15/03/2012 Newsnight Scotland

Tonight on Newsnight Scotland, is the freedom of the press under

threat? Public anger at the behaviour of

some tabloid newspapers may be justified, but could the backlash

put an end to the sort of investigative journalism that calls

those in power to account? And if it's good enough for

Barcelona and Bayern Munich, could Scottish football clubs be turned

over to the communities which support them?

Good evening. Falling revenues, competition from blogs and social

media, increased resistance to freedom of information - there are

many threats to the press as we know it. Evidence of hacking and

paying policemen has been pretty unedifying. But is there now a

danger that the Leveson Inquiry into the recent tabloid scandals

could end up threatening legitimate The ongoing Leveson Inquiry has

found some startling evidence of the extent of phone hacking at News

International, but just as important are the signs of how the

man in charge sees things. Leveson has suggested that more regulation

of journalists and journalism will be necessary going forward. But as

a same time, in the real world outside his inquiry, social media

platforms like Twitter are consistently breaking down

traditional barriers between the published world and private gossip.

Sometimes, as in the case of Super injunctions, social media released

facts which traditional news organs already knew but which they could

In Scotland, recently there have been a number of revelations,

starting with BBC Scotland and continuing with the Herald

newspaper, about the contents of the Scottish criminal cases report

into the Lockerbie bomb. The report, allegedly containing six grounds

for suggesting a miscarriage of justice, remains unpublished.

Scotland's political classes are well the report's contents, as are

sections of the media. But the public are not. So I'll be at a

tipping point where keeping it I'm joined now from Dundee by the

former Information Commissioner for Scotland, Kevin Dunion, and from

Edinburgh by the Herald's Iain Macwhirter.

We should stress that Lord Leveson has not for me proposed anything.

But should he propose some sort of statutory Liberation -- regulation

of the press. Do you see any dangers in that?

We see dangers of the state controlling a free press. But it is

inevitable in the light of the revelations of the inquiry that

some form of regulatory body policing standards to be adopted by

the press will be necessary. The Press Complaints Commission was

simply that, a complaints body. I remember when my counterpart in

England drew to the attention of its chairman some of the egregious

behaviour of the press. All that happened was the commission sent a

note to the editors reminding them of their obligations. That is not

good enough. Some form of regulation auditing the practices

and conduct of the press and potentially fine in the press --

fining the press is almost inevitable.

Would you agree that there could be fined but also it could be a

voluntary code? The idea is the press would have to

sign up voluntarily to it. Of course, but then called into

question all the other kinds of information disclosure,

particularly blogs, which will not be part of this at all. The

commission will then appoint a chair, but it will still be an

independent body. It will not be influenced by government or elected.

That kind of hybrid is on the cards. As a good hack, you see some

dangers here. Absolutely. I pay tribute to Kevin

Nunes for the work he has done for Freedom of Information in Scotland,

but I think most of that work would be undone if we have this new form

of brigadier to watchdog that his proposed by Lord Leveson. That very

internal audit, which sounds so innocuous, in fact would kill off

internal -- innovative journalism entirely. If the take the Herald

this week, the report mentioned, securing a report like that

requires a confidential, off the record briefings, all sorts of

transactions with individuals who cannot allow themselves to be

disclosed. It often involves technical law-breaking of Data

Protection Act. The internal audit would have to be put in train as

soon as an investigative story like that was begun and would kill it

off immediately. We are sleepwalking into a form of

regulation which would effectively kill for press freedom in this

country. But isn't there a point in that?

People are annoyed at some of the intrusive behaviour of the press.

But the press has always been intrusive and arguably it is a

price you pay for having the bits of the press which are good, which

is doing genuine investigations. The point is if you try to close

one bad bit of it, you close down the good bit as well.

That is precisely the danger. I don't think we should use the

excesses of the tabloid press down south in particular to allow the

necessary free press and its investigations, particularly of

rumblings, to be so fettered that it can't be carried out in a way

that we fear. The Criminal Cases Review Commission report is a case

in point. When I was the commissioner, I had to rule whether

or not the board could be published. I had to find in a law that it

simply could not. The law was explicit. Consent had not been

given by all of the parties who were named in the report, and

therefore there was a prohibition against the closure by the public

authority. Everybody wants to see the report in the public domain.

The government has got to pass another Act removing the need for

consent. Even then, it is concerned that the Data Protection Act may

prevent its disclosure. That very body you are proposing

would prevent that being bought into the public domain.

I don't think it would prevent it being bought into the public domain.

But the point you are making, if it were brought into the public domain

by the Data Protection Act... is how it happens.

That is right. There is a defence of public interest for

investigative journalism, which is not available to the public

authorities for considering whether or not it will be sensitive

personal data. That is one of the dilemmas we have got, is that the

protection we afford to personal data is either too strong or too

often used as a way of hiding behind the necessary information

which should be in the public interest, but that is not an

argument which is allowed into the domain under the terms of the Data

Protection Act. I wanted touched on something else.

The other thing that Lord Leveson has said, and we have to stress

again, he is not making any formal disclosures, that social media

should not be covered by this. As you were pointing out this morning,

if something is out there on Twitter or Facebook, it is in

effect in the public domain, and it seems ridiculous that other

broadcasters like ourselves or newspapers like the one you work

for are then supposed to pretend they don't know what everybody else

knows. We are in a ridiculous situation.

Earlier this year, there were those Super injunction preventing

disclosure in the actual, real press when it was widespread

knowledge because it was all over the internet. This is a real

problem, and the why I worry about why -- what Lord Leveson is about

to introduce. He says that Twitter, social media sides, don't need to

be regulated because they are just like people chatting in a pub. That

betrays naivety about how journalism works. As soon as those

chats become brokers over the internet, they become used! That is

what they are. It is another form of journalism. -- day become a news.

It is not quality controlled by a paid professional to spend a light

identifying truth and falsehood. They are just thrown onto the

internet. We are going to have a press which can't do stories and a

Even if you are a celebrity who does not want their name revealed,

you are under a system of regulation and your name would be

revealed under social media and that could not be regulated by your

proposal. It is more likely to be revealed there than in traditional

newspapers. So what you're suggesting, it does not actually do

what it says on the 10th. That has always been the case. I remember

back to the Spycatcher case when the UK Government tried to stop

Peter Wright's book coming out. It took out a court order from

preventing the press reporting on it. They forgot it could be

published in Scotland which it was. It was also reported in Scotland.

Scottish papers were taken into England. That was back in 1985 and

it was a nonsense and it is more of a nonsense now. I am simply saying

that regulation is going to be inevitable as a result of the

Leveson Inquiry. I think that is going to be a code of conduct which

will be regulated, not their heavy- handed Prevention of publication of

articles. We are completely out of time, we have to leave it there.

Thank you very much. There was a time when Scotland led

the world in football innovation but that is a distant memory today.

Clubs around the world have avoided financial ruin by embracing the

concept of community ownership and fan involvement. Here only a

handful have so far ventured into this territory. Tomorrow we find

out who is bidding for Rangers - maybe they would be better off with

the fans in charge. Derek Bateman, burdened with Hibernian

affiliations, joins us from the Newsnight Sports studio. You join

us tonight for the match of the millennium. Never before have these

two sides come together, what it exclusively here on not --

Newsnight Football Extra. Good evening. The big clash is between

the clubs and the fans. I do not supposed to be at the same side?

You would think so but most British for all clubs are run by businesses

and the fans are Mia in accessories. It is not done that we in other

countries. I went to find out why not. You only have to look at Ibrox

to see the mess and old-fashioned club king get into when it is run

by a millionaire. The or at Hearts as well. Here at Fir Park in

Motherwell something else is going on. We're getting involved end the

lives of people like football clubs have not done in the past. We have

great learning opportunities here. People come here to get de-skilled.

We have these courses. -- reached skilled. As a responsible football

club, we have a social conscience and we need to be doing it.

want more involvement of the fans in the running of the club?

Absolutely. The biggest thing to happen to the club in recent

history is the decision of our chairman to hand the club over to

the fans. We look for a model which enable supporters to get more

involved. We want to get involved. It is a new model. It is one which

has not been tested to any great degree. It is something we're very

excited about. Why don't all clubs do this? In Scotland only a handful

have ventured into this territory. Some like 20 in England, the best-

known is Wimbledon. Look abroad - Barcelona at is a club of the fans.

It represents Catalonian culture. Its annual turnover is 400 million

euros, it is owned and operated by club members, the supporters. Hard

to argue it has not been successful - this is the trophy room. Then

there is Germany where every club in the league has to be owned 51 %

by the fans. The only exceptions are former work teams. The former

will -- Volkswagen team for instance. Every club in Sweden is

owned by fans and it is the same in Turkey. I think it is a matter of

history. It has taken a long time when France actually got

representation. Historically, clubs have been owned by big businesses.

Why we give back control up? Especially if they have a stadium

which is an asset. In the past we had seen stadiums get sold to Tesco

on things like that, while relinquish control? It is a matter

of realigning and getting to the position where clubs understand

that the fan is a customer. They are loyal customers. We do help

clubs to embed themselves in the community for its own sake? Should

they make a contribution to the place they are based? I think that

is key. All the clubs in Scotland and are embedded in the community.

They are from that region and they are involved in community football.

They are involved in health and welfare programmes. A lot of the

things they do is not recognised. There should be more ways that

football which is in decline, to try and make it more important.

Supporters on the board and fan- zone shares - does that threat in

the passion of the game? There is still passion about the game. We

listen at board rival. There is a different approach here. The matter

who would you club, the same absurd old tribal loyalties will carry on.

Come on, heads! Back to you. A quick look at the newspapers for