunctions, gagging orders and libel laws to stop us learning of their
misdeeds and hypocrisy.
It's the ordinary men and women, including hundreds of thousands of Scottish
Sun readers, who will lose out if the MSPs seize control of the presses.
Summary
72Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Summary
• The argument that Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter posed a threat
to press freedom was very frequently referenced in the national press.
862 articles published on the topic contained the argument – 42.1% of all
articles mentioning any aspect of press regulation, and 60.7% of those in
which a view of Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter was expressed.
• The claim that press freedom was being threatened was often presented
with no supporting evidence, no counter-argument, and without a
quote by an identified source. Less than 30% of articles in which the
‘Threat’ argument was made included specific evidence to justify the claim.
Only 14.8% of these articles included the counter-argument that Leveson
or the Charter did not threaten press freedom or political interference, and
less than half based the ‘Threat’ claim on a quote from an identified source.
• The language used to describe Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter
was emotive, repetitive, and focused on freedom and government
interference. There were hundreds of references to ‘press freedom’
in newspaper coverage of press regulation, and to ‘shackles’, ‘muzzles’,
and ‘curbs’ on the press. Certain phrases were repeated across news and
opinion articles, and several newspapers, indicating a lack of plurality
in the presentation of press regulation. Opinion came increasingly to be
presented as fact, crossing the divide from ‘leader’ and ‘opinion’ articles, to
factual news articles, and there was evidence of arguments being replicated
word-for-word across comment pieces.
73MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
The first opinion poll dealing with issues related to press regulation following the
commencement of the Leveson Inquiry was published in May 2012. Between then
and June 2014 there have been 24 separate opinion polls published that contained
questions concerning some aspect of press regulation.
Table 1: All opinion polls featuring questions
on press regulation, from May 2012
Poll Dates of Fieldwork
IPPR/YouGov 20-21 May 2012
Hacked Off/YouGov 3-6 Oct 2012
Carnegie UK & Demos/Populus Published Oct 2012
Sun/YouGov 4-5 Nov 2012
Free Speech Network/Survation 12-13 Nov 2012
Media Standards Trust/YouGov 21-23 Nov 2012
ITV News/ComRes 23-25 Nov 2012
BBC Radio 5 Live/ComRes 23-25 Nov 2012
Sunday Times/YouGov 30 Nov – 1 Dec 2012
Media Standards Trust/YouGov 31st Jan – 1st Feb 2013
YouGov 10-11 Mar 2013
Sunday Times/YouGov 14-15 Mar 2013
YouGov 19 Mar 2013
Sunday Times/YouGov 24 Mar 2013
Free Speech Network/Survation 1 May 2013
Media Standards Trust/YouGov 1-2 May 2013
Media Standards Trust/YouGov 17-18 Jul 2013
ITV News/ComRes 4-6 Oct 2013
Media Standards Trust/YouGov 9-10 Oct 2013
Guardian/ICM 11-13 Oct 2013
Sun/YouGov 14-15 Oct 2013
Free Speech Network/Survation 18-21 Oct 2013
Media Standards Trust/YouGov 2-4 Jun 2013
Sunday Times/YouGov 26-27 Jun 2013
As a result, there is an unusually large amount of public opinion data on this issue
– conducted by a range of different polling companies and commissioned by a
variety of different organisations – between these dates. While the analysis of public
9. HOW COVERAGE OF PRESS REGULATION FAILED TO REFLECT PUBLIC OPINION
74Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
opinion data is often an inexact science, the high volume of comparable information
generated on the topic of press regulation means that it is possible to draw some
conclusions with confidence.
Table 1 shows the full list of opinion polls that relate to press regulation since the
Leveson Inquiry was announced.1 The shaded area denotes the polls that were
published between 29th November 2012 and 29th November 2013. The polls that were
actually reported by the press (14 out of 24) during this period2 are in bold.
Perhaps surprisingly, given the emotive focus in much newspaper coverage of press
regulation, the volume of articles that referenced any aspect of public opinion on the
matter was minimal. Out of 2,047 total articles, just 33 (1.6%) contained any mention
of polling data. Two of those articles mentioned two polls simultaneously, meaning
there were 35 separate references to actual public opinion data. As Table 2 shows,
nine newspapers contained no reference to public opinion data, and the Guardian
accounted for over one-third of all references to polls, with 13 references.
Table 2: References to polls on press regulation in national newspapers
TitleNo. of
ReferencesPolls referenced
Sun 3 Free Speech Network (FSN) Nov ’12; FSN May ’13; Sun Oct ‘13
Daily Mirror 2 ITV/ComRes Nov ’12; FSN Oct ‘13
Sunday Express 2 Media Standards Trust (MST) Nov ’12; MST Jan ‘13
Daily Mail 4 MST Nov ’12 + Sun ‘Nov ’12; FSN Nov ’12; FSN Oct ‘13
Times 3 MST Jan ’13; Sunday Times Mar 24th ’13; FSN May ‘13
Sunday Times 3 Sunday Times Nov/Dec ’13 (x3)
Daily Telegraph 2 FSN May ’13; FSN Oct ‘13
Guardian 13
BBC/ComRes Nov ’12 (x2); MST Nov ’12 (x2); Sunday Times Nov/Dec
’12; MST Jan/Feb ’13; YouGov Mar 19th ’13 (x2); MST May ’13; FSN May
’13; MST July ’13; Sun Oct 13 + MST Oct 13
Observer 1 MST Jan/Feb ‘13
Independent 2 MST Jan/Feb ’13; MST July ‘13
1 Links to the full data of all polls listed in Table 1 can be found here: http://mediastandardstrust.org/blog/a-list-of-all-polls-on-press-regulation-published-since-may-2012/
2 Other polls were covered by the press (including the Hacked Off/YouGov poll of 3rd-6th Oct 2012, and the Free Speech Network/Survation poll of 12th-13th Nov 2012), but this coverage was published before the sampling for this project began on 29th November 2012.
75MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Did newspaper coverage of press regulation reflect
public opinion?
Polling before publication of the Leveson Report
The four polls covered by the press that were conducted immediately prior to
the publication of the Leveson Report found that the public wanted tough press
regulation, that people were comfortable with legal backing for such a system, but
that they were also wary of any political involvement. Within these findings there
were considerable differences and some contradictions.
A Media Standards Trust/YouGov poll, conducted on 21st-23rd November 2012
(approximately one week before the publication of the Leveson Report), asked about
how the press should be regulated:
Which of the following statements comes closer to your view on how you think
newspapers in Britain should be regulated?
There should be an independent body, established by law, which deals with complaints
and decides what sanctions there should be if journalists break agreed codes of conduct:
79%
Newspapers should establish their own body which deals with complaints and decides
what sanctions there should be if journalists break agreed codes of conduct: 9%
Neither: 4%
Don’t know: 8%CHART 1 CHART 2
CHART 3 CHART 4
79%
9%
4%
8%
"Which of the following statements comes closer to your view on how you think newspapers in Britain should be
regulated?"
There should be an independent body,established by law, which deals withcomplaints and decides whatsanctions there should be if journalistsbreak agreed codes of conduct"
Newspapers should establish theirown body which deals withcomplaints and decides whatsanctions there should be if journalistsbreak agreed codes of conduct
Neither
Don't know
8%
82%
10%
"Do you think national newspapers should be allowed to opt out of any new regulatory system, or should all national newspapers
be obliged to join by law?"
Newspapers should be allowed to optout
Newspapers should be obliged to joinby law
Don't know
74%
9%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Should implement therecommendations
Should not implement therecommendations
Don't know
"Generally speaking, do you think the government should or should not implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations?"
50%
13%
13%
24%
"Which Royal Charter do you think the Privy Council should approve?"
The one approved by Parliament
The one proposed by major newspaperpublishers
Neither
Don't know
There should be an independent
body, established by law, which
deals with complaints and decides
what sanctions there should be if
journalists break agreed codes of
conduct
Newspapers should establish
their own body which deals with
complaints and decides what
sanctions there should be if
journalists break agreed codes of
conduct
Neither
Don’t know
Source: Media Standards Trust/YouGov Poll, 21st-23rd November 2012
76Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Do you think national newspapers should be allowed to opt out of any new regulatory
system, or should all national newspapers be obliged to join by law?
Newspapers should be allowed to opt out: 8%
Newspapers should be obliged to join by law: 82%
Don’t know: 10%
Source: Media Standards Trust/YouGov Poll, 21st-23rd November 2012
Polls conducted at the same time as the MST poll by ComRes for BBC Radio 5 Live
and ITV News both supported the claim that the public was in favour of a system of
regulation underpinned by law:
(For ITV News): In light of the Leveson Inquiry the Government should introduce
statutory regulation of the media:
Agree: 51%
Disagree: 20%
Don’t know: 30%
(For BBC Radio 5 Live): Who would you most like to see regulate newspapers in
Britain?
A regulatory body with rules agreed and enforced by newspaper owners: 12%
A regulatory body with rules agreed and enforced by the courts: 47%
Something else: 33%
Don’t know: 8%
The balance of these three results prior to the publication of Leveson’s report
suggested that the public tended to support a solution that contained legal
underpinning of a new system, while being wary of direct political involvement. A
CHART 1 CHART 2
CHART 3 CHART 4
79%
9%
4%
8%
"Which of the following statements comes closer to your view on how you think newspapers in Britain should be
regulated?"
There should be an independent body,established by law, which deals withcomplaints and decides whatsanctions there should be if journalistsbreak agreed codes of conduct"
Newspapers should establish theirown body which deals withcomplaints and decides whatsanctions there should be if journalistsbreak agreed codes of conduct
Neither
Don't know
8%
82%
10%
"Do you think national newspapers should be allowed to opt out of any new regulatory system, or should all national newspapers
be obliged to join by law?"
Newspapers should be allowed to optout
Newspapers should be obliged to joinby law
Don't know
74%
9%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Should implement therecommendations
Should not implement therecommendations
Don't know
"Generally speaking, do you think the government should or should not implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations?"
50%
13%
13%
24%
"Which Royal Charter do you think the Privy Council should approve?"
The one approved by Parliament
The one proposed by major newspaperpublishers
Neither
Don't know
Newspapers should be
allowed to opt out
Newspapers should be
obliged to join by law
Don’t know
77MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
subsequent Sunday Times/YouGov poll conducted immediately after the publication
of the Leveson Report (fieldwork was conducted on the 30th of November and 1st of
December) further supported this interpretation:
Do you believe there should or should not be new laws, passed by MPs, to encourage
newspapers to join this new system of regulation?
New laws should be passed by MPs to encourage newspapers to join this new system of
regulation: 58%
New laws should NOT be passed by MPs to encourage newspapers to join this new system
of regulation: 26%
Don’t know: 15%
Do you think MPs should or should not have a say in the design of the system of
independent regulation?
Yes, MPs should; it’s important for MPs to give the regulation a legal underpinning: 31%
No, MPs should not; the involvement of MPs in this way threatens the principles of a free
press: 52%
Don’t know: 16%
Again, the public tended to support legal underpinning, but preferred MPs to be
removed from the process of setting up a new regulator.
One poll, however, found results that appeared to conflict with the other four
commissioned at this time. A Sun/YouGov poll conducted on 4th-5th November 2012
found that the public were highly sceptical about the involvement of politicians
in the establishment of a press regulator. When asked who they would like to see
regulate the press, the response favoured the newspaper industry over MPs:
A regulatory body set up through law by Parliament, with rules agreed by MPs: 24%
A regulatory body set up through legally-binding contracts by the media industry, with
rules agreed by newspaper owners: 42%
Neither: 18%
Don’t know: 17%
At the same time, the Sun poll found the public were similarly sceptical of the role of
newspapers and journalists in a new system of press regulation: 63% claimed that
they would not trust ‘newspapers and journalists to set up a new system of press
regulation’. The Sun’s reporting of its poll omitted this result.
The differences between the Sun poll and the other polls, particularly that of the
MST, highlighted the effect of framing questions with certain phrases and language.
As YouGov Director Peter Kellner put it, in a blog comparing the results, ‘In short,
it is a matter of framing. We don’t like the idea of politicians curbing the freedom
of speech; but neither do we want editors and publishers remaining in charge of
78Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
regulation”.3 The Sun’s insertion of ‘Politicians’ and ‘MPs’ into questions, and the
MST’s use of ‘independent’ may have had an effect on how respondents answered.
However, beyond the public scepticism with newspapers and politicians, it is clear
that people wanted tough press regulation, did not see legal underpinning as a
problem, and were generally supportive of a Leveson-type solution.
Polling in early 2013
After a short break in polling, another MST/YouGov poll (31 Jan – 1 Feb) revisited the
question of legal underpinning, with a reworded question:
Thinking about the need to ensure independent and effective regulation of the
press, and the need to protect press freedom, which of the following best reflects
your view?
For press regulation to be effective and independent it needs to be backed up by a law:
52%
Any regulation of the press backed up by a law would risk the freedom of the press and
political interference: 23%
Neither: 8%
Don’t know: 16%
The poll also asked whether the public thought the Leveson recommendations
should be implemented. 74% thought they should be, while 9% thought they should
not. An early question about the use of Royal Charter, which was emerging at that
stage as a potential method of implementing Leveson, received lukewarm support:
35% said they would have confidence in such a scheme, while 48% said they would
not.
Source: Media Standards Trust/YouGov Poll, 31st January – 1st February 2013
3 http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/11/28/leveson-what-public-really-want/
CHART 1 CHART 2
CHART 3 CHART 4
79%
9%
4%
8%
"Which of the following statements comes closer to your view on how you think newspapers in Britain should be
regulated?"
There should be an independent body,established by law, which deals withcomplaints and decides whatsanctions there should be if journalistsbreak agreed codes of conduct"
Newspapers should establish theirown body which deals withcomplaints and decides whatsanctions there should be if journalistsbreak agreed codes of conduct
Neither
Don't know
8%
82%
10%
"Do you think national newspapers should be allowed to opt out of any new regulatory system, or should all national newspapers
be obliged to join by law?"
Newspapers should be allowed to optout
Newspapers should be obliged to joinby law
Don't know
74%
9%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Should implement therecommendations
Should not implement therecommendations
Don't know
"Generally speaking, do you think the government should or should not implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations?"
50%
13%
13%
24%
"Which Royal Charter do you think the Privy Council should approve?"
The one approved by Parliament
The one proposed by major newspaperpublishers
Neither
Don't know
79MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
On 11th March, YouGov re-ran some of the questions from the Sunday Times poll from
November/December, and found that the public still supported legal underpinning
(by 55% to 26%), and still thought MPs should not be involved in setting up a
regulator (53% against; 28% for).
Another Sunday Times/YouGov poll conducted three days later produced conflicting
results, although the wording of the statements used limits the validity of these
results. The poll offered respondents two statements that were not mutually
exclusive, the second of which contained two separate statements rather than one:
Which of these views comes closer to yours?
