The Leveson Inquiry was a public, judicial investigation into the culture, practices, and ethics of the British press, initiated in 2011 in response to the News of the World phone-hacking scandal. This scandal, which involved illegal hacking of voicemails belonging to celebrities, politicians, and crime victims, revealed the extent of unethical and illegal practices within parts of the British media. Celebrities, often the target of intrusive press practices, played a central role in pushing for change in how the media operates.

​

High-profile figures like actor Hugh Grant and singer Charlotte Church were vocal during the inquiry, describing how their private lives had been invaded by tabloid journalists. Celebrities were routinely subjected to phone hacking, where journalists would intercept voicemails to uncover personal details. This was part of a broader pattern of invasive reporting, justified by newspapers under the guise of public interest but often motivated by a desire for sensational stories.

​

The Leveson Inquiry led to widespread criticism of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), the self-regulatory body in charge at the time. The PCC was accused of being ineffective and too close to the media industry to enforce proper accountability. As a result, the inquiry recommended a new regulatory framework for the press. In 2014, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) was established, replacing the PCC. IPSO’s goal was to create a stronger, more independent body that could hold the press to account while protecting freedom of expression.

​

However, the formation of IPSO has been controversial. Many celebrities and public figures have argued that it doesn’t go far enough in curbing media excesses. Some, including Hugh Grant, have continued to call for stricter regulation, advocating for the establishment of Impress, a state-recognized press regulator, which offers greater protection for individuals from media intrusion.

​

Despite the reforms, celebrities still face challenges in balancing privacy with their public personas. While IPSO can issue fines and force retractions, critics argue that the body remains too closely aligned with the media industry. Celebrities argue that significant portions of the press still operate on the edge of legality, publishing stories that invade their privacy for financial gain. The argument is that the current regulatory system doesn’t adequately protect individuals, particularly those with a public profile, from unethical reporting practices.

 

The Leveson Inquiry and subsequent reforms were critical in shining a light on the treatment of celebrities by the press. However, ongoing debates continue about how best to strike the balance between media freedom and privacy, particularly for those in the public eye.

​

CHECK YOUR LEARNING

​

1. What events triggered the Leveson Inquiry in 2011?

2. How were celebrities like Hugh Grant and Charlotte Church affected by phone-hacking scandals?

3. What were some of the unethical practices revealed during the Leveson Inquiry?

4. Why was the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) criticized following the phone-hacking scandal?

5. What were the key recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry regarding press regulation?

6. How does IPSO differ from its predecessor, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC)?

7. What role does the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) play in regulating the British press?

8. Why have some celebrities called for the establishment of Impress, a state-recognized press regulator?

9. What criticisms have been made about IPSO’s effectiveness in curbing media excesses?

10. How does the media justify intrusive reporting on celebrities under the concept of "public interest"?

11. How did the Leveson Inquiry impact public perceptions of press freedom versus privacy rights?

12. In what ways have celebrities continued to push for stricter regulation of the press following the Leveson reforms?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

​