article: During eight months of hearings Lord Leveson heard from some witnesses - like ex-motorsport head Max Mosley - who called for new laws to set up a tribunal which would control the press. Others, like Private Eye editor Ian Hislop, argued against statutory legislation, saying it would compromise Britain's free press. BBC News asked a selection of Leveson witnesses, and other interested parties, what they wanted out of Lord Leveson's report. The Leveson Inquiry has heard appalling evidence of press malpractice, abuse and criminality. It must have shocked the chairman as it did everyone watching. So I am optimistic he will put forward recommendations to ensure this stops. Surprisingly, given what has happened, we already have quite good press laws and the laws are backed by a code. The problem is you can't go to law unless you are rich, and several national newspapers simply ignore their own code. My hope is that Lord Justice Leveson will recommend that the power to enforce the law and the industry's own code be given to an entirely independent tribunal to which everyone has access irrespective of their means. This would require a statute. It will not have escaped him that the newspaper industry, prompted by three Royal Commissions and several judicial inquiries, has promised on at least five occasions in the last 60 years to put its house in order. It has never kept its word. So I hope he flatly rejects the Hunt/Black proposal for no statute and a mere contract between the newspapers. It amounts to "trust us - we're journalists". Given the industry's record, this is, well, laughable. British journalism has been poisoned in recent years by something that happened at most of our national newspapers. They became unaccountable, and then they became arrogant and cruel. An editor at the News of the World summed up the attitude. 'This is what we do,' he said. 'We go out and destroy other people's lives.' That's not what most journalists think, but nor, sadly, has it been the view of a tiny minority. Almost every national newspaper participated in the attempt to destroy the lives of Gerry and Kate McCann. Eight newspapers tried to destroy the life of Christopher Jefferies, the Bristol teacher wrongly accused of murder. This is bad for a profession whose mission, I was taught as a young reporter, is to bear witness to the world in a truthful way. I want a body capable of asking the hard questions, pointing the finger of blame and ensuring that lessons are learned. It must be independent of the industry and of government and it should have the clout to ensure that mighty news organisations take heed. Nobody at the Leveson Inquiry suggested that the judge should gag papers. They did ask, however, that stories should be properly researched and checked, that they should be fair, and that, if they risk harming anyone, they should pass a basic public interest test. I don't think any ethical journalist would want anything different. There has been one central issue at the heart of the
summary: Lord Leveson's exhaustive inquiry into the media is due to report on Thursday with recommendations on the future regulation of the press and conduct between the press, politicians and police.