Limit media ownership, Ed Miliband tells Leveson Inquiry
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Ed Miliband called today for a cap on media ownership and suggested it should be set lower than the proportion of the market currently owned by the Murdoch empire.
The Labour leader told the Leveson Inquiry he had "no worries" about a company owning 20% of the British market but said there was a "question of between 20-30%".
News International held 37% of the market until the closure of the News of the World but still retains a 34% share, the inquiry was told.
Mr Miliband told Lord Justice Leveson he did not believe one person should control 34% of the British press.
He said his "strong instinct" was that it was "too much" he wanted to see the inquiry look at a lower limit.
He added: "There's a question about what the limits should be. I should say we have no worries about someone owning 20% of the news market. I think there is then a question of between 20-30% where you should set a limit.
"That is where I'm coming from."
He told the inquiry his aim was not to "stifle one news organisation".
"My aim is plurality and a sense that... one organisation does not exert an overweening power."
Mr Miliband also said he believed some form of statutory regulation of the press was needed. But he did not believe that should be used to tackle newspaper content.
He said: "I think what we need on redress is something which is independent of the press and politicians, something which is comprehensive covering all newspapers, magazines and there is a clear question about internet organisations, something which is accessible, provides fastrack justice or redress for individuals."
He added: "I haven't yet seen a way forward without some kind of statutory support for the system.
"I think it would be very important to insert in any Bill constitutional safeguards on the freedom of the press."
Mr Miliband insisted he "would not countenance" any measures being used as a "licence for some massive bureaucratic assault on the press".
Lord Justice Leveson mooted the idea of limiting his "aspirations" in the area of media ownership to setting out the concerns that various witnesses have expressed and the counterbalancing arguments, and suggesting "appropriate authorities examine the position".
He said: "I'm not trying to shirk my responsibility but nor am I trying to bite off more than I could or should legitimately take on."
Mr Miliband said his own suggestion was that if a politician wanted to depart from recommendations made by the Competition Commission or broadcast regulator Ofcom, their decision could be challengeable.
PA
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments