Leveson's lessons for Fleet Street Lord Justice Leveson's report into the British press is a damning indictment of the culture and practices of the newspaper industry. Press abuses, he says, have caused real hardship and wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people. Newspapers have never shied away from judging others. Fleet Street should have the humility to accept criticism that is justified. There is no merit in the press laying claim to be above the law. Editors and owners must not present themselves as reincarnated trade union barons from the 1970s. It behoves the industry to embrace the report, even if it does not agree with every single recommendation. The catalogue of abuses laid out in the report confirms that parts of the industry were out of control. There are numerous examples of reckless conduct. The Fourth Estate basked in the privileges of the harlot: power without responsibility. Redressing the balance is primarily a task for the industry rather than the politicians. In this respect, David Cameron's reaction to the report deserves commendation. He is right to warn of the risks of statutory intervention in newspapers. The government must take care not to suffocate the free press by trying to sanitise it. The first task must be to fix the industry's broken system of regulation, which contributed to the excesses documented by Lord Justice Leveson. The Press Complaints Commission has palpably failed to protect the public. While it was never created to tackle criminal behaviour, the PCC suffered from being dominated by industry insiders and serving editors. The challenge is to come up with a new system that has teeth while trying to avoid opening the door to state interference in the press. Many of Lord Justice Leveson's ideas in this regard have merit. He has taken some of the ideas proposed by Lord Hunt and Lord Black for a new self-regulatory body. Where he has made changes, he has often strengthened them. The new body he proposes would have greater powers than the PCC and would enforce a new code of conduct. It would have serious enforcement powers, including the right to levy fines of up to £1m or 1 per cent of turnover. Lord Justice Leveson's new body would be far more independent than the Black-Hunt model. There would be a majority of independent members. Serving editors would not be eligible for the board. Any new body must have distance from those it regulates. Newspapers cannot, as the judge notes, mark their own homework. However, it is vital that people with proper experience of journalism are heard, too. The bigger conundrum is how to ensure that the whole industry signs up to a system that is nominally voluntary. Black-Hunt has proposed a contract in civil law. Lord Justice Leveson wants to go further. His novel idea is to encourage participation through incentives, notably by offering some protection against excessive legal costs in libel actions. This form of arbitration has merit, though it comes at a price. The functions of the new regulator would have to be enshrined in statute, with some entity given the power to oversee the mechanism. In this case, Lord Justice Leveson recommends considering Ofcom, the broadcast regulator, for this role. The sweetener, at least in the judge's view, would be a recognition in the new law that the government has a duty to promote press freedom. The Financial Times has reservations about this approach. While there may be merit in a grand bargain that trades the incentives to participate for some measure of statutory underpinning, the idea of handing oversight power to Ofcom is wrong-headed. Ofcom is charged with regulating television broadcasters that have a legal obligation to impartiality. It reports directly to government. This is a step down the road towards state licensing of a press that, of course, has no obligation to provide balance. This newspaper is also worried about Lord Justice Leveson's proposals for a "backstop regulator" that would step in if news organisations did not join the new body. This explodes the concept of voluntarism that lies at the centre of his recommendations. It is a press law by the back door and one that pays scant attention to the revolutionary changes in the media landscape. This is increasingly dominated by digital innovators and social media. The newspaper industry must now respond constructively. It has been given time to develop reforms that are workable and command public trust. Whatever its recent failings, the press remains a cornerstone of our democracy. This should not be forgotten.