New laws should be passed by MPs to encourage newspapers to join this new system of
regulation: 38%
It is wrong in principle for politicians to pass laws that curb newspapers: MPs should not
get involved in any new system of regulation: 41%
Don’t know: 21%
The poll separately found relatively low support for setting up a new system via
Royal Charter, with 30% supporting the scheme, and opposition at 39% (13% because
it would limit press freedom; 26% because it would not be strict enough). The high
proportion (32%) of ‘don’t knows’ indicated low levels of public knowledge about
how a Royal Charter scheme would work.
Therefore whether the polling was by newspapers themselves or civil society
organisations, the results remained much the same. The public continued to
support the Leveson recommendations and would have much preferred them being
instituted via legislation rather than by Royal Charter.
80Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Polling after the Cross-Party Charter
Immediately after the agreement of the Cross-Party Charter on March 18th 2013,
YouGov conducted its own poll to test opinion on the decision. 43% supported the
decision while 27% opposed it, although 30% were not sure. On whether there was
support for specific provisions of the Charter, the results were more definitive:
When newspapers print inaccurate statements, being told not just to publish a
correction but where to print them (e.g. so that a major front-page error has to be
corrected on a future front page)
Support: 81%
Oppose: 6%
Don’t know: 13%
Giving courts the power to impose much larger fines on newspapers found guilty of
libel, if they have chosen to stay out of the new system of regulation
Support: 70%
Oppose: 12%
Don’t know: 18%
Respondents also tended to disapprove of publishers choosing to remain outside the
system (43% against 25% who felt newspapers remaining outside would be standing
up for the principle of free speech). 32% were not sure.
This poll was followed two days later by another Sunday Times/YouGov survey that
asked more specific questions on the Cross-Party Charter. The results suggested that
the public supported the plan and, since the questions dealt with issues of political
interference and press freedom, they are worth reproducing at length:
Do you support or oppose the proposed new press regulation system?
Support: 52%
Oppose: 23%
Don’t know: 25%
Do you think the proposed new regulation system is or is not a threat to press
freedom?
Is a threat to press freedom: 27%
Is not a threat to press freedom: 53%
Don’t know: 20%
Do you think it is right or wrong that newspapers who choose not to join the new
regulator should face larger damages if they are taken to court over libel privacy or
other civil matters?
81MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Right that newspapers who do not join the regulator face larger damaged: 55%
Wrong that newspapers who do not join the regulator face larger damages: 23%
Don’t know: 22%
Do you think the new system will or will not give politicians too much influence in
what news the papers report?
Will give politicians too much influence in what news the papers report: 31%
Will not give politicians too much influence in what news the papers report: 41%
Don’t know: 29%
The poll shows that, in the immediate aftermath of the passing of the Cross-Party
Charter at least, there was substantial support for the new system, and little feeling
among the public that press freedom was at risk. The specific provision on the
incentive of exemplary damages was, as noted in the 19th March YouGov poll,
generally supported. The Sunday Times did not publish the results of this poll.
Shortly after the Industry’s rival charter was launched in late April 2013, two opinion
polls were conducted simultaneously. The first to be published, by the Free Speech
Network/Survation, included a question that aimed to compare attitudes to the two
Charters:
Which of the following statements is closest to your opinion?
The new press regulation system should be set up in a way that gives politicians the final
say if and when changes need to be made: 15.8%
The new press regulation system should be set up in a way that does NOT give politicians
the final say if and when changes need to be made: 66.5%
Don’t know: 17.7%
This question raised concerns because it repeated the shortcomings of polls conducted
in November 2012 – the prominent inclusion of ‘politicians’ in the questions, and
the omission of any corresponding question on the role of newspaper publishers
in a hypothetical alternative system. In addition, it did not make clear how and
when politicians would have ‘the final say’. This poll result received comparatively
prominent coverage in several newspapers, but also attracted adverse commentary
for the nature of the question.4
A survey by the MST/YouGov conducted on the same day focused on public support
for the Industry Charter, and found low levels of confidence in the Industry Charter
(56% ‘Total No Confidence’ against 20% ‘Total Confidence’), and a perceived risk of
a repeat of unethical or illegal practices if the Industry Charter went ahead in place
of the Cross-Party Charter (73% ‘Total risk’; 9% ‘Total no risk’).
Some weeks later, In July 2013, another MST/YouGov poll asked respondents to
4 ‘Worthless opinion poll is beside the point – talk rather than scream’ Greenslade Blog (Guardian): http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/may/01/press-regulation-polls
82Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
distinguish between both Charters.
Which Royal Charter do you think the Privy Council should approve?
The one approved by Parliament: 50%
The one proposed by major newspaper publishers: 13%
Neither: 13%
Don’t know: 24%
Source: Media Standards Trust/YouGov Poll, 17th-18th July 2013
CHART 1 CHART 2
CHART 3 CHART 4
79%
9%
4%
8%
"Which of the following statements comes closer to your view on how you think newspapers in Britain should be
regulated?"
There should be an independent body,established by law, which deals withcomplaints and decides whatsanctions there should be if journalistsbreak agreed codes of conduct"
Newspapers should establish theirown body which deals withcomplaints and decides whatsanctions there should be if journalistsbreak agreed codes of conduct
Neither
Don't know
8%
82%
10%
"Do you think national newspapers should be allowed to opt out of any new regulatory system, or should all national newspapers
be obliged to join by law?"
Newspapers should be allowed to optout
Newspapers should be obliged to joinby law
Don't know
74%
9%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Should implement therecommendations
Should not implement therecommendations
Don't know
"Generally speaking, do you think the government should or should not implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations?"
50%
13%
13%
24%
"Which Royal Charter do you think the Privy Council should approve?"
The one approved by Parliament
The one proposed by major newspaperpublishers
Neither
Don't know
The one approved by
Parliament
The one proposed by major
newspaper publishers
Don’t know
Neither
83MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Which of these two statements comes closest to your own view?
Newspaper publishers should accept the system of press regulation agreed by all three
main parties and Parliament, even if they object to it: 61%
Newspaper publishers should be allowed to set up their own system of press regulation if
they object to the system proposed by the parties and Parliament: 15%
Neither: 12%
Don’t know: 12%
Source: Media Standards Trust/YouGov Poll, 17th-18th July 2013
Though the questions included references to publishers and to Parliament – issues
that have had an effect on respondents in past surveys, the addition of a ‘neither’
option allowed a route to register disapproval of both groups. Both results indicated
that the public was broadly in favour of the Cross-Party Charter.
Therefore the polling after the cross-party charter was approved showed the public,
while sceptical of the use of a Royal Charter, supported it in favour or an industry
alternative, and did not believe it represented an unacceptable threat to press
freedom.
Polling in late 2013
An ITV/ComRes poll in early October 2013 (published in the wake of the Daily
Mail’s article criticising the legacy of Labour Leader Ed Miliband’s father) invited
respondents to agree or disagree with the following statement concerning statutory
regulation:
CHART 1 CHART 2
CHART 3 CHART 4
79%
9%
4%
8%
"Which of the following statements comes closer to your view on how you think newspapers in Britain should be
regulated?"
There should be an independent body,established by law, which deals withcomplaints and decides whatsanctions there should be if journalistsbreak agreed codes of conduct"
Newspapers should establish theirown body which deals withcomplaints and decides whatsanctions there should be if journalistsbreak agreed codes of conduct
Neither
Don't know
8%
82%
10%
"Do you think national newspapers should be allowed to opt out of any new regulatory system, or should all national newspapers
be obliged to join by law?"
Newspapers should be allowed to optout
Newspapers should be obliged to joinby law
Don't know
74%
9%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Should implement therecommendations
Should not implement therecommendations
Don't know
"Generally speaking, do you think the government should or should not implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations?"
50%
13%
13%
24%
"Which Royal Charter do you think the Privy Council should approve?"
The one approved by Parliament
The one proposed by major newspaperpublishers
Neither
Don't know
61% 15%
12%
12%
"Which of these two statements comes closest to your own view?"
Newspaper publishers should acceptthe system of press regulation agreedby all three main parties andParliament, even if they object to it
Newspaper publishers should beallowed to set up their own system ofpress regulation if they object to thesystem proposed by the parties andParliament
Neither
Don't know
86% 82%
73%
82% 79%
5% 6% 9% 8% 7%
0%
100%
21-23 Nov2012
31 Jan - 1 Feb2013
1-2 May 2013 17-18 July2013
9-10 Oct 2013
Polling Dates
"What risk, if any, do you think there is that there would be a repeat of unethical
and illegal practices (such as phone-hacking and intrusions into people's
private lives) that were revealed during the Leveson Inquiry?"
Total 'Risk'
Total 'No Risk'
73%
68%
56%
73%
15%
21%
20%
12%
0% 100%
A system of press regulation established by the major newspaper publishers, if that systemwas not reviewed independently (9-10 Oct 2013)
A system of press regulation established by the major newspaper publishers (17 - 18 July2013)
The alternative system proposed by newspaper publishers (1-2 May 2013)
A press regulator set up voluntarily by the newspapers, without any legal backing (31 Jan - 1Feb 2013)
"How much confidence would you have in…"
Total 'Confidence' Total 'No Confidence'
Newspaper publishers
should accept the system of
press regulation agreed by
all three main parties and
Parliament, even if they
object to it
Newspaper publishers
should be allowed to set up
their own system of press
regulation if they object to
the system proposed by the
parties and Parliament
Don’t know
Neither
84Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
The newspaper industry does not seem to have learned the lessons from the hacking
scandal and should face statutory regulation
Agree: 63%
Disagree: 16%
Don’t know: 21%
Another MST/YouGov poll in October 2013 asked whether the public agreed with
the decision of certain newspapers not to participate in the Cross-Party Charter’s
external recognition scheme for a new regulator:
How important, if at all, do you think it is that a new system of press self-regulation
is periodically reviewed by an independent commission?
Total important: 71%
Total not important: 14%
Don’t know: 15%
A similar question was subsequently asked in a Guardian/ICM poll two days later:
The Leveson Inquiry was set up to look into media ethics and journalism practices
following the News of the World phone hacking scandal. You may have seen or
heard about arguments about how to take its recommendations forward, with some
saying only self-regulation can protect free speech and others saying the industry
needs stronger regulation by outsiders. Which of the following do you agree with
more?
The press should get on with setting up its own regulator, without waiting for the state
to recognise it: 27%
The press need to be subjected to independent external regulation, underpinned by an
outside body – recognised by the state – to certify its work: 64%
Don’t know: 9%
Two days later, the Sun re-commissioned the questions it had set in November
2012, before the publication of the Leveson Report almost a year earlier. Again they
found that neither politicians (61% not trusted) nor newspapers (66% not trusted)
commanded public confidence. The Sun asked a variation of their previous question
on regulators:
Thinking about how the press are regulated in the future, who would you most like
to see regulate newspapers and the press?
A regulatory body set up through a Royal Charter, enforced by Parliament, with rules
agreed by MPs: 25%
A regulatory body set up through legally binding contracts by the media industry, with
rules agreed by newspaper owners: 40%
Neither: 19%
Don’t know: 16%
85MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
It is important to note that responses to this question may have been distorted by
two factual errors. The Royal Charter does not set up a regulatory body as stated in
the first option. Nor is it ‘enforced by Parliament’.
The Free Speech Network commissioned another Survation poll in late October,
which asked a variation of the same question, again including in the options the
determinative term ‘politician’, and excluding ‘newspapers’ and ‘press’:
Thinking about how the press should be regulated in the future, what kind of
regulatory body would you prefer to see regulate newspapers and the press?
A regulator overseen through a Royal Charter, with rules agreed by politicians: 20.2%
A regulator overseen through legal contracts, binding on the media industry, with rules
agreed by their publishers: 37.8%
Neither: 18.6%
Don’t know: 23.4%
Therefore polling in late 2013 tends to repeat the themes noted earlier in the year
– significant public support for the system of press regulation agreed in Parliament
in March 2013 (Guardian/ICM; MST/YouGov; ITV/ComRes), and wariness about the
role of ‘politicians’ (Free Speech Network/Survation; Sun/YouGov) when that specific
term is introduced into questions.
Tracking public opinion over the course of the analysis
As well as the questions listed above, the Media Standards Trust commissioned
two tracking questions several times between November 2012 and October 2013, to
measure change in public opinion on press regulation over time.
The first of these questions asked, after a context-specific preamble asking
respondents to consider a scenario in which the system of regulation proposed by
the newspaper industry went ahead in place of the one agreed in Parliament:5
5 E.g. In the MST/YouGov 1-2 May 2013 poll, the preamble stated “Imagine that the new system of press regulation agreed by Parliament did NOT go ahead, and instead the alternative system of press regulation proposed by the newspapers went ahead”.
86Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
“What risk, if any, do you think there is that there would be a repeat of
unethical and illegal practices (such as phone-hacking and intrusions into
people’s private lives”
Poll ‘Total Risk’ ‘Total No Risk’
MST/YouGov, 21-23 Nov 2012 86% 5%
MST/YouGov 31 Jan – 1 Feb 2013 82% 6%
MST/YouGov 1-2 May 2013 73% 9%
MST/YouGov 17-18 July 2013 82% 8%
MST/YouGov 9-10 Oct 2013 79% 7%
Source: Media Standards Trust/YouGov Polls (multiple dates)
As the results indicate, there was little change over an 11-month period.
CHART 1 CHART 2
CHART 3 CHART 4
79%
9%
4%
8%
"Which of the following statements comes closer to your view on how you think newspapers in Britain should be
regulated?"
There should be an independent body,established by law, which deals withcomplaints and decides whatsanctions there should be if journalistsbreak agreed codes of conduct"
Newspapers should establish theirown body which deals withcomplaints and decides whatsanctions there should be if journalistsbreak agreed codes of conduct
Neither
Don't know
8%
82%
10%
"Do you think national newspapers should be allowed to opt out of any new regulatory system, or should all national newspapers
be obliged to join by law?"
Newspapers should be allowed to optout
Newspapers should be obliged to joinby law
Don't know
74%
9%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Should implement therecommendations
Should not implement therecommendations
Don't know
"Generally speaking, do you think the government should or should not implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations?"
50%
13%
13%
24%
"Which Royal Charter do you think the Privy Council should approve?"
The one approved by Parliament
The one proposed by major newspaperpublishers
Neither
Don't know
61% 15%
12%
12%
"Which of these two statements comes closest to your own view?"
Newspaper publishers should acceptthe system of press regulation agreedby all three main parties andParliament, even if they object to it
Newspaper publishers should beallowed to set up their own system ofpress regulation if they object to thesystem proposed by the parties andParliament
Neither
Don't know
86% 82%
73%
82% 79%
5% 6% 9% 8% 7%
0%
100%
21-23 Nov2012
31 Jan - 1 Feb2013
1-2 May 2013 17-18 July2013
9-10 Oct 2013
Polling Dates
"What risk, if any, do you think there is that there would be a repeat of unethical
and illegal practices (such as phone-hacking and intrusions into people's
private lives) that were revealed during the Leveson Inquiry?"
