Political Row Develops in the Wake of the Leveson Report

The transcript discusses the mixed views on media self-regulation versus legislation, highlighting Leveson's recommendations for a stronger regulatory system. Criticism is directed at Parliament's potential role in press oversight, drawing parallels to past scandals. The political implications of implementing press regulation are explored, with a focus on the Prime Minister's stance and the ongoing debate on statutory measures.

What is the general reaction of the press to the Leveson report?

• Mixed reactions with skepticism about Parliament's role

• Unanimous support for legislative backing

• Indifference towards the recommendations

• Complete rejection of self-regulation

What does Lord Leveson recommend for the press?

• Abolishment of all media regulations

• Government control over media content

• A self-regulating body backed by legislation

• Complete freedom without any regulation

Why is there a call for stronger regulation according to the Leveson report?

• To address failures in handling high-profile cases

• Due to the success of past self-regulation

• To increase media profits

• To reduce government intervention

What is the Prime Minister's stance on media regulation?

• Desire for change without legislative enforcement

• Complete opposition to any form of regulation

• Support for statutory measures

• Indifference to the issue

What remains an open question regarding media regulation?

• Whether to abolish all regulations

• If the press should be nationalized

• How to implement the agreed changes

• Whether to increase media funding