Towards a grand bargain with the press The trouble with freedom is that it is abused. A justice system that guards the innocent will see thieves and worse go free. Uphold human rights and terrorists will sometimes slip the net. Champion press freedom and newspapers may hack the telephone of a murdered teenager. Lord Justice Leveson has given his verdict on the "culture, practices and ethics" of the British media. Running like a dark thread through the 2,000- page report are words such as reckless, outrageous, harassment, hacking, surveillance, bribery and corruption. A swath of outstanding criminal prosecutions of former executives and journalists at Rupert Murdoch's newspapers means that Lord Justice Leveson at times pulled his punches. But the narrative still reads like a journey through the sewers. Some of it covers familiar ground: the charges of phone-hacking, corruption and bribery of public officials, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice at Mr Murdoch's News International; the anguish of the parents of the murdered Milly Dowler, whose voicemail was intercepted by the News of the World; the tabloid character assassination of a retired teacher arrested in a murder inquiry. The really damning indictment lies in the exposure of a culture of casual contempt for decency, fairness and privacy in newspapers representing a sizeable chunk of what used to be called Fleet Street. Traducing the innocent; routine disregard for truth; and riding roughshod over individual rights - all were deemed acceptable in the cause of a "good story." It should be obvious to everyone but a handful of cynical proprietors and editors that the media cannot, in Lord Justice Leveson's phrase, forever be allowed to "wreak havoc with the lives of ordinary people." The behaviour of newspapers such as the now defunct News of the World, The Sun, the Express and the Daily Mail has put freedom of the press in direct conflict with the rights and liberties of ordinary citizens. The role of newspapers in a democratic society is to speak truth to power, not to trample over the powerless. Sadly, David Cameron's response to the report has been to run scared. The prime minister set up the inquiry to deflect attention from his close personal ties to senior figures in News International. The report clears him of the charge of trading political influence for Mr Murdoch's support. But in arguing that the press must be given another chance to put its affairs in order he has bowed to the threats of retribution. So what is to be done? The first thing to say is that self-regulation does not work. During the past 70 years there have been seven inquiries, including three royal commissions, into the feral behaviour of journalists. All have brought promises of tighter self-regulation. Nothing has changed. When editors and proprietors are told they have entered the last chance saloon their reaction is to call for another round of drinks. This time, the press barons promise, it will be different. They have come up with a plan for "independent regulation-with-teeth." In truth, the proposal is at very best half-baked - and deliberately so. In spite of a veneer of independence, real power would remain firmly in the hands of editors and proprietors. The most striking thing about the behaviour of the newspapers in Lord Justice Leveson's line of fire has been a complete lack of contrition. It is almost as if the real crime of the phone hackers was to get caught. So, in advance of publication, Lord Justice Leveson was accused of seeking to throw overboard press freedom in favour of a Soviet-style system of state regulation. Mr Cameron was warned of dire political consequences if he accepted the report. The strategy was clear: derail attempts to establish independent oversight, lie low for a while and then return to the old ways. The second thing to say is that, as long as some newspapers believe they should be able to behave as they like, there is no system that will strike a perfect balance between press freedom and the rights of the citizen. Even as one winces at the lying and cheating, media excess is a price that has to be paid to preserve a fundamental pillar of democracy. Lord Chief Justice Judge put it well in a speech last year: "Whatever means of regulation are designed to reduce the occasions of unacceptable behaviour by elements of the press they must not simultaneously . . . diminish or dilute the ability and power of the press to reveal true public scandals or misconduct." The rule of law cannot be sustained if the media is muzzled. Lord Justice Leveson has tried to map a path through all this by suggesting that a new system of regulation - independent of government and parliament - should be underpinned by legislation. This is not, as Mr Murdoch and his chums would have it, state regulation. To make this clear, the report says that any such statute should guarantee explicitly the freedom and independence of the press. The basic judgment here is right. The weak and vulnerable need guarantees against the habitual abuse of press power. But Lord Justice Leveson should have gone further in offering protections for the media when it is doing its proper job of holding to account those in positions of authority and influence. A balanced package would put into statute a provision for a robust public interest defence when the press is scrutinising the behaviour of the mighty. Alongside this, the legislation would include a drastic rebalancing of the burden of proof in the draconian libel laws that now offer an impenetrable shield to those with the money to buy access to the courts. Lord Justice Leveson is right: the press cannot any longer expect to mark its own homework; but neither should the rich and powerful.