Total 'Risk'
Total 'No Risk'
73%
68%
56%
73%
15%
21%
20%
12%
0% 100%
A system of press regulation established by the major newspaper publishers, if that systemwas not reviewed independently (9-10 Oct 2013)
A system of press regulation established by the major newspaper publishers (17 - 18 July2013)
The alternative system proposed by newspaper publishers (1-2 May 2013)
A press regulator set up voluntarily by the newspapers, without any legal backing (31 Jan - 1Feb 2013)
"How much confidence would you have in…"
Total 'Confidence' Total 'No Confidence'
87MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
The second, related, tracking question asked about public confidence in a system of
press self-regulation proposed by the newspaper industry:
“How much confidence would you have in...”‘Total
Confidence’
‘Total No
Confidence’
‘A press regulator set up voluntarily by the newspapers,
without any legal backing’ (31 Jan – 1 Feb 2013)12% 73%
‘The alternative system proposed by newspaper
publishers’ (1-2 May 2013)20% 56%
‘A system of press regulation established by the major
newspaper publishers’ (17-18 July 2013)21% 68%
‘A system of press regulation established by the major
newspaper publishers, if that system was not reviewed
independently’ (9-10 Oct 2013)
15% 73%
Source: Media Standards Trust/YouGov Polls (multiple dates)
These results indicate that, despite the increasingly hostile coverage of Leveson and
the Cross-Party Charter in the majority of newspapers, there was considerably less
support for the alternative systems proposed by the newspaper industry over the
course of the year. The lack of confidence in the press alternative increased after the
industry plans for IPSO were published in July.
The public also believed that the systems proposed by the industry carried a
substantial risk that there would be a return to the unethical and illegal practices
that made a public inquiry necessary in the first place.
It is always difficult to draw decisive conclusions from a range of different public
opinion polls, not least in a changing context and when the questions are subtly
different and surveys are conducted by different polling companies using different
CHART 1 CHART 2
CHART 3 CHART 4
79%
9%
4%
8%
"Which of the following statements comes closer to your view on how you think newspapers in Britain should be
regulated?"
There should be an independent body,established by law, which deals withcomplaints and decides whatsanctions there should be if journalistsbreak agreed codes of conduct"
Newspapers should establish theirown body which deals withcomplaints and decides whatsanctions there should be if journalistsbreak agreed codes of conduct
Neither
Don't know
8%
82%
10%
"Do you think national newspapers should be allowed to opt out of any new regulatory system, or should all national newspapers
be obliged to join by law?"
Newspapers should be allowed to optout
Newspapers should be obliged to joinby law
Don't know
74%
9%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Should implement therecommendations
Should not implement therecommendations
Don't know
"Generally speaking, do you think the government should or should not implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations?"
50%
13%
13%
24%
"Which Royal Charter do you think the Privy Council should approve?"
The one approved by Parliament
The one proposed by major newspaperpublishers
Neither
Don't know
61% 15%
12%
12%
"Which of these two statements comes closest to your own view?"
Newspaper publishers should acceptthe system of press regulation agreedby all three main parties andParliament, even if they object to it
Newspaper publishers should beallowed to set up their own system ofpress regulation if they object to thesystem proposed by the parties andParliament
Neither
Don't know
86% 82%
73%
82% 79%
5% 6% 9% 8% 7%
0%
100%
21-23 Nov2012
31 Jan - 1 Feb2013
1-2 May 2013 17-18 July2013
9-10 Oct 2013
Polling Dates
"What risk, if any, do you think there is that there would be a repeat of unethical
and illegal practices (such as phone-hacking and intrusions into people's
private lives) that were revealed during the Leveson Inquiry?"
Total 'Risk'
Total 'No Risk'
73%
68%
56%
73%
15%
21%
20%
12%
0% 100%
A system of press regulation established by the major newspaper publishers, if that systemwas not reviewed independently (9-10 Oct 2013)
A system of press regulation established by the major newspaper publishers (17 - 18 July2013)
The alternative system proposed by newspaper publishers (1-2 May 2013)
A press regulator set up voluntarily by the newspapers, without any legal backing (31 Jan - 1Feb 2013)
"How much confidence would you have in…"
Total 'Confidence' Total 'No Confidence'
‘A press regulator set up voluntarily by the
newspapers, without any legal backing’ (31
Jan – 1 Feb 2013)
‘The alternative system proposed by
newspaper publishers’ (1-2 May 2013)
‘A system of press regulation established
by the major newspaper publishers’ (17-18
July 2013)
A system of press regulation established
by the major newspaper publishers, if that
system was not reviewed independently’
(9-10 Oct 2013)
88Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
methods.
At the very least, it can be concluded from this list of questions that, overall, public
opinion was supportive of Leveson’s recommendations and willing to see them
put into practice by Cross-Party Royal Charter (though would have preferred
legislation). At most, it can be said that the public strongly supported Leveson’s
recommendations, were in favour of legal underpinning of a new system, and –
though initially sceptical – were then broadly supportive of its implementation via
a Cross-Party Royal Charter.
The early polls prior to the publication of the Leveson Report tended to show a
substantial degree of public support for statutory underpinning, albeit with a
distrust of any system in which MPs would be directly involved.
Polls conducted immediately after the publication of Leveson and in early 2013
showed fairly steady support for statutory underpinning, at around twice the
level of opposition to the idea. After the agreement of the Cross-Party Charter the
principle of the scheme was generally supported, and the specific provisions of the
Charter received a high degree of support thereafter. In choices between the Cross-
Party Charter and the Industry Charter, a larger portion of the public supported the
former.
In October 2013 the principle of external, legally-underpinned recognition received
high levels of support in two polls, despite a high degree of negativity towards the
Cross-Party Charter in the majority of newspapers at that time. The remaining polls
in October 2013 revisited the public’s suspicion of direct political influence in a new
system of regulation, though factual errors raise questions about the legitimacy of
those results.
Given the previous analysis of press coverage of the Leveson Report and the Royal
Charter it is therefore clear that public opinion was not reflected in the national
press’ coverage of the Leveson report and its implementation.
It is relevant, too, that where pro-Leveson or pro-Cross-Party Charter results were
recorded in polls commissioned by newspapers, that this information was rarely
published.
89MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Did newspapers’ coverage of press regulation reflect
the opinion of their own readers?
In addition to the general polling, four MST/YouGov polls surveyed a larger sample
that was then broken down by newspaper readership, allowing for comparisons
to be drawn between aggregate public opinion and the opinion of the various
newspaper readerships. In addition, some questions were directly targeted at those
respondents who self-identified as reading a particular daily newspaper in order to
measure their opinions directly.
MST/YouGov, November 2012
The poll in November 2012 asked whether respondents would prefer ‘an independent
body established by law’, against a body established by newspapers.6 Of five
newspapers, of which four (not including the Guardian) took a strong editorial stance
against statutory underpinning,7 the level of support among their readerships was
generally similar to the aggregate support. In other words, their editorial stance was
in direct opposition to the views of their readers.
‘There should be an independent body, established by
law, which deals with complaints and decides what
sanctions there should be in journalists break agreed
codes of conduct’
Aggregate 79%
Sun 74%
Daily Mail 81%
Times 77%
Daily Telegraph 76%
Guardian 90%
This conflict between editorial stance and the views of each newspaper’s readership
was also reflected in other questions in the same poll. For instance, when asked
whether newspapers should be allowed to opt out of a new regulatory system, or
whether they should be obliged to join by law, the aggregate support for obligatory
regulation was 82%. At the Sun (76%), Daily Mail (83%), Times (81%), Telegraph (82%)
and Guardian (92%), support among readers was similar:
6 In this section, all references to individual newspaper readerships are drawn from samples of over 100. Missing newspapers tended to have smaller samples for which the margin of error would make any results highly unreliable
7 As established in Part 1 of this analysis (pp19-23): http://mediastandardstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/05/MST-Leveson-Analysis-090513-v2.pdf
90Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
‘Do you think national newspapers should be allowed to opt out of any
new regulatory system, or should all national newspapers be obliged to
join by law?’
‘Newspapers should
be allowed to opt
out’
‘Newspapers should
be obliged to join by
law’
Aggregate 8% 82%
Sun 10% 76%
Daily Mail 9% 83%
Times 14% 81%
Daily Telegraph 14% 82%
Guardian 3% 92%
MST/YouGov, May 2013
In May, shortly after sections of the newspaper industry announced that they did
not want to join the regulatory system set up by the Cross-Party Charter, the MST/
YouGov asked the following question to those respondents who identified as reading
a newspaper:
Imagine the new system of press regulation agreed by Parliament DID go ahead, but
some newspaper groups continued to oppose it and did not join the new regulator.
Thinking about the newspaper you tend to read the most, which of these statements
comes closest to your view?
I want the newspaper I read to join the new system of regulation and will be disappointed
if they don’t: 52%
I do not want the newspaper I read to join the new system of regulation and will be
disappointed if they do: 10%
I do not really mind either way: 28%
Don’t know: 11%
The results indicate that the proportion of newspaper readers who wanted their
favoured newspaper to join the Cross-Party Charter was considerably higher than
the proportion that did not. Results for specific newspapers showed a similar
outcome. Of Daily Mail readers, 50% wanted the Mail to join, against 12% who did
not. At the Daily Mirror, the figures were 49% to 12%, while at the Times (68% to 7%),
Daily Telegraph (58% to 14%) and the Guardian (67% to 10%) readers of those papers
were even more likely to support their paper joining the Cross-Party Charter system.
Only the Sun (33% to 12%) was substantially different, due to a considerably higher
proportion of readers who did not mind either way (40%):
91MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
“Imagine the new system of press regulation agreed by Parliament DID go ahead, but some
newspaper groups continued to oppose it and did not join the new regulator. Thinking about the
newspaper you tend to read the most, which of these statements comes closest to your view?”
Readership
‘I want the newspaper I read to
join the new system and will be
disappointed if they don’t’
‘I do not want the newspaper
I read to join the new system
of regulation and will be
disappointed if they do’
Aggregate 52% 10%
Daily Mail 50% 12%
Daily Mirror 49% 12%
Times 68% 7%
Daily Telegraph 58% 14%
Guardian 67% 10%
Sun 33% 12%
MST/YouGov, July 2013
The question was repeated around eight weeks later, yielding the following response
overall:
I want the newspaper I read to join the new system of regulation and will be disappointed
if they don’t: 59%
I do not want the newspaper I read to join the new system of regulation and will be
disappointed if they do: 11%
I do not really mind either way: 24%
Don’t know: 7%
Again, the balance is heavily in favour of publications joining, in direct contrast to
the critical coverage prevalent across most of the press at that stage. Broken down
by specific newspaper readership, the results show similar characteristics to those
in the May poll:
92Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
“Imagine the new system of press regulation agreed by Parliament DID go ahead, but some
newspaper groups continued to oppose it and did not join the new regulator. Thinking about the
newspaper you tend to read the most, which of these statements comes closest to your view?”
Readership
‘I want the newspaper I read to
join the new system and will be
disappointed if they don’t’
‘I do not want the newspaper
I read to join the new system
of regulation and will be
disappointed if they do’
Aggregate 59% 11%
Daily Mail 56% 10%
Daily Mirror 55% 12%
Times 69% 5%
Daily Telegraph 70% 16%
Guardian 79% 3%
Sun 45% 15%
The results are consistent: there is a considerably greater degree of support
among newspaper readers for their chosen paper to join the regulatory system
set up by Parliament. In most cases, the readers of newspapers which had spent
the intervening months publishing many articles containing strong and frequent
criticism of the Cross-Party Charter and strong and frequent praise for the Pressbof
Charter were more supportive of their chosen newspaper joining the former. Again,
there was in most cases no substantial deviation from the opinion of the public as
a whole.
Elsewhere in the poll, when respondents had been asked which of the two Charters
they thought should have been approved by the Privy Council, the results by
newspaper readership were as follows:
‘Which Royal Charter do you think the Privy Council should approve’
‘The one approved by
Parliament’
‘The one proposed by some
major newspaper publishers’
Aggregate (all respondents) 50% 13%
Daily Mail 48% 17%
Sun 38% 17%
Daily Mirror 48% 16%
Guardian 64% 4%
Times 55% 19%
Daily Telegraph 69% 16%
Again, for all sets of newspaper readers support for joining the Cross-Party Charter
system significantly outweighed opposition to the move.
93MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
MST/YouGov, October 2013
The question on whether newspaper readers wanted their chosen paper to join the
Cross-Party Charter system was included again in a poll in the immediate aftermath
of the decision by the Privy Council to reject the Industry Charter. The results were
similar:
I want the newspaper I read to participate in this new system of regulation and will be
disappointed if they don’t: 56%
I do not want the newspaper I read to participate in this new system of regulation and
will be disappointed if they do: 7%
I do not really mind either way: 28%
Don’t know: 8%
By newspaper readership, the results continued the pattern established in previous
polls:8
“Imagine the new system of press regulation based on the Cross-Party Royal Charter DID go
ahead, but some newspaper groups choose not to participate. Thinking about the newspaper you
tend to read the most, which of these statements comes closest to your view?”
Readership
‘I want the newspaper I read to
join the new system and will be
disappointed if they don’t’
‘I do not want the newspaper
I read to join the new system
of regulation and will be
disappointed if they do’
Aggregate 56% 7%
Daily Mail 54% 6%
Daily Mirror 56% 5%
Daily Telegraph 63% 12%
Guardian 66% 6%
Sun 40% 9%
When asked how important they thought it was that a new regulator was periodically
reviewed by an independent commission set up by a Royal Charter ‘agreed by the
main political parties and supported in Parliament’, the results were as follows:
8 The sample of Times readers was below 100, so results were not included here due to the increased margin of error
94Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
“The Royal Charter will set up a body to recognise and periodically review a new press self-
regulator, in order to check that it is working effectively on behalf of the public. Newspaper
publishers have indicated that they will not participate in the cross-party Charter and will set
up their own self-regulation scheme.
How important, if at all, do you think it is that a new system of press self-regulation is
periodically reviewed by an independent commission?”
Readership Total ‘Important’ Total ‘Not Important’
Aggregate 71% 14%
Daily Mail 71% 18%
Daily Mirror 71% 18%
Daily Telegraph 90% 9%
Guardian 88% 5%
Sun 57% 24%
These views did not reflect those of their chosen newspapers at the time. Following
the rejection of the newspaper industry-proposed Charter just before this question
was posed to the public, the majority of newspapers strongly criticised the Cross-
Party Charter, which was consistently represented as a threat to press freedom.
The polls that separated out the answers by newspaper readers showed one trend
very consistently: the views of readers were, in most cases, very different from those
set out by their chosen newspaper. Newspapers themselves, when commissioning
polls, did not split their results by readership. Overall, there was a substantial
difference between the editorial lines of the UK national press towards Leveson and
the Cross-Party Charter system, and that of their readers.
