I think if we look back at British newspapers, we get ourselves into this kind of pickle on a kind of ten-year cycle.
I think when something happens as regularly as it does in the British newspaper, you have to sort of look at what are the systemic reasons why this is happening.
I think that's partly why the question of media power actually can't be completely uncoupled from the question of ethics.
We have some very powerful newspaper organisations that run -- and I think I quote Paul Dacre here himself, who said to you quite recently -- described his organisation as being "extremely hierarchical".
In the tabloid and mid-market press, we have press that's very much directed from above, which is very hierarchical, where people at the bottom, new entry journalists, are under an enormous amount of pressure to deliver. And the kind of stories they are asked to deliver are stories that will be interesting to the public.
One of the things that I find most alarming about the way in which that pressure operates is journalists who talk about the way in which their own ethical compass is being distorted by what they're being asked to do. And there is an increasing amount of evidence of that, that the newspaper industry is divided between the very popular press, where pretty much anything goes, as long as you make sure you don't get into a very expensive libel suit. But that means that quite a lot can kind of go under the wire that is pretty dodgy, but you know that the people who you have just maligned cannot do anything about it.
Then we have another -- probably -- I haven't looked at the figures, but there's probably more journalists who work for what I would call "the ethical press", and I think that one of the problems of this Inquiry is that they tend to get lost, and we have to bring them back into the picture.
I was talking recently to a bunch of magazine journalists who are absolutely outraged at the possibility that new regulation will be brought in, which they consider to be completely unsuitable for their purposes, and all because, as they put it, a bunch of tabloid hacks can't behave ethically.
I do think they have got a point.
I think that whatever we end up with here, it's got to support ethical journalism, while at the same time trying to curb what I can quite happily call "unethical journalism", because I think they are two different things. They tend to be quite often done by two different groups of people.
I think it would be a pity if we end up with changes that are very slight because the only people who really matter are the editors of the very biggest newspapers. Because we have to keep reminding ourselves that they are the problem. Why do we expect them to be the solution?
So I think what we need to be doing is looking for a system which creates a balance. It's got to protect what I would call "real journalism", which is journalists doing their job properly. Ethical journalists in the public interest. But that does not quite provide the same level of protection to journalism which might be amusing, but quite often hurts people.
Now, I don't want to see the end of the tabloid press, and I'm a great believer in journalism being funny when it can be. I think humour in newspapers is enormously important, and I think Britain probably leads the world in having newspapers that are often extremely funny. But I don't think you should produce humourous articles by way of destroying people's lives.
I think there used to be a kind of a way of looking at stories where the editorial position was: don't send their children crying to school. And that was a kind of an ethical benchmark.
Do not say things about people which are so inflammatory that you destroy their families and you upset their children. I think we have completely lost that even as an ethical benchmark. I think we need to try and get back to it.
So everything that's in this paper is actually about trying to create a framework which will encourage journalism to return to a more ethical place, and that is about changing the culture.
I think a change in culture requires journalism and journalistic organisations to be involved in the new settlement. Because unless they are fully involved and engaged in it, none of the change we need to see will actually take place.