Leveson's stick and carrot for wary press The final words of Lord Justice Leveson's summary of his proposals for reforming and regulating an "outrageous" press that has lost sight of the responsibilities that go with its rights and freedoms are an appeal to the public and to politicians. He tells the public that he has done what "I believe is fair and right for everyone." He tells politicians that he expects them to treat his recommendations to provide the press with its first truly effective self-regulatory body in the same cross-party spirit that arose from the outrage over the phone hacking scandal in July 2011. He says: "This is not, and cannot be characterised as, statutory regulation of the press." That the judge felt the need to do this shows how hard his task has been, in the face of powerful lobbying by newspaper groups talking up a potential threat to press freedom. His recommendations for an "independent, self-regulating body" ought to - on the face of it - put those fears to rest because he stresses that independence of the government and politicians is as important as independence from newspaper owners. However, in order to ensure both that media organisations want to join the body, and that rich individuals will choose to use it rather than the courts to settle disputes, he has had to suggest an "underpinning" with law that many opponents will focus on. He says legislation will also create a duty on governments to uphold the freedom of the press, which seems an odd construction in a democracy, and unlikely to persuade those who see a slippery slope to an over interventionist state. It is a light touch of regulation, but some will argue it could have been lighter. Some newspaper groups that have dominated the existing regulator, the Press Complaints Commission, and would have continued to hold sway in the proposals of Lord Hunt and Lord Black to replace it, are unlikely to welcome the Leveson version in which the governing board would contain no serving editor. He has flatly rejected the Hunt-Black plans as too close to the status quo. Lord Justice Leveson has chosen in the means of constructing this board to use transparency, an open selection process, that has been missing before, and could well gain public and political support. The same is true of the power he would give the body to fine transgressors and insist on specific levels of prominence for corrections and apologies. But his means of ensuring that newspapers join the new body is more subtle and anything but easy for the public to grasp. Essentially it boils down to legal costs. Having observed that the parlous commercial state of papers means the newspaper industry can't afford a burdensome regulator, Leveson appeals to their wallets: any newspaper that did not join the new body could easily be responsible for the costs of defending libel or privacy actions even if they won the case. Those that belonged would not face this jeopardy. It could be persuasive because outliers from the new body would be seen as easier targets for plaintiffs with lawyers prepared to act on a "no-win, no-fee" basis. But many sections of the press will react badly to the role Lord Justice Leveson has in mind for Ofcom, which he says should play the role of "recognition body." It alone would determine whether the new body was following the criteria of openness and transparency, protecting the public interest and essentially behaving as the public would like it to. If not, it could "derecognise" the body and remove the protections it would enjoy in law. To some newspapers, Ofcom is part of a do-gooder network that has little to do with their readers which is unlikely to come into any greater affection now. In other parts of the report, Lord Justice Leveson chides politicians for allowing themselves to be too easily led in the past by what the press, as a commercial entity, wanted. His findings that Jeremy Hunt's conduct of the News Corp bid for BSkyB gave a perception of bias makes the political survival of the then culture secretary something of a bone for MPs to fight over. He also has harsh words for the police and the cosy relationship, but on this, as with phone hacking, he is "seriously restricted" in what he can say by the fact that investigations and court cases are under way. His warnings to police and politicians and recommendations about future relations with journalists will be subjects of debate in newsrooms and perhaps parliament, but are unlikely to excite much public interest. Whether the same is true of the whole report will depend on how politicians, and the press themselves, present the tenor of his proposals in coming days.