Britain’s libel laws are killing investigative journalism. But the News of the World scandal makes reform even more unlikely

Why is it that grubby journalists have to sully the reputation of the good? The furore surrounding the News of the World and its use of private detectives to delve into the mobile phones and other records of public figures could not have come at a worse time for journalism.

I say this not to defend the practitioners – I am not one to defend the status quo. This profession needs far greater accountability, on issues such as conflicts of interest, and a strong and formal code of conduct to guide the working practices of reporters and editors.

But the consequences of this scandal are far more important than the future of a tabloid newspaper and a spin doctor. It is intriguing to watch the Labour party attack Andy Coulson, not for his former role as one of Rupert Murdoch’s chosen sons, but for his present role as David Cameron’s director of communications. This government, and the next Tory government, will stop at nothing to appease Murdoch and his business interests. Both parties have form on this.

The problem with British journalism is that it shouts a great deal, throws many bricks, but uncovers precious little. Investigative journalism is a declining art. Much of that is due to economics. It costs a considerable amount to deploy a team to unearth information about, say, a dodgy arms deal or collusion in torture. Sometimes months of probing leads to nothing, and with newspapers in their current parlous position, editors are under pressure to account for every penny.

But the main impediment comes from Britain’s horrific libel laws. Britain has become the libel capital of the world, home of what has come to be known as “libel tourism“, the destination of choice for Russian oligarchs and others to prosecute not just journalists, but book authors, even NGOs. The chilling effect is hard to quantify, because beyond the prosecutions lies the self-censorship that is affecting so much journalism. The new mantra, from the BBC to most newspapers, even to some bloggers, is: “Why cause trouble?”

The Commons select committee on culture, media and sport is due in a few weeks to publish its report on “press standards, privacy and libel” – note the order. They will be tempted to use the latest scandal to do the opposite of what they should. Instead of loosening libel, they are likely to harden rules on privacy.

At Index on Censorship, in conjunction with English PEN, we have been conducting our own inquiry into libel. We have spoken to editors, lawyers, publishers, bloggers and NGOs in a unified campaign for changes in the libel law. The main areas we are looking at are costs (which have spiralled out of all proportion), areas of jurisdiction and balance of proof.

When Tony Blair, in his dying days as prime minister, derided journalists as “feral beasts”, my response was to laugh. I remember a conversation a few years earlier with a friend, a former political journalist who had made the familiar journey to government service, becoming a senior information officer. He told me that, no matter what a headline might scream, he had been shocked to find out how little journalists ever found out.

On a good day, he said, the public might learn around 1% of what was going on. And now, thanks to the News of the World and others, in their pursuit of salacious gossip about celebrity, we are in danger of finding out even less.

Britain’s libel laws are killing investigative journalism. But the News of the World scandal makes reform even more unlikely

Why is it that grubby journalists have to sully the reputation of the good? The furore surrounding the News of the World and its use of private detectives to delve into the mobile phones and other records of public figures could not have come at a worse time for journalism.

I say this not to defend the practitioners – I am not one to defend the status quo. This profession needs far greater accountability, on issues such as conflicts of interest, and a strong and formal code of conduct to guide the working practices of reporters and editors.

But the consequences of this scandal are far more important than the future of a tabloid newspaper and a spin doctor. It is intriguing to watch the Labour party attack Andy Coulson, not for his former role as one of Rupert Murdoch’s chosen sons, but for his present role as David Cameron’s director of communications. This government, and the next Tory government, will stop at nothing to appease Murdoch and his business interests. Both parties have form on this.

The problem with British journalism is that it shouts a great deal, throws many bricks, but uncovers precious little. Investigative journalism is a declining art. Much of that is due to economics. It costs a considerable amount to deploy a team to unearth information about, say, a dodgy arms deal or collusion in torture. Sometimes months of probing leads to nothing, and with newspapers in their current parlous position, editors are under pressure to account for every penny.

But the main impediment comes from Britain’s horrific libel laws. Britain has become the libel capital of the world, home of what has come to be known as “libel tourism“, the destination of choice for Russian oligarchs and others to prosecute not just journalists, but book authors, even NGOs. The chilling effect is hard to quantify, because beyond the prosecutions lies the self-censorship that is affecting so much journalism. The new mantra, from the BBC to most newspapers, even to some bloggers, is: “Why cause trouble?”

The Commons select committee on culture, media and sport is due in a few weeks to publish its report on “press standards, privacy and libel” – note the order. They will be tempted to use the latest scandal to do the opposite of what they should. Instead of loosening libel, they are likely to harden rules on privacy.

At Index on Censorship, in conjunction with English PEN, we have been conducting our own inquiry into libel. We have spoken to editors, lawyers, publishers, bloggers and NGOs in a unified campaign for changes in the libel law. The main areas we are looking at are costs (which have spiralled out of all proportion), areas of jurisdiction and balance of proof.

When Tony Blair, in his dying days as prime minister, derided journalists as “feral beasts”, my response was to laugh. I remember a conversation a few years earlier with a friend, a former political journalist who had made the familiar journey to government service, becoming a senior information officer. He told me that, no matter what a headline might scream, he had been shocked to find out how little journalists ever found out.

On a good day, he said, the public might learn around 1% of what was going on. And now, thanks to the News of the World and others, in their pursuit of salacious gossip about celebrity, we are in danger of finding out even less.