Two conclusions can be drawn from this. First, newspapers did not fairly represent
the views of the general public towards the Leveson recommendations and the
Cross-Party Charter. Second, most newspapers did not fairly represent the views
of their own readers towards the Leveson recommendations and the Cross-Party
Charter.
95MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Summary
• Overall public opinion tended to be at odds with the negative line a
majority of newspapers took on Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter.
The majority of the public, in most polls (even excluding those commissioned
by groups supportive of reform of press regulation) tended to be supportive
of legal underpinning, supportive of the Leveson recommendations, and
supportive of the Cross-Party Charter agreement reached in March, and of
its specific provisions. This was in contrast to the strongly negative coverage
of each of these issues in the national daily and Sunday press across the
whole period of study.
• Individual newspapers did not reflect the viewpoints of their
readership on matters of press regulation. Newspaper readerships
displayed considerable consistency in terms of their support for the
Leveson recommendations and Cross-Party Charter system. While there
was some variation between titles (e.g. Sun readers being less supportive
than other titles), each set of readers tended to be, by a ratio of at least
two-to-one, in favour of their paper joining the Cross-Party Charter system.
When surveyed on other aspects of regulatory reform, they supported legal
underpinning, supported the Cross-Party Charter over the Industry Charter,
and supported the Cross-Party Charter’s system of independent external
review of a new regulatory system.
96Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
The SunArticles: With frame(s): 141 Overall: 179
Tone:
Positive-only: 4
Negative-only: 116
Both: 21
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 82.2%
Negative-to-positive ratio: 29 : 1
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 112 (79.4%) Supports Leveson: 12
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 31 Supports underpinning: 3
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 13 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 13
International Reputation: 9
Critical of March 17th Process: 12
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 83 3 72 8 86.7% Negative
Cross-Party Charter 60 2 46 12 76.7% Negative
February 12th Draft Charter 10 7 1 2 70.0% Positive
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 4 2 2 0 = Positive & Negative
Industry Charter 7 7 0 0 100% Positive
IPSO 3 3 0 0 100% Positive
Industry Charter Rejected 4 0 3 1 75.0% Negative
Cross-Party Charter sealed 2 0 1 1 = Negative & Both
Daily MirrorArticles: With frame(s): 78 Overall: 98
Tone:
Positive-only: 6
Negative-only: 52
Both: 20
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 66.7%
Negative-to-positive ratio: 8.7 : 1
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 64 (82.1%) Supports Leveson: 17
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 14 Supports underpinning: 14
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 2 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 10
International Reputation: 4
Critical of March 17th Process: 7
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 37 5 20 12 54.1% Negative
Cross-Party Charter 43 3 33 7 76.7% Negative
February 12th Draft Charter 6 4 0 2 66.7% Positive
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 2 1 1 0 = Positive & Negative
Industry Charter 8 6 2 0 75.0% Negative
IPSO 4 4 0 0 100% Positive
Industry Charter Rejected 7 0 7 0 100% Negative
Cross-Party Charter sealed 3 0 2 1 66.7% Negative
APPENDIX 1: NEWSPAPER COVERAGE BREAKDOWN
97MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Sunday MirrorArticles: With frame(s): 11 Overall: 13
Tone:
Positive-only: 4
Negative-only: 6
Both: 1
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 54.5%
Negative-to-positive ratio: 1.5 : 1
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 6 (54.5%) Supports Leveson: 2
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 0 Supports underpinning: 0
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 2 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 4
International Reputation: 0
Critical of March 17th Process: 1
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 6 2 4 0 66.7% Negative
Cross-Party Charter 6 3 2 1 50.0% Positive
February 12th Draft Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 0 0 0 0 N/A
Industry Charter 4 0 4 0 100% Negative
IPSO 0 0 0 0 N/A
Industry Charter Rejected 0 0 0 0 N/A
Cross-Party Charter sealed 1 1 0 0 100% Positive
PeopleArticles: With frame(s): 3 Overall: 5
Tone:
Positive-only: 0
Negative-only: 3
Both: 0
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 100%
Negative-to-positive ratio: N/A
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 3 (100%) Supports Leveson: 0
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 1 Supports underpinning: 0
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 2 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 0
International Reputation: 1
Critical of March 17th Process: 0
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 2 0 2 0 100% Negative
Cross-Party Charter 2 0 2 0 100% Negative
February 12th Draft Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 1 1 0 0 100% Positive
Industry Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A
IPSO 0 0 0 0 N/A
Industry Charter Rejected 0 0 0 0 N/A
Cross-Party Charter sealed 0 0 0 0 N/A
98Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Daily StarArticles: With frame(s): 12 Overall: 23
Tone:
Positive-only: 1
Negative-only: 9
Both: 2
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 75.0%
Negative-to-positive ratio: 9 : 1
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 10 (83.3%) Supports Leveson: 1
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 1 Supports underpinning: 0
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 0 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 2
International Reputation: 0
Critical of March 17th Process: 2
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 6 0 5 1 83.3% Negative
Cross-Party Charter 6 1 4 1 66.7% Negative
February 12th Draft Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 0 0 0 0 N/A
Industry Charter 2 1 1 0 = Positive & Negative
IPSO 0 0 0 0 N/A
Industry Charter Rejected 1 0 1 0 100% Negative
Cross-Party Charter sealed 0 0 0 0 N/A
Daily Star SundayArticles: With frame(s): 0 Overall: 1
Tone:
Positive-only: 0
Negative-only: 0
Both: 0
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: N/A
Negative-to-positive ratio: N/A
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 0 Supports Leveson: 0
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 0 Supports underpinning: 0
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 0 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 0
International Reputation: 0
Critical of March 17th Process: 0
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 0 0 0 0 N/A
Cross-Party Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A
February 12th Draft Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 0 0 0 0 N/A
Industry Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A
IPSO 0 0 0 0 N/A
Industry Charter Rejected 0 0 0 0 N/A
Cross-Party Charter sealed 0 0 0 0 N/A
99MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Daily ExpressArticles: With frame(s): 68 Overall: 94
Tone:
Positive-only: 9
Negative-only: 33
Both: 26
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 48.5%
Negative-to-positive ratio: 3.7 : 1
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 44 (64.7%) Supports Leveson: 28
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 16 Supports underpinning: 10
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 10 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 7
International Reputation: 2
Critical of March 17th Process: 7
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 46 10 18 18 = Negative & Both
Cross-Party Charter 27 2 20 5 74.1% Negative
February 12th Draft Charter 1 1 0 0 100% Positive
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 3 3 0 0 100% Positive
Industry Charter 7 2 2 3 42.9% Both
IPSO 2 1 1 0 = Positive & Negative
Industry Charter Rejected 2 0 2 0 100% Negative
Cross-Party Charter sealed 0 0 0 0 N/A
Sunday ExpressArticles: With frame(s): 15 Overall: 16
Tone:
Positive-only: 6
Negative-only: 5
Both: 4
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 33.3%
Negative-to-positive ratio: 0.8 : 1
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 8 (53.3%) Supports Leveson: 9
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 2 Supports underpinning: 5
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 1 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 1
International Reputation: 1
Critical of March 17th Process: 2
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 12 6 3 3 50% Positive
Cross-Party Charter 3 0 2 1 66.7% Negative
February 12th Draft Charter 3 1 2 0 66.7% Negative
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 1 1 0 0 100% Positive
Industry Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A
IPSO 1 1 0 0 100% Positive
Industry Charter Rejected 2 0 2 0 100% Negative
Cross-Party Charter sealed 0 0 0 0 N/A
100Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Daily MailArticles: With frame(s): 200 Overall: 251
Tone:
Positive-only: 5
Negative-only: 169
Both: 26
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 84.5%
Negative-to-positive ratio: 33.8 : 1
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 147 (73.5%) Supports Leveson: 20
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 74 Supports underpinning: 2
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 31 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 12
International Reputation: 12
Critical of March 17th Process: 41
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 123 5 106 12 86.2% Negative
Cross-Party Charter 80 1 68 11 85.0% Negative
February 12th Draft Charter 12 8 0 4 66.7% Positive
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 2 0 0 2 100% Both
Industry Charter 12 10 0 2 83.3% Positive
IPSO 9 8 0 1 88.9% Positive
Industry Charter Rejected 10 0 10 0 100% Negative
Cross-Party Charter sealed 4 0 2 2 = Negative & Both
Mail on SundayArticles: With frame(s): 31 Overall: 53
Tone:
Positive-only: 2
Negative-only: 25
Both: 4
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 80.6%
Negative-to-positive ratio: 12.5 : 1
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 23 (74.2%) Supports Leveson: 5
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 6 Supports underpinning: 1
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 7 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 2
International Reputation: 1
Critical of March 17th Process: 3
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 17 3 13 1 76.5% Negative
Cross-Party Charter 19 2 17 0 89.5% Negative
February 12th Draft Charter 1 1 0 0 100% Positive
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 2 1 1 0 = Positive & Negative
Industry Charter 6 6 0 0 100% Positive
IPSO 2 2 0 0 100% Positive
Industry Charter Rejected 0 0 0 0 N/A
Cross-Party Charter sealed 0 0 0 0 N/A
101MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
The TimesArticles: With frame(s): 137 Overall: 217
Tone:
Positive-only: 16
Negative-only: 83
Both: 37
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 60.6%
Negative-to-positive ratio: 5.2 : 1
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 82 (59.9%) Supports Leveson: 30
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 60 Supports underpinning: 8
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 9 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 22
International Reputation: 18
Critical of March 17th Process: 18
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 57 9 27 21 47.4% Negative
Cross-Party Charter 84 8 60 16 71.4% Negative
February 12th Draft Charter 9 5 1 3 55.6% Positive
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 2 0 1 1 = Negative & Both
Industry Charter 13 7 3 3 53.8% Positive
IPSO 16 12 0 4 75.0% Positive
Industry Charter Rejected 6 1 5 0 83.3% Negative
Cross-Party Charter sealed 2 1 1 0 = Positive & Negative
Sunday TimesArticles: With frame(s): 45 Overall: 53
Tone:
Positive-only: 5
Negative-only: 30
Both: 10
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 66.7%
Negative-to-positive ratio: 6 : 1
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 35 (77.8%) Supports Leveson: 10
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 11 Supports underpinning: 1
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 6 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 5
International Reputation: 4
Critical of March 17th Process: 6
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 28 6 18 4 64.3% Negative
Cross-Party Charter 21 2 15 4 71.4% Negative
February 12th Draft Charter 4 2 1 1 50% Positive
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 1 1 0 0 100% Positive
Industry Charter 7 6 1 0 85.7% Positive
IPSO 2 2 0 0 100% Positive
Industry Charter Rejected 1 0 1 0 100% Negative
Cross-Party Charter sealed 3 0 2 1 66.7% Negative
102Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Daily TelegraphArticles: With frame(s): 189 Overall: 270
Tone:
Positive-only: 20
Negative-only: 123
Both: 46
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 65.1%
Negative-to-positive ratio: 6.2 : 1
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 143 (75.7%) Supports Leveson: 41
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 53 Supports underpinning: 12
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 7 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 26
International Reputation: 18
Critical of March 17th Process: 10
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 103 15 63 25 61.2% Negative
Cross-Party Charter 88 7 62 19 70.5% Negative
February 12th Draft Charter 20 9 3 8 45.0% Positive
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 3 0 2 1 66.7% Negative
Industry Charter 21 16 3 2 76.2% Positive
IPSO 10 7 1 2 70.0% Positive
Industry Charter Rejected 7 0 6 1 85.7% Negative
Cross-Party Charter sealed 2 0 2 0 100% Negative
Sunday TelegraphArticles: With frame(s): 30 Overall: 33
Tone:
Positive-only: 3
Negative-only: 22
Both: 5
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 73.3%
Negative-to-positive ratio: 7.3 : 1
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 26 (86.7%) Supports Leveson: 7
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 9 Supports underpinning: 0
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 2 Supports Charter: 1
International Reputation: 1
Critical of March 17th Process: 6
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 13 3 6 4 46.2% Negative
Cross-Party Charter 18 1 17 0 94.4% Negative
February 12th Draft Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 0 0 0 0 N/A
Industry Charter 2 2 0 0 100% Positive
IPSO 1 1 0 0 100% Positive
Industry Charter Rejected 1 0 1 0 100% Negative
Cross-Party Charter sealed 1 0 1 0 100% Negative
103MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
GuardianArticles: With frame(s): 236 Overall: 403
Tone:
Positive-only: 86
Negative-only: 86
Both: 64
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 36.4%
Negative-to-positive ratio: 1 : 1
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 83 (35.2%) Supports Leveson: 101
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 94 Supports underpinning: 38
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 10 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 60
International Reputation: 4
Critical of March 17th Process: 13
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 131 59 40 32 45.0% Positive
Cross-Party Charter 111 35 52 24 46.8% Negative
February 12th Draft Charter 29 4 11 14 48.3% Both
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 3 0 1 2 66.7% Both
Industry Charter 22 5 12 5 54.5% Negative
IPSO 19 6 10 3 52.6% Negative
Industry Charter Rejected 6 0 5 1 83.3% Negative
Cross-Party Charter sealed 2 0 2 0 100% Negative
ObserverArticles: With frame(s): 48 Overall: 72
Tone:
Positive-only: 10
Negative-only: 26
Both: 12
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 54.2%
Negative-to-positive ratio: 2.6 : 1
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 16 (33.3%) Supports Leveson: 11
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 19 Supports underpinning: 4
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 5 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 11
International Reputation: 4
Critical of March 17th Process: 4
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 26 7 15 3 57.7% Negative
Cross-Party Charter 26 4 14 7 53.8% Negative
February 12th Draft Charter 3 1 2 0 66.7% Negative
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 1 0 1 0 100% Negative
Industry Charter 3 2 1 0 66.7% Positive
IPSO 3 3 0 0 100% Positive
Industry Charter Rejected 1 0 2 0 100% Negative
Cross-Party Charter sealed 1 0 1 0 100% Negative
104Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
IndependentArticles: With frame(s): 97 Overall: 148
Tone:
Positive-only: 22
Negative-only: 19
Both: 56
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 19.6%
Negative-to-positive ratio: 0.9 : 1
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 30 (30.9%) Supports Leveson: 37
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 43 Supports underpinning: 16
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 6 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 40
International Reputation: 3
Critical of March 17th Process: 5
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 52 18 13 21 40.4% Both
Cross-Party Charter 45 9 6 30 66.7% Both
February 12th Draft Charter 12 2 1 9 75.0% Both
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 4 0 2 2 = Negative & Both
Industry Charter 9 1 3 5 55.6% Both
IPSO 5 2 0 3 60.0% Both
Industry Charter Rejected 2 1 1 0 = Positive & Negative
