Prospect's pick of the responses to Lord Leveson's 2000-page report into the British press:
1. Editorial: There is only one flaw in Lord Justice Leveson's epic verdict – but it's a crucial flaw (The Independent)
The paper praises much of the report but takes issue with its endorsement of legislation, calling instead for independent regulation.
2. Towards a grand bargain with the press by Philip Stevens (The Financial Times)
Stevens explains why self-regulation will never work and calls for libel law reform:
"Lord Justice Leveson is right: the press cannot any longer expect to mark its own homework; but neither should the rich and powerful."
3. Press and politicians? Leveson's report will not change these uneasy bedfellows by Michael White (The Guardian)
The report won’t change the love/hate relationship between politicians and the press.
4. My article, your tweet. What's the difference? by Hugo Rifkind (The Times, £)
By ignoring newspapers' migration to the web, Leveson's recommendations are already out of date, argues Rifkind.
"Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals are not stupid; they’re elegant and deft, and a decade and a half ago they might even have worked. But now? What matters today is content, not the media that delivers it, and there’s frankly something quite depressing about a nine-month inquiry that fails to figure this out."
5. A nightmare—but only for the old guard of Fleet Street by Nick Davies (The Guardian)
The reporter who uncovered the phone hacking at the News of the World insists that the report poses few problems for investigative reporters—but fears it won't tackle the fundamental problems with the press.
1. Editorial: There is only one flaw in Lord Justice Leveson's epic verdict – but it's a crucial flaw (The Independent)
The paper praises much of the report but takes issue with its endorsement of legislation, calling instead for independent regulation.
2. Towards a grand bargain with the press by Philip Stevens (The Financial Times)
Stevens explains why self-regulation will never work and calls for libel law reform:
"Lord Justice Leveson is right: the press cannot any longer expect to mark its own homework; but neither should the rich and powerful."
3. Press and politicians? Leveson's report will not change these uneasy bedfellows by Michael White (The Guardian)
The report won’t change the love/hate relationship between politicians and the press.
4. My article, your tweet. What's the difference? by Hugo Rifkind (The Times, £)
By ignoring newspapers' migration to the web, Leveson's recommendations are already out of date, argues Rifkind.
"Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals are not stupid; they’re elegant and deft, and a decade and a half ago they might even have worked. But now? What matters today is content, not the media that delivers it, and there’s frankly something quite depressing about a nine-month inquiry that fails to figure this out."
5. A nightmare—but only for the old guard of Fleet Street by Nick Davies (The Guardian)
The reporter who uncovered the phone hacking at the News of the World insists that the report poses few problems for investigative reporters—but fears it won't tackle the fundamental problems with the press.