Cross-Party Charter sealed 1 0 0 1 100% Both
Independent on SundayArticles: With frame(s): 12 Overall: 21
N/A
Positive-only: 6
Negative-only: 2
Both: 4
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 16.7%
Negative-to-positive ratio: 0.3 : 1
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 4 (33.3%) Supports Leveson: 6
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 4 Supports underpinning: 4
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 1 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 4
International Reputation: 0
Critical of March 17th Process: 0
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 8 3 2 3 = Positive & Both
Cross-Party Charter 5 4 1 0 80.0% Positive
February 12th Draft Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 1 1 0 0 100% Positive
Industry Charter 1 0 1 0 100% Negative
IPSO 1 1 0 0 100% Positive
Industry Charter Rejected 2 1 1 0 = Positive & Negative
Cross-Party Charter sealed 0 0 0 0 N/A
105MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Financial TimesArticles: With frame(s): 69 Overall: 97
Tone:
Positive-only: 11
Negative-only: 25
Both: 33
Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 36.2%
Negative-to-positive ratio: 2.3 : 1
Frames
Negative Positive
Threat (with % prevalence): 26 (37.7%) Supports Leveson: 27
Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 43 Supports underpinning: 19
Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 2 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 16
International Reputation: 0
Critical of March 17th Process: 3
How Issues Were Framed TotalPos-only
Neg-only
Both Predominant Tone
Leveson Report 41 6 14 21 51.2% Both
Cross-Party Charter 28 7 12 9 42.9% Negative
February 12th Draft Charter 9 2 0 7 77.8% Both
Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 0 0 0 0 N/A
Industry Charter 6 4 2 0 66.7% Positive
IPSO 3 0 1 2 66.7% Both
Industry Charter Rejected 2 1 1 0 =Positive & Negative
Cross-Party Charter sealed 3 0 1 2 66.7% Both
106Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Date Publication Headline Tone Reason
29.11.12 Daily MailSilencing the cold call claim sharks
Pro-LevesonCompares Leveson Inquiry favourably against internal BBC investigation
29.11.12 Sun Freedom fight Anti-LevesonAnticipates Leveson recommendations on statute as a threat to free speech
30.11.12 GuardianLord Justice Leveson throws the ball back
BothGeneral support for Leveson Report recommendations; critical of certain specific recommendations, including Ofcom
30.11.12 Daily ExpressFreedom of the press must be used for good
BothSupport for the inception of the Leveson Inquiry; describes potential threats to free speech through political interference
30.11.12 Daily Mail Daily Mail Comments BothCritical of Ofcom recommendation, and questions legitimacy of conclusions. Threat to free speech cited. Some recommendations supported
30.11.12 Daily MailCrackdown that could stifle your right to know
Anti-Leveson“Draconian crackdown on the public’s right to know” – criticism of recommendations on ‘off-the-record briefings’ and press-police relations
30.11.12 Daily TelegraphLet us implement Leveson, without a press law
BothCriticises recommendation on statutory underpinning: “slippery slope to state meddling”; supportive of some recommendations
30.11.12 Times The Leveson Report BothSupports recommendations generally; critical of Ofcom recommendation, and potential threats to press freedom
30.11.12 Daily MirrorNo turning back if we cross the line
Anti-LevesonFocuses on perceived threat to press freedom throughout: “shackling the free press”, etc
30.11.12 Sun No to censors BothSupport of some Leveson recommendations; critical of statutory underpinning: “could bring in state control of newspapers”
30.11.12 Financial TimesLeveson’s lessons for Fleet Street
BothSupports some Leveson recommendations; criticises statutory underpinning (“licencing”) and of Ofcom recommendation
01.12.12 Daily MailPolitical class out of tune with the public
NoneMentions Leveson report in conjunction with criticism of BBC
01.12.12 Daily TelegraphImproving on the Leveson Report
BothSupports recommendations on arbitration, critical of others. Mentions potential threats to press freedom (“would hand ultimate control of the press to MPs”)
01.12.12 TimesWhen public trumps private
Anti-LevesonCritical of Data Protection recommendations; “press freedom at risk”; “chilling effect on investigative journalism”
01.12.12 IndependentThe press must show that statute is superfluous
Pro-Leveson Supports Leveson recommendations
02.12.12 Mail on SundayWe cheapen justice at a massive cost
Anti-LevesonHighly critical of Leveson Report (“backlash against a free press”; “unrealistic plans”; “illogical”, etc)
02.12.12Independent on Sunday
Only a free press is democratic
BothQualified general support for the conduct of the Leveson Inquiry, raises threat (“Rubicon”)
02.12.12 Observer
Newspapers must respond in a reasoned manner to Leveson’s proposals
BothGeneral support for Leveson recommendations; outlines potential threats to press freedom
02.12.12 Sunday ExpressLeveson shows how press can regain public respect
BothSupportive of Leveson (“a seminal moment for democracy”); critical of omissions and conclusions of report
02.12.12 Sunday TimesThe press has to fight for its freedom
BothClaims “there is much to commend in the Leveson Report”; multiple descriptions of perceived threats to press freedom
02.12.12Sunday Telegraph
The scandal that state control would have buried
BothVoices support for some Leveson recommendations; repeats threats to press freedom throughout
APPENDIX 2: ALL LEADER ARTICLES WITH CLASSIFICATIONS
107MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Date Publication Headline Tone Reason
03.12.12 GuardianTaking Leveson to heart
Pro-LevesonSupports Leveson recommendations; describes fact of industry opposition
04.12.12 Sun Sara’s right Anti-LevesonOutlines and supports campaigner’s opposition to the Leveson recommendations
05.12.12 Sun No Leveson law Anti-LevesonCritical of statutory underpinning (Scottish context); politicians “would relish the opportunity to decide what you can or can’t read in your newspapers”
07.12.12 Daily Telegraph Salmond’s press law Anti-Leveson(Scottish context): links Leveson to loss of press freedom (“the state would still monitor and invigilate the new regulator”)
08.12.12 Daily Mirror Net a chance NoneDescribes LJ Leveson’s subsequent public comments about the internet and regulation
11.12.12 Daily MailGrotesque legacy of censors who failed us
Anti-Leveson (Draft Bill)
Critical of perceived threats posed by Leveson report via Labour’s draft Bill (“would unravel liberties that have been Britons’ birthright for 300 years”)
11.12.12 Times The unnecessary BillAnti-Leveson (Draft Bill)
Claims statutory underpinning would be a restriction on press freedom
11.12.12 Daily Mirror Press pause Anti-Leveson Critical of statutory underpinning via Leveson/Draft Bill
13.12.12 Daily TelegraphA timely example of state interference
Anti-LevesonDraws explicit link between statutory underpinning and political interference in publication
13.12.12 Daily Mirror Our right to probe Anti-LevesonLinks Maria Miller expenses story to potential state interference in publication following Leveson recommendations
13.12.12 Sun Blood stains Anti-LevesonDescribes Leveson recommendation on statutory underpinning as likely to “shackle a free press”
14.12.12 Sun Hands off Anti-LevesonLinks Maria Miller expenses story to justified rejection of Leveson recommendation on statutory underpinning
14.12.12 IndependentA silly warning that conveys a serious message
Anti-LevesonLinks Maria Miller expenses story to potential political interference after “state regulation of the press”
15.12.12 Sun Ludicrous, m’lud Anti-Leveson(Scottish context) Describes perceived threat to press freedom following the Leveson Report: “The real danger is a press muzzled by self-serving politicians”
16.12.12 Sunday TimesDirty Dick, saviour of ye printed word
Anti-Leveson Describes a “repressive, post-Leveson climate”
18.12.12 Daily MailShadow of fear over public’s right to know
Anti-LevesonDescribes Leveson Inquiry as directly responsible for police restrictions on information
18.12.12 Sun Over the top Anti-LevesonLinks Leveson to potential criminalisation of whistleblowing
19.12.12 Daily TelegraphA sinister new twist in the Mitchell saga
Anti-LevesonCritical of Leveson recommendation on off-the-record briefings, claims it will limit the flow of information
21.12.12 Times Three wise men BothSupport for some Leveson recommendations and for speculative Royal Charter Draft; describes statutory underpinning as a threat to press freedom
06.01.13 Sunday MirrorVictories for the press… and the people too
Anti-LevesonDismisses the Leveson Inquiry as a means for critics of the press to attack the industry
09.01.13 Sun Gag’s no joke Anti-LevesonExplicitly links the Leveson Inquiry to “attempts to stifle free speech” by a local council
23.01.13 Financial TimesBrussels’ oversight of regulators would be a retrograde step
NoneDescribes Leveson Inquiry in context of proposed EU regulatory changes
108Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Date Publication Headline Tone Reason
05.02.13 Sun Press for truth Anti-LevesonDescribes potential underpinning as “a Leveson law to muzzle the press”
07.02.13 Daily TelegraphLeveson and the Lords
None About Lords amendments to legislation related to Leveson
08.02.13 Daily MailThe Tories hang the police and Press out to dry…
Anti-LevesonDescribes Inquiry conclusions as pre-ordained, describes Leveson as a threat to press freedom and end to “400 years” of a free press
10.02.13 Sunday TimesLords a-leaping to gag the press
Anti-LevesonMultiple descriptions of threats to press freedom: “gag the press”; “death knell for press freedom”, etc.
13.02.13 GuardianFrom Beaverbrook to Blackadder
NoneContains arguments for and against Feb 12th Charter draft; no focus on Leveson or Cross-Party Charter
13.02.13 Times The fine printAnti-Leveson (Pro Feb 12th Charter)
Critical of Leveson’s “flawed” report; supportive of Feb 12th Charter draft; describes Leveson as a “vehicle for politicians… to impose regulation and obligations on the press”
13.02.13 IndependentThe least worst option for the British press
NoneGeneral support for Feb 12th Charter, with criticism of certain provisions. No focus on Leveson or Cross-Party Charter
13.02.13 Financial TimesPerils of press laws and Royal Charters
Anti-LevesonCritical of Leveson recommendations, which would have led to “statutory control”
14.02.13 Daily MailLeveson and a gag on whistleblowers
Anti-Leveson“It is impossible to overstate the Leveson report’s chilling effect on the public’s right to know”
15.02.13 Daily Telegraph A new press regulator Anti-LevesonClaims Leveson would be the “first statutory controls on the press for more than 300 years”; supports Feb 12th Royal Charter draft
18.02.13 Daily MailA Lib-Lab pact based on the politics of envy
Anti-LevesonMisrepresentation of Leveson recommendation on whistleblowers; links to future restrictions on information
21.02.13 Daily MailAnd still the man with no shame won’t go
Anti-Leveson“[T]he truly chilling effect of the Leveson Inquiry on the public’s 21right to know”
21.02.13 Daily TelegraphPutting self-interest ahead of press freedom
Anti-LevesonCritical of certain Leveson recommendations; describes “a chilling effect on investigative journalism”
22.02.13 Daily MailCulture of secrecy is killing trust in NHS
Anti-LevesonCritical of (misrepresented) Leveson recommendation on whistleblowing
22.02.13 TimesStatutes against liberty
Anti-LevesonCritical of Leveson recommendation regarding the Police and Criminal Evidence Act
23.02.13 GuardianLeveson and libel: another fine mess
BothGeneral support for Leveson recommendations; critical of Leveson recommendations on exemplary damages; criticism of Feb 12th Charter Draft
23.02.13 Daily Mail Daily Mail Comment Anti-Leveson“No true liberal would support the Leveson proposals to shackle free speech”; claims that Leveson will be used by politicians to stifle criticism
24.02.13 Sunday TimesLibel law of diminishing returns
Anti-LevesonDescribes Leveson recommendations (through draft Bill amendments) as “state regulation of the press”
02.03.13 Times The price of cynicism NoneMentions Leveson in relation to Lords Amendments to Defamation Bill
07.03.13 IndependentLord Puttnam’s libel folly
Both Outlines arguments for and against statutory underpinning
12.03.13 GuardianA public inquiry demands a public debate
BothContains arguments for and against clauses of various iterations of Royal Charters
12.03.13 IndependentTime for the media to find a compromise
BothIn favour of statutory underpinning for a new regulator, but critical of Leveson recommendations on Ofcom and potential “chilling effect on free speech”
109MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Date Publication Headline Tone Reason
12.03.13 Financial TimesTime for sensible press compromise
BothQualified support for statutory underpinning through modification of Feb 12th Royal Charter
14.03.13 Daily MailNow disinfect all the other public services
Anti-Leveson
Critical of Leveson recommendations, and raises threat to press freedom: “The fact is that since the Leveson Inquiry… transparency has been under chilling threat in Britain”
15.03.13 GuardianLeveson vote: some way from resolution
BothClaims Leveson report “plainly not insane”; indicates paper’s stance against certain Leveson recommendations
15.03.13 Daily ExpressFreedom of the press is a benchmark of our liberty
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Describes draft Cross-Party Charter as Labour “pushing for draconian controls on the press”; supports Feb 12th Charter
15.03.13 Daily MailA tawdry alliance and a threat to a free press
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Support for Feb 12th Charter; criticism of draft Labour/Lib Dem Charter as a threat to press freedom
15.03.13 Daily TelegraphParliament must support a free press
Anti-LevesonClaims “press will be less free than it is now” under Leveson proposals; “despots around the world will be delighted”; supports Feb 12th Charter
15.03.13 TimesUnwise and unnecessary
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Against draft Labour/Lib Dem Charter due to Leveson recommendation on statutory underpinning that will “interfere with freedom of speech”; supports Feb 12th Charter
15.03.13 Sun Day of destinyAnti-Cross-Party Charter
Describes Leveson statutory underpinning recommendation as a choice to “end centuries of free speech and open the door to State supervision of newspapers”
15.03.13 IndependentAn end to Leveson within sight at last
BothSupport for statutory underpinning, describes positive and negative interpretations of Cameron’s decision to suspend cross-party talks
16.03.13 Daily MailDefy the zealots and defend liberty
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Multiple descriptions of perceived threats to press freedom, which is described as “in grave and imminent danger”; supports Feb 12th Charter
16.03.13 Sun Read & Rights Anti-Leveson(Scottish context): describes Scottish interpretation of Leveson report as “a death warrant for a free Press in Scotland”; supports Feb 12th Charter
16.03.13 Sun Wish GrantedAnti-Cross-Party Charter
Claims that “Press freedom – that ancient, crucial ingredient of our democracy [is] now in grave, imminent peril” due to Cross-Party draft Charter; supports Feb 12th Charter
17.03.13 Mail on SundayThe Mail on Sunday Comment
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Repeated raising of perceived threats to press freedom as a result of the draft Cross-Party Charter
17.03.13 ObserverAfter Leveson, let’s put hysteria and mistrust behind us
BothSupportive of certain aspects of draft Cross-Party Charter, but notes potential downsides of statutory underpinning
17.03.13 Sunday TimesDon’t give up on press freedom now
Anti-Cross-Party Charter (pro-Feb 12th Charter)
Repeated description of perceived threats to press freedom (“slippery slope towards political control of the press”); supports Feb 12th Charter
17.03.13Sunday Telegraph
Regulating the press by statute is the first step to censorship
Both
Supportive of implementation of certain Leveson recommendations via Cross-Party Draft Charter; describes perceived threats to press freedom as a result of statutory underpinning
18.03.13 GuardianLeveson vote: no cause for hyperventilating
BothCovers arguments for and against Cross-Party and Feb 12th Charters, as well as the Leveson recommendations
18.03.13 Daily MailDon’t sacrifice our hard-won freedoms
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Describes Cross-Party draft Charter as representing a potential loss of freedom of expression; supports Feb 12th Charter
18.03.13 Daily TelegraphA muzzled media will make victims of us all
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Describes draft Cross-Party Charter as a threat to press freedom
18.03.13 Times Paper chaseAnti-Cross-Party Charter
Cross-Party Charter described as representing a loss of press freedom; support for Feb 12th Charter
18.03.13 SunFree speech and revenge
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Claims that the passing of the Cross-Party Charter in Parliament would result in “shackling free speech”, and represents “scrapped Press freedom”
110Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Date Publication Headline Tone Reason
18.03.13 IndependentA Royal Charter alone will not restore trust
Both Supportive of Charter backed by statute; lists arguments against state interference by other voices
18.03.13 Financial TimesRoyal Charter must guide, not dictate
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Critical of Charter process and links forthcoming Charter to a potential threat to press freedom
19.03.13 Guardian A good deal on paperPro-Cross-Party Charter
Qualified support for Cross-Party Charter
19.03.13 Daily Mail Daily Mail CommentAnti-Cross-Party Charter
Multiple representation of perceived threats to press freedom (“political interference in British newspapers”, etc.)
19.03.13 Daily TelegraphMPs cross the Rubicon on press regulation
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Equates Cross-Party Charter with a “Rubicon” and “inimical to a free press”
19.03.13 Times Across the RubiconAnti-Leveson; Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Critical of specific provisions of Cross-Party Charter, as well as perceived threat of Parliamentary interference; critical of Leveson Report
19.03.13 Sun Wait and freeAnti-Cross-Party Charter
Critical of the nature of the Cross-Party Charter process; incorrectly claims “Orwellian” Charter creates a regulator
19.03.13 IndependentA Leveson deal worth backing
Pro-Cross-Party Charter
Supportive of Cross-Party Charter
19.03.13 Financial Times Turning the pagePro-Cross-Party Charter
Qualified support for Cross-Party Charter
20.03.13 Daily MailAnother betrayal of stay-at-home mothers
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Describes Cross-Party Charter as a threat to press freedom, being based on “late-night talks on crushing Press freedom”
21.03.13 Sun Don’t fudge itAnti-Cross-Party Charter
Described Cross-Party Charter as a “sinister new press law”, designed “to nobble newspapers”
21.03.13 IndependentStill work to be done on Leveson
BothCritical of certain provisions of Cross-Party Charter (exemplary damages and arbitration free of charge); supportive in general of Charter
23.03.13 Times The right to offendAnti-Cross-Party Charter
Claims International disapproval of Cross-Party Charter; criticism of process of agreement of Charter
23.03.13 Daily Mirror Gag falls flatAnti-Cross-Party Charter
Describes Cross-Party Charter as “illiberal”, representing “shackles”
23.03.13 Sun Wrong againAnti-Cross-Party Charter
Describes Cross-Party Charter as “Parliament’s destruction of 300 years of Press freedom”
23.03.13 Financial TimesA muddle may be as bad as a muzzle
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Criticises “flawed” Charter
24.03.13 ObserverInstead of sensible reform, we now have a sloppy mess
BothCritical of the process of agreement over Cross-Party Charter; supportive of component on statutory underpinning
24.03.13 Sunday MirrorPress freedom in the balance
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
“British people risk losing the freedom of the press…”; “sleep-walking into the loss of a critical freedom”
24.03.13 Sunday TimesPress freedom: no longer made in Britain
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Describes Cross-Party Charter as representing the loss of press freedom
26.03.13 IndependentLet’s get on and put press regulation into practice
BothSupportive of Cross-Party Charter generally; criticism of specific provisions (exemplary damages and cost of arbitration)
27.03.13 Times Back of the scrumAnti-Leveson; Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Claims the Leveson Inquiry was unnecessary; criticises Cross-Party Charter as a loss of free speech
06.04.13 Daily MailEnd this culture of welfarism and greed
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Describes Cross-Party Charter as “a frighteningly illiberal system of statutory regulation which has been condemned across the free world”
111MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Date Publication Headline Tone Reason
08.04.13 Daily MailA chilling new threat to the right to know
Anti-LevesonCritical of (misrepresented) Leveson recommendation on whistleblowing; links Leveson to restrictions on information
11.04.13 Daily MailChilling spectre of a secret police force
Anti-Leveson“Lord Justice Leveson’s insidiously wrong-headed proposals to rein in the freedom of the Press”
11.04.13 Sun Secret society Anti-LevesonLinks Leveson recommendation on identification of arrests to “a nail in the coffin of freedom”
12.04.13 Times Shush moneyAnti-Cross-Party Charter
Links Cross-Party Charter to threatened press freedom
12.04.13 Sun Ed on the block Anti-LevesonDirectly links Leveson recommendation on arrest identification with the prevention of victims of sex attacks coming forward
13.04.13 Sun Press gag folly Anti-LevesonCritical of “short-sighted” Leveson recommendation on arrest identifications; describes “the campaign by Lord Justice Leveson… to silence the free Press”
15.04.13 Daily MailPress freedom is at risk from all sides
Anti-LevesonLeveson Inquiry linked to threatened Press freedom: “Leveson’s Inquiry has cast such a shadow over free expression”
15.04.13 Daily TelegraphSecret arrests would be an affront to justice
NoneDescribes Leveson’s recommendation on arrest identification, without comment
19.04.13 Daily MailHow can exposing the truth be a crime?
Anti-LevesonCritical of Leveson recommendations on press-police relations
20.04.13 Daily MailLeveson and a very disturbing affair
Anti-LevesonQuestions legitimacy of Leveson’s “deeply flawed Inquiry”; describes report as a “sloppy piece of work”
21.04.13 Mail on SundayThis cult of secrecy will harm us all
Anti-Leveson“Since the Leveson Report dealt a severe blow to press freedom…”
21.04.13 Sun Brief encounterAnti-Leveson; Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Describes Cross-Party Charter as the end of “300 years of Press freedom”; questions legitimacy of Inquiry
22.04.13 Daily MailThe public interest in this ‘private’ affair
Anti-Leveson Links Leveson with “stifling free speech”
23.04.13 Times Your right to knowAnti-Cross-Party Charter
Cross-Party Charter described as encouraging “infringements of freedoms”; describes Leveson report as linked to threats to newspapers
25.04.13 Guardian More work ahead Pro-LevesonSupport for Leveson Inquiry and recommendations, in context of IPCC report on police and media relations
26.04.13 Times Turning the pageAnti-Cross-Party Charter; Pro-Industry Charter
Multiple criticisms of Cross-Party Charter
26.04.13 IndependentTwo Royal Charters, one big impasse
BothOutlines both potential support for Cross-Party Charter and for Industry Charter
26.04.13 Guardian Time for a ceasefire BothContains arguments for and against both Cross-Party and newspaper Industry Charters
26.04.13 Daily MailA truly independent regulator of the Press
Anti-Cross-Party; Pro-Industry Charter
Describes Cross-Party Charter as “state-directed regulation of the Press”; fully supportive of Industry Charter
26.04.13 Daily MirrorThe key to a fair and free press
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro-Industry Charter
Critical of Cross-Party Charter: “Instead of a free pres… we would have state regulation”; describes Industry Charter as “the answer to the question of newspaper regulation”
26.04.13 Daily TelegraphSelf-regulation that is tough but independent
Anti-Cross-Party; Pro-Industry Charter
Describes Cross-Party Charter as ending “300 years of Press freedom”; supportive of Industry Charter
26.04.13 Daily TelegraphA step forward for a responsible press
Anti-Cross-Party; Pro-Industry Charter
Cross-Party Charter “used to muzzle the media to the benefit of the powerful”; supports Industry Charter
112Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Date Publication Headline Tone Reason
27.04.13 Sun A new CharterAnti-Cross-Party Charter; Pro-Industry Charter
Describes Cross-Party Charter as “an unworkable sambles that would destroy three centuries of Press freedom in Britain”
28.04.13 Sunday TimesA better way to regulate the Press
BothCritical of Cross-Party Charter and supportive of Industry Charter; offers qualified support for original Leveson recommendations
28.04.13Sunday Telegraph
A step forward for a responsible press
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; Pro-Industry CHarter
Raises potential of regulation to “muzzle the press”; critical of Cross-Party Charter, supports Industry Charter
03.05.13 Daily MailCharging headlong towards a secret state
Anti-LevesonLeveson Inquiry described as “at the root of this insidious attack on openness and transparency
03.05.13 Daily Telegraph The right to know None Mentions Leveson in relation to Stuart Hall arrest
03.05.13 SunStand up for free speech
Anti-LevesonDescribes Leveson as “the battering ram in a co-ordinated assault on free speech”
08.05.13 GuardianYou couldn’t make it up
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Suggests that Cross-Party Royal Charter would be subject to political interference
12.05.13 Mail on Sunday‘Improvements’ shouldn’t cost lives, Minister
Anti-Cross-Party; Pro-Industry Charter
Critical of Cross-Party Charter and process of agreement; cites press support for Industry Charter
15.05.13 Daily MailPolice, secrecy and the legacy of Leveson
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Describes Cross-Party Charter as a potential threat to public access to information
22.05.13 Daily TelegraphThe police should not be shielded from scrutiny
NoneMentions Leveson recommendations in relation to identification of arrests
22.05.13 Sun Secret Justice Anti-LevesonCritical of Leveson recommendations on arrest identification; describes Report as “flawed”; links Leveson with restricted public information
22.05.13 IndependentThe price we pay for open justice
NoneMentions Leveson in relation to press-police relations following the Inquiry
02.06.13 Sunday TimesHigh time to clean up the House of Lords
Anti-LevesonClaims that after Leveson it is risky to investigate the powerful
03.06.13 Daily MailIs this why politicians want to gag the press?
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Links Leveson to attempts “to muzzle Britain’s free Press”
04.06.13 Daily MailGay marriage, peers and a vote of principle
Anti-LevesonClaims “post-Leveson, politicians increasingly think they have the right to tell the Press what it can print”
05.06.13 Sun Seize him now Anti-LevesonQuestions cost of Leveson Inquiry and the legitimacy of its conclusions, and describes it as an attempt “to muzzle the Press”
07.06.13 Sun Secrecy fails Anti-LevesonCriticises Leveson recommendations on press-police relations; describes “the chilling effect of Leveson’s report”
19.06.13 GuardianIn praise of… Michael Grade
NoneMentions Michael Grade as playing a possible role in resolving the Royal Charter dispute
21.06.13 Daily MailThe perils of lurching towards a secret State
Anti-LevesonLinks the Leveson Report with restrictions on public information
23.06.13 Sun Illegal eagle Anti-LevesonDescribes the Leveson Inquiry outcome as threatening “to destroy Britain’s free Press”
24.06.13 Daily MailLawyers, hacking and a conspiracy of silence
Anti-LevesonCriticises legitimacy of Leveson conclusions on corporate hacking: “Leveson knew what was going on, and decided to ignore it”
25.06.13 Sun Call Leveson Anti-LevesonClaims Leveson Inquiry “recommended new controls shackling newspapers”
113MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Date Publication Headline Tone Reason
25.06.13 IndependentOther hackers need scrutiny too
Anti-LevesonClaims narrowness of remit reduces the legitimacy of the Leveson Inquiry
26.06.13 TimesPublish and be damned
Anti-LevesonClaims that the Leveson Inquiry was the direct result of “politically and commercially-motivated campaigning and reporting”
26.06.13 Sun Secret police Anti-Leveson Describes Leveson Inquiry as “destroying” transparency
30.06.13 Mail on Sunday
Royal Charter set up by the Press is the ideal answer as Leveson fades away
Anti-Cross-Party; Pro-Industry Charter
Critical of Cross-Party Charter: “Wrongdoings of a minority of journalists have been used by politicians and celebrities as pretext for shackling a free press”; supports Industry Charter
05.07.13 GuardianHacking Scandal: Back in the Sun
NoneMentions Leveson Inquiry in relation to leaked Rupert Murdoch reporting
08.07.13 Daily Telegraph Right on Rt Hon NoneMentions Royal Charters in relation to Lord Prescott’s resignation from the Privy Council
09.07.13 Daily MailMiliband must show us who runs Labour
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro-IPSO
Cross-Party Charter described as “plans to curb Press freedom”; supports new Industry regulator
10.07.13 Daily Telegraph A free pressAnti-Cross-Party Charter; pro-IPSO
Links Cross-Party Charter with state interference; supportive of IPSO
11.07.13 Times A big step forwardAnti-Cross-Party Charter; pro-IPSO
Supports IPSO, with reference to “protecting freedom of speech” against Cross-Party Charter
12.07.13 Daily MailMP’s pay and the peril of legislating in haste
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Critical of Cross-Party Charter, described as “statutory Press regulation”
18.07.13 Financial TimesThe right answer to press regulation
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro-Industry Charter
Critical of March 18h Charter on arbitration and standards-setting; supports Industry Charter
20.07.13 Daily MailHacking, Hypocrisy and a flawed Inquiry
Anti-Leveson Questions legitimacy of “flawed” Inquiry
20.07.13 Daily MailCameron must stand by his pledge on porn
Anti-Leveson
Questions legitimacy of the Inquiry “led by appalling double standards” to “protect law firms, insurers and celebrities, while ruthlessly pursuing newspapers and journalists”
20.07.13 Sun Hack hypocrisy Anti-LevesonCritical of conduct of Leveson Inquiry (“contempt” for most witnesses) and decision to “choose to ignore” evidence of hacking
28.07.13 Sun Hugh there? NoneMentions Hacked Off and phone-hacking; no evaluation of press regulation
31.07.13 Sun This is our Britain Anti-LevesonDescribes Leveson Report as “discredited”, and a leading to “life without press freedoms”
01.08.13 Daily MailHacking: why the silence of the Left
Anti-LevesonDescribes Leveson Report as having “chilling implications for Press freedom”; criticises Leveson decision on SOCA report
01.08.13 Daily TelegraphThe hacking scandal goes beyond the press
Anti-Leveson Critical of “unsatisfactory” remit of the Leveson Inquiry
01.08.13 SunRiddle of who got screwed
NoneMentions Hacked Off and phone-hacking in relation to corporate hacking
06.08.13 Daily MailBritain must remain a rock to Gibraltar
Anti-LevesonCriticises remit of Leveson Inquiry, and decision on SOCA report
11.08.13 Mail on SundayThe hacking scandal that’s still growing
Anti-LevesonCritical of Leveson Inquiry remit: “focused far too narrowly”
25.08.13 Mail on SundayWhy won’t police reveal SOCA files?
NoneMentions Leveson in relation to corporate hacking revealed in SOCA report
114Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Date Publication Headline Tone Reason
04.09.13 Daily MailAfter 60 years, bring back Britain’s rights
Anti-LevesonDescribes Leveson’s report as a “draconian crackdown on the press”
08.09.13 Mail on SundayWeak leader in a trap of his own making
Anti-Leveson Describes “the flawed Leveson inquisition”
09.09.13 Daily MailA weak leader beaten by the union bullies
Anti-LevesonClaims the Leveson Inquiry “suppressed” the corporate hacking revealed in the SOCA report
10.09.13 Sun
This vomit-inducing article proves why journalists have to scrutinise politicians
None References Hacked Off in relation to Chris Huhne article
16.09.13 Daily TelegraphThe cost of libel reform
Anti-LevesonCritical of Leveson recommendations on costs protection, describes as a threat to free press
17.09.13 Independent Fettering of the press None Mentions Leveson Inquiry in relation to libel reform
26.09.13 Daily MailThe sensible solution to overpriced energy
Anti-Leveson
Links Leveson Report to political interference in the press: “after the Leveson Inquiry, MPs are manoeuvring to impose political control on the Press after 400 years of freedom”
01.10.13 Daily MailAn evil legacy and why we won’t apologise
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Claims Cross-Party Charter will be “a politically controlled body to oversee what papers are allowed to publish”
05.10.13 Daily TelegraphAn ominous threat to shackle our free press
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro-Industry Charter
Describes Cross-Party Charter as a threat to press freedom (“statutory control”); supportive of Industry Charter
06.10.13 ObserverMiliband, the Mail and the return of Leveson
None Mentions Leveson, contains no opinion or evaluation
06.10.13 Sunday TimesFreedom of speech: warts and all
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro-Industry Charter
Critical of Cross-Party Charter: “Slippery slope”; “end of 300 years of press freedom”; supports Industry Charter
06.10.13Sunday Telegraph
Emotion has no place in press regulation
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro-Industry Charter
Support for Industry Charter; Critical of Cross-Party Charter – could be “used to muzzle the press”
09.10.13 Daily Telegraph A threat to freedom
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro-Industry Charter; against rejection of Industry Charter by Privy Council
Describes Cross-Party Charter as “statutory press controls for the first time in 300 years”
09.10.13 Times Paper jam
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro-Industry Charter; against rejection of Industry Charter by Privy Council
Critical of Cross-Party Charter and recommendations; critical of the Privy Council rejection of the Industry Charter
09.10.13 Daily MirrorA dire day for freedom
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro-Industry Charter; against rejection of Industry Charter by Privy Council
Critical of Cross-Party Charter, described as a threat to press freedom; supportive of Industry Charter
09.10.13 Sun Hate campaignAnti-Cross-Party Charter
Describes Cross-Party Charter as a “historic subversion of democracy”, and “the first dangerous step towards state of Britain’s free Press”
09.10.13 Sun Freedom fightAnti-Cross-Party Charter
Cross-Party Charter as a means of bringing newspapers “to heel”; freedom of the Press “about to be binned”
11.10.13 Independent Stalemate BothSupportive of Cross-Party Charter in general; critical of process of agreement of Cross-Party Charter
115MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Date Publication Headline Tone Reason
12.10.13 Daily Mirror Charter of chainsAnti-Cross-Party Charter
Described dispute over Cross-Party Charter as “essentially about the principle of politicians interfering in newspapers”
13.10.13 Sunday ExpressFlawed Royal Charter will put our democracy at risk
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro-IPSO; against rejection of Industry Charter
Critical of multiple aspects of Cross-Party Charter, including the potential for restrictions of press freedom (“an assault on free speech”); supports new Industry regulator
13.10.13 SunDon’t allow sleazy MPs to kill freedom
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro-Industry Charter; against rejection of Industry Charter by Privy Council
Describes Cross-Party Charter as representing the end of press freedom; supportive of Industry Charter
17.10.13 Daily MailRallying to fight for the cause of freedom
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Describes Cross-Party Charter as a threat to press freedom: “deeply chilling implications of… efforts to impose statutory controls on the Press”
17.10.13 Times Pressing truthsAnti-Cross-Party Charter
Supports Minister’s opposition to Cross-Party Charter
17.10.13 Daily Mirror Royal doubts
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro-Industry Charter; against rejection of Industry Charter by Privy Council
Claims Cross-Party Charter equals “state control” of the press; critical of rejection of Industry Charter
17.10.13 Sun Throne it outAgainst Cross-Party Charter
Describes the Cross-Party Charter as “a politically-driven assault on the Press and on our democracy itself”; “ending three centuries of press freedom at the stroke of a pen”
18.10.13 Guardian Balancing actsAnti-Cross-Party Charter
Critical of Cross-Party Charter
19.10.13 Financial TimesA flawed blueprint for press regulation
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Critical of Cross-Party Charter provisions on arbitration and control of standards code
25.10.13 Daily MailPrivy Council must not be above the law
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro-IPSO
Critical of Cross-Party Charter: “could bring an end to three centuries of Press freedom in this country”; support for new Industry regulator
25.10.13 Times Hacked Off BothSupportive of certain Leveson recommendations; critical of Cross-Party Charter; supports IPSO
29.10.13 GuardianA royal seal, with no deal
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Critical of Cross-Party Charter, including potential for political interference
29.10.13 Independent Open judgement BothContains arguments for and against IPSO and the Cross-Party Charter
31.10.13 Daily MailA judicial farce and a dark day for freedom
Anti-Cross-Party Charter, against sealing of Charter
Critical of Cross-Party Charter: “dark day for freedom”; “far from independent”
31.10.13 Daily TelegraphThe fight goes on for press freedom
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro-Industry Charter; against rejection of Industry Charter by Privy Council; against sealing of Cross-Party Charter
Describes Cross-Party Charter as a threat to press freedom; critical of Privy Council decisions to seal Cross-Party Charter and to reject Industry Charter.
31.10.13 Times Pressing concernsAnti-Cross-Party Charter
Critical of Cross-Party Charter on multiple counts
31.10.13 Daily MirrorA dark day for freedom
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; against sealing of Charter
Describes Cross-Party Charter as a “death warrant for press freedom”
31.10.13 Sun No hidingAnti-Cross-Party Charter; against sealing of Charter
(Scottish context) Describes Cross-Party Charter as a threat to press freedom
116Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Date Publication Headline Tone Reason
01.11.13 Daily TelegraphWhy is Mrs Miller’s case dragging on and on?
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Describes Cross-Party Charter as a threat to press freedom: “chilling effect that statutory regulation of the press might exert”
03.11.13 ObserverLet’s end this impasse on press regulation
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro-IPSO
Critical of Cross-PartyCharter, and lists Observer’s intention not to join; gives qualified support to IPSO
03.11.13 Sunday TimesNot a Charter for press freedom
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; against rejection of Industry Charter, against sealing of Cross-Party Charter
Critical of Cross-Party Charter: “The chilling effect on freedom of speech that comes from the proposal to establish political interference in the press”
03.11.13Sunday Telegraph
Shadowy figures who would like to muzzle the press
Anti-Cross-Party Charter; Pro-IPSO, against sealing of Cross-Party Charter
Describes Cross-Party Charter as “muzzling [the] press”; support for IPSO
04.11.13 Daily Mirror Ditch stitch-up
Anti-Cross-Party Charter, pro-IPSO, against sealing of Cross-Party Charter
Critical of Cross-Party Charter (“state dictating for the first time in hundreds of years how newspapers operate”); supportive of IPSO
13.11.13 Daily MailMigration: Labour’s spectacular mistake
Anti-Cross-Party Charter
Critical of how Cross-Party Charter could supposedly be used to “silence all critical reporting”
26.11.13 Daily MailHow much lower can greedy City stoop?
Anti-LevesonCritical of Leveson recommendations on police-press relations
117MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
General Variables:• Date: Date of publication of article• Publisher: Publishing group
1. Northern & Shell2. DMG Media3. Trinity Mirror4. News UK5. Telegraph Media Group6. Guardian Media Group7. Pearson8. Independent Print Ltd
• Title: National newspaper title1. Sun2. Daily Mirror3. Daily Star4. Sunday Mirror5. Daily Star Sunday6. People7. Daily Express8. Sunday Express9. Daily Mail10. Mail on Sunday11. Times12. Sunday Times13. Daily Telegraph14. Sunday Telegraph15. Guardian16. Observer17. Independent18. Independent on Sunday19. Financial Times
• Sunday: Sunday Paper (0=No; 1=Yes)• Online only: Article only published online (0=No; 1=Yes)• Scottish: Scottish relevance only (0=No; 1=Yes)• Word count: No. of words in article• Category: Type of article
1. News2. Feature3. Leader4. Opinion
• Headline: Full headline of article• Guest: Guest column (0=No; 1=Yes)• Guest name: Name of guest columnist• Source identity (1-10): Name of source quoted in article (max. 10)• No. of sources: Number of sources in article
Tone Variables:• Has tone: Article contains one or more frames (0=No; 1=Yes)
APPENDIX 3: DATASET VARIABLE LIST
118Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
• Overall tone: (Based on frames)0. Negative-only1. Positive-only2. Both
• Tone (Leveson Report)(based on frames)1. Negative-only2. Positive-only3. Both
• Tone (February 12th Charter)1. Negative-only2. Positive-only3. Both
• Tone (Cameron’s Decision)1. Negative-only2. Positive-only3. Both
• Tone (Cross-Party Charter) (Based on frames)1. Negative-only2. Positive-only3. Both
• Tone (Industry Charter)1. Negative-only2. Positive-only3. Both
• Tone (IPSO)1. Negative-only2. Positive-only3. Both
• Tone (Rejection of Industry Charter)1. Negative-only2. Positive-only3. Both
• Tone (Sealing of Cross-Party Charter)1. Negative-only2. Positive-only3. Both
Framing Variables:• Threat: threat to press freedom (0=No; 1=Yes)• Critique: Critique of Leveson recs/Cross-Party Charter provisions (0=No; 1=Yes)• Illegitimate: Questions legitimacy of Leveson Inquiry/Report (0=No; 1=Yes)• Supports Leveson: Support for Leveson Inquiry or Report(0=No; 1=Yes)• Supports Underpinning: Support for statutory underpinning (0=No; 1=Yes)• Supports Cross-Party Charter: Support for Cross-Party Charter (0=No; 1=Yes)• International: UK’s reputation damaged by Leveson/Charter• Critical of Process: Criticism of process of deciding Charter (March 17th) (0=No; 1=Yes)
Extra Variables:• Group attack: Contains attack on pro-Leveson/pro-Charter group(s) (0=No; 1=Yes)• Group support: Contains support for pro-Leveson/pro-Charter group(s) (0=No; 1=Yes)• Mentions Pressbof: Contains any specific mention of Pressbof (0=No; 1=Yes)• Mentions IPSO: Contains a specific mention of IPSO (0=No; 1=Yes)
119MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
• Mentions polling: Contains a mention of specific opinion polling data (0=No; 1=Yes)• Poll identity (if mentions polling): Specific poll mentioned
Explanatory variables:• Reason for framing decisions: Short explanation for choosing tone variables, based
on article text.• Reason for group attack decision: Short explanation for flagging article as containing
an attack on pro-Leveson/pro-Charter groups• Groups mentioned: List of any pro-Leveson/pro-Charter groups mentioned in article• Group description: Exact wording of description of pro-Leveson/pro-Charter groups
in article
120Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
This is a short coding guide that contains the following:
• A “checklist” outlining how to approach coding articles
• Some examples of the framing variables – what to watch out for
• A summary of dates and the contextual issues
• A summary of the special cases to watch out for
Coding Checklist
This is an example of how to approach the coding, which should help with the first
few cases, after which it should start to become more familiar. Briefly, the checklist
is:
1) Which, if any, of the contextual issues does the article refer to? (NB: this is
just a first scan – don’t mark something just because it’s mentioned)
2) Does the article contain evaluative statements or positions on these
contextual issues?
3) Are the viewpoints for each contextual issue positive or negative; does the
article contain both?
4) Which of the framing variables are present?
NB: In almost all cases, the treatment of a given contextual issue in an article will
be determined by the presence of one or more framing variables, but occasionally
general statements of support or criticism of (e.g.) IPSO may be present.
1) Which of the contextual issues does the article refer to?
This can be any combination of references to the seven contextual issues that the
project focuses on:
1. The Leveson Report and its recommendations
2. The First Royal Charter (the “Feb 12th Charter”)
3. Cameron’s decision to end cross-party talks (March 14th)
4. The cross-party Charter that was eventually sealed (the “Cross-Party
Charter”)
5. The rival Charter (the “Industry Charter”)
6. The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO)
7. The decision to reject the Industry Charter
8. The decision to seal the Cross-Party Charter
Often, these are linked to the date the article was published, and sometimes it takes
a bit of analysis to work out which charter or decision is being referred to. Part 3 of
this document sets out a description of which dates each of the contextual issues is
relevant. It is important to read and understand these, as much of the newspaper
coverage assumes at least some familiarity with then-current events.
APPENDIX 4: PRESS REGULATION COVERAGE GUIDE FOR CODERS
121MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
Again, this should just be a check-through to orientate yourself to the first 10 or 20
articles; don’t code anything at this stage
2) Does the article contain evaluative statements or positions
on these contextual issues?
Not all articles contain a viewpoint. Many simply refer to a development regarding
press regulation (e.g. “the Privy Council is due to meet today to discuss…”). However,
the majority will contain some evaluation of one or more of the contextual issues.
These can be expressed in three ways, each of which is valid:
• Quotes: (either direct – “quoted” – or indirect) by sources, or – if a comment
piece – by the journalist writing
• Attributed opinions: Also very common are statements within articles
that an individual, group or political party has an opinion or position on
the issue. Commonly, this will be something like “newspaper groups have
rejected the Charter, which they feel threatens investigative journalism”, or
“most Conservatives reject statutory underpinning”
• Statements of fact: There may in some cases be a blurring of the line
between fact and comment. Watch out for statements like “Parliament will
today announce draconian measures that will introduce political controls
over the press for the first time”.
3) Which contextual events are referred to (with evaluation)
in each article, if any?
This is relatively self-explanatory, and is down to the coder’s interpretation. While
it should be linked to the consideration of which framing variables are present
(see below), an initial read-through of the article should give you a good idea of the
viewpoints expressed.
The different contextual issues are not mutually exclusive; an article
can contain references to one, two or more events. For example: an article
containing opposing quotes from sources both for and against the Leveson Report’s
recommendations would be coded like this:
Leveson Feb 12th RC CameronCross-
Party
Industry
RCIPSO Rejected Sealed
X
While an article which contains criticism of the Cross-Party Charter and support for
the Industry Charter and IPSO would look like this:
Leveson Feb 12th RC CameronCross-
Party
Industry
RCIPSO Rejected Sealed
X X X
As mentioned above, the purpose is not to count all the instances of variables
appearing, just to determine whether or not they appear.
122Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Finally, it is important to check through to the end of the article – often a viewpoint
will be given in the very last paragraph, so an article that has contained nothing but
criticism of an issue may contain a supportive quote at the end.
4) Which of the framing variables are present?
Though linked to the contextual issues, the framing variables should be analysed
separately. Though almost all articles will contain one or more framing variables,
not all will. These will usually be:
• Articles in which no evaluative statement or viewpoint is included
• Articles that contain only positive and/or negative viewpoints on IPSO,
the Feb 12th charter, or the Industry Charter, but do not refer to Leveson
or the Cross-Party Charter (or threats to press freedom) – there are a
small number of these.
The framing variables are discussed in full below, but the brief list is:
“Negative” variables:
• Threat to press freedom
• Critique of recommendations (Leveson or Cross-Party Charter only)
• Questions the legitimacy of the Leveson Inquiry
• UK’s international reputation
• Criticism of the process of agreeing the Cross-Party Charter
“Positive” variables:
• Supports Leveson recommendations
• Supports statutory underpinning
• Supports Cross-Party Royal Charter
“Neutral” variable:
• Critical of use of Royal Charter in principle (not specifically about one
version of the Charter)
123MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
A guide to the framing variables – what to watch out for
Negative:
“Threat” – Often criticism of the Cross-Party Royal Charter or the Leveson
recommendations are framed as a threat to press freedom. In some cases this can
be nuanced; in others it is very obvious. The following phrases are common, and
each denotes the potential threat to press freedom:
• “shackles/shackle/shackled”
• “muzzled/muzzle”
• “chilling effect” (usually on investigative journalism)
• “political interference/political control”
• “controls on the press”; “statutory controls” – see also “critique” frame,
below
• “end of a free press/press freedom”
• “[end of/threat to] 300 years of press freedom”
• “politicians’ Charter”; “written by politicians”
Often, though, it may be down to your interpretation, but these should serve as a
guide
“Critique of Leveson recommendations or Cross-Party Charter provisions” –
This includes any reference to whether certain recommendations are bad or could
have a damaging effect. These are usually restricted to:
• Statutory underpinning, e.g. references to “new press laws”; “statutory
control”(in conjunction with “threat”); or the use of legislation
• The internet (usually criticism that Leveson didn’t focus enough on it)
• The Data Protection Act (DPA) (Leveson recommended that journalists
should not be able to hold information on private individuals indefinitely)
• Whistleblowing
• “Secret arrests”
• Exemplary damages / court costs for newspapers outside an approved
regulator
• The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) – usually referred to regarding
journalist source protection.
Though this might seem complicated, the text of articles should be quite clear on
whether Leveson/Cross-Party Charter is being criticised or supported.
“Questions the Legitimacy of Leveson” – ONLY related to the Leveson Report/
Inquiry. Occasionally articles refer to flaws in the Inquiry or the report. They are
usually manifested in certain very specific ways:
• Leveson didn’t understand journalism/newspapers/tabloids
• The remit of the Leveson Inquiry was “too narrow”
• The Leveson Inquiry was a political/establishment stitch-up, and its
conclusions were pre-decided
124Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
• The Leveson Inquiry should never have happened (usually refers to it being
set up in a panic, or that everything it covered should have been dealt with
by existing laws)
Though there are specific triggers for this frame throughout the year:
• The alleged affair between lawyers involved in the Leveson Inquiry, though
the “legitimacy” frame should only be used if there is a direct link drawn
within the article between the affair and the compromised legitimacy of the
Inquiry
• The revelations of “blue-chip hacking”, and the related report by SOCA.
Occasionally it is stated that Leveson deliberately ignored the report, in
order to focus only on newspaper hacking
“UK’s International Reputation” – Any reference to either of two approximate
arguments:
• Britain will no longer set a good example for press freedom worldwide
• The decision to introduce Leveson/Cross-Party Charter will be copied by
undemocratic governments to crack down on their own journalists.
“Criticism of the process of agreeing the Cross-Party Charter” – any critical
reference specifically to the late-night meeting on March 17th, in which the text
of the Charter agreed the next day was finalised. Often referred to as a “stitch-up”;
“deal over pizzas” etc. Can be used in articles to criticise the Cross-Party Charter’s
legitimacy.
Positive:
“Supports Leveson recommendations” – Any statement in support of (a) the
Report as a whole, or (b) any of its recommendations. These will usually be
expressed as support for the need for legislation (statutory underpinning/new law/
new legislation), in which case the following will also be present:
“Supports statutory underpinning” – to be used in two contexts:
1) Specific support for the Leveson recommendation that a new regulator
should be underpinned by law (in which case “supports Leveson
recommendations” should also be coded)
2) General support for the need for statutory underpinning of any new
regulatory system, where specific reference to the Leveson report or the
Cross-Party Charter is not provided
“Supports Cross-Party Royal Charter” – as with “supports Leveson
recommendations”, but with the Cross-Party Charter. This means that it can also
similarly overlap with “supports statutory underpinning”
Neutral:
“Critical of the use of Royal Charter in principle” – Any reference that using a
Royal Charter in this area is a bad idea (where no specific Charter is referenced in
125MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
the statement). NB: Not to be confused with specific criticisms of the Cross-Party
Royal Charter, which is covered in the ‘Negative’ frames above)
126Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Contextual issues – explanations and key dates
The Leveson Report: Published 29/11/2012, relevant throughout the entire
sample. The Leveson Report, and the Inquiry that created it, is the backdrop to
the entire analysis. Initially, almost all references to “Leveson” are to the report.
By March 2013 onwards, more of the analysis is of the Royal Charter(s), though the
coverage often returns to specific Leveson recommendations and opinion pieces
often refer back to Leveson.
The First Royal Charter (published on February 12th 2013), relevant from around
01/01/2013, to shortly after the Cross-Party Charter was decided. The first Royal
Charter was created by the Conservative Party in conjunction with the newspaper
industry. It was first announced in mid-December, and by January some details were
being announced. At that time, the main area of conflict between different parties
was whether there should be a Charter (Conservatives), or a new piece of legislation
(Labour, Lib Dems, supporters of the Leveson recommendations, including Hacked
Off).
Cameron’s decision to end talks (Relevant from 14th March 2013 to around
25th March 2013. NB: doesn’t exist before 14/3/13): On 14/03/2013, cross-party
talks on agreeing a Royal Charter were ended by Cameron (by this time all parties
had agreed on the use of a Charter, but were disagreeing on certain points (most
notably whether statutory underpinning was needed (Labour and Lib Dems) or
not (Conservatives). This led to a likely Commons vote on the following Monday
(March 18th), and a frantic few days as both sides tried to reach agreement behind
the scenes before a potentially embarrassing vote. After a week or so, his decision
was no longer relevant, although it did generate comment for a few days.
The Cross-Party Charter, agreed on March 18th (Relevant from 14th March 2013
Onwards): Besides the Leveson Report, this is by far the most common subject in all
the newspaper coverage. It is referred to from around 14th March (when Cameron’s
decision to end talks meant that the Labour/Lib Dem version of a Royal Charter
might be the chosen template) until the end of the sample period. The key to this
is working out when it is being referred to. It can be referred to as “the Leveson
Charter”, “the Hacked Off Charter”, “the politicians’ Charter”, etc.
The Rival/Industry/Pressbof Charter (25th April 2013 Onwards): This Charter was
written and submitted by the Press Standards Board of Finance (Pressbof) to the
Privy Council on 25th April 2013, and remained valid for the rest of the analysis.
It is almost always referred to as “the newspaper industry’s favoured Charter” or
“newspaper groups have drawn up their own royal charter”, or something similar.
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) (8th July 2013 Onwards):
This replacement to the PCC was announced on 8th July 2013, and remained relevant
thereafter. It is almost always referred to be name, and should be straightforward to
code. NB: very occasionally articles can confuse IPSO (the regulator) with the
Industry’s Royal Charter. Where an article refers to something like “a tough
new system with the power to levy £1m fines” etc, make sure that it mentions
127MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
IPSO, otherwise it should be taken to be referring to the Industry Charter.
Articles may refer to both.
The decision to reject the Industry Charter (around 5th October 2013 Onwards):
The Privy Council rejected the Industry Charter on 8th October, but speculation of the
likely result began shortly before. This period saw an increase in analysis of both
the Cross-Party Charter and the Industry Charter, so articles that mentioned the
decision usually also referred to the different Charters
The decision to seal the Cross-Party Charter (30th October 2013 Onwards): The
Privy Council officially sealed the Charter agreed on March 18th on 30th October.
Contextual Issues to Avoid
There are two issues that may crop up in articles, and which may be relevant to the
discussions of press regulation, but which there is not the space or scope to measure
or analyse here. These are:
Draft “Leveson Bills”: Before Royal Charters entered the debate, there were four
attempts (between December 2012 and February 2013) to create “Leveson Bills”
intended to turn the report’s recommendation on statutory underpinning into law.
These Bills were:
1) The Conservative/Department for Culture, Media and Sport draft Bill
2) Labour’s draft Bill
3) Hacked Off’s draft Bill
4) Lord Anthony Lester’s draft Bill
In any articles where these Bills are referenced, code only those statements
relating to the Leveson report and its recommendations, most likely to be statutory
underpinning. For example, an argument in favour of legislation would be “support
for statutory underpinning”
The Puttnam and Skidelsky amendments in the House of Lords: In February and
March 2013, Lord Puttnam, and then Lord Skidelsky introduced amendments to the
Defamation Bill and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill which would have
enshrined some of Leveson in law. This caused a parallel argument to the whole
Leveson/Royal Charter debate that brought a lot of discussion about defamation and
libel laws.
As with the “Draft Bill” articles, if you come across any of these, code only the
references to Leveson or Royal Charter recommendations.
128Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
To test the validity of the variables used in the analysis, Inter-Coder Reliability
(ICR) testing was carried out in April and May 2014. Two independent coders from
the LSE MSc Media and Communications Governance programme, with research
experience and knowledge of the subject area were engaged in a two-stage ICR test.1
Methods
Following a preliminary meeting and a practice coding session, each coder was
allocated approximately 100 cases each to code, ensuring that approximately 10%
of the total sample was independently analysed. Each coder was given a different
sample of cases, and comparisons were between the results produced by the relevant
coder, and those produced by the main project researcher.
Samples were chosen from the main database of 2,047 cases using an open-access
random-number generator,2 with duplicates removed and replaced by subsequent
generations.
Coders were then asked to record the presence of the following frames in the subset
of articles they were allocated, in order to replicate the analysis of ‘tone’ used
throughout the project.
‘Positive’ statements:
• Supportive of Leveson Recommendations: Any statement in support of
(a) the Leveson Report in general, or (b) any of its recommendations.
• Supportive of statutory underpinning of press regulation: either (a)
a statement in support specifically of the Leveson recommendation on
statutory underpinning; or (b) a general statement in support of statutory
underpinning for press regulation.
• Supportive of Royal Charter: Any statement in support of the Cross-Party
Charter, or its specific provisions.
‘Negative’ statements:
• Threat to press freedom: Any reference to either Leveson or any proposed
method of press regulation as a potential threat to press freedom, or to
freedom of expression.
• Criticism of Leveson recommendations/cross-party Royal Charter
provisions: Any critical reference to specific recommendations in the
Leveson Report, or to any of the provisions of the Cross-Party Royal Charter.
• Questions the Legitimacy of the Leveson Report: Critical references that
directly imply that the Leveson Inquiry or Report were flawed, corrupt,
or otherwise illegitimate (including conspiracy, narrowness of remit or
1 Special thanks to Anri van der Spuy and Anuradha Santhanam for help with coding
2 http://www.random.org/integers/
APPENDIX 5: INTER-CODER RELIABILITY (ICR) TESTING - METHODS AND RESULTS
129MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST
expertise of the judge, misconception in setting-up of the Inquiry, waste of
public money).
• Damage to the UK’s international reputation: Any reference to either of
two approximate arguments: that Britain will no longer set a good example
for press freedom worldwide if Leveson or the Royal Charter system were
to be implemented; or, the implementation of Leveson or the Royal Charter
will be copied by undemocratic governments to crack down on journalists.
• Criticism of the process of agreeing the Royal Charter: Critical references
specifically to the process of agreeing the Royal Charter – references to the
“pizza deal”, “stitch-up”, etc.
Following the coding exercise, a follow-up meeting was conducted in order to
discuss any issues with the coding project. Problematic issues were addressed, and
uncertain cases were analysed and recoded, if necessary. Problems of coding arose
primarily in three areas:
• Uncertainty over context, and the various different iterations of Royal
Charters
• Occasional uncertainty about the difference between specific criticism of
the Cross-Party Charter, and general criticism of use of Royal Charters in
general
• The application of the “Leveson Inquiry legitimacy” variable
Where uncertainties of the first type arose, they were almost always resolved via
reference to the date of the article, for example references to the “Pressbof Charter”
could not have been made prior to the publication of that charter on 25th April.
Uncertainties of the second and third type were in most cases resolved by reference
to the coding instructions issued to coders prior to the exercise (See Appendix 4
for the full coding instructions). Where necessary, the coding instructions were
amended to ensure clarity. Resolutions of any cases were made only where factual
evidence was relevant; resolutions were not made on the basis of differences in
opinion between coders.
Results
Once the final results were collated, ICR scores were calculated using an open-source
reliability calculator.3
The list below shows the results for each variable, including the Percentage
Agreement between coders (i.e. how often the guest coder agreed with the main
researcher), and the Cohen’s Kappa score - a statistical measure of inter-coder
agreement, where values of over 0.8 (on a scale of -1 to 1) are generally agreed to
indicate very high level of agreement:
3 http://dfreelon.org/utils/recalfront/recal2/
130Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2)
Frame Percentage Agreement Cohen’s Kappa Score
Threat 91.6% 0.831
Criticism 94.1% 0.837
Legitimacy 98.0% 0.836
International 99.0% 0.936
Process 98.5% 0.895
Supports Leveson 96.1% 0.862
Supports Statutory Underpinning 97.5% 0.844
Supports Charter 98.0% 0.872
An Excel file containing all of the Inter-Coder Reliability data is available to the
public on the Media Standards Trust website.
King’s College London
Virginia Woolf Building
22 Kingsway
London
WC2B 6NR
0207 848 7930
info@mediastandardstrust.org
www.mediastandardstrust.org
Media Standards Trust, Company Limited by Guarantee
Registered in England and Wales 05514310
Registered Charity 1113680