The People's Princess is dead! Long live the People's Princess! The transformation of the Duchess of Cambridge into a public icon has undoubtedly been achieved at the expense of her late mother-in-law.

Diana, Princess of Wales (and sales), has been effectively airbrushed from history over the past year or so. Her image, once so prevalent in newspapers and magazines, both in life and since her death in 1997, has all but vanished.

Editors have seized on the sales advantage of publishing countless pictures of the former Kate Middleton. Among the leading Kate-oholics are the Daily Mail, of course, and the Daily Telegraph - it even managed a portrait picture of the Duchess on the front of its business section today.

The latest issues of OK! and Hello! both feature the same cover picture of the Duchess and the Queen "sharing the joy", as OK! puts it. That picture is a story in itself.

For the new, young Windsor, the obvious warmth of her relationship with her husband's grandmother suggests more than merely her acceptance into the royal fold. It is set against the failure of Diana to gain a similar acceptance.

For the Queen, there is the reflected glory of being beside the glamorous, photogenic and newest member of her "firm". For once, I find myself agreeing with a Hello! cover line: "Why they both have so much to smile about"

Anyway, the rise of Kate and the deletion of Diana is the subject of my London Evening Standard column today, Our Kate-mania means Diana is now laid to rest.

Journalists at the South China Morning Post, the foremost English-language daily newspaper in Hong Kong, are up in arms over alleged censorship by their new editor-in-chief.

The controversy has emerged in public after an exchange of emails between the editor, Wang Xiangwei, and a senior sub-editor, Alex Price, representing many of the concerned editorial staff.

It concerns the way the Post initially reported the suspicious death on 6 June of a Tiananmen Square dissident, Li Wangyang, in a Hunan hospital. Though the story was carried at length in other papers, it was reduced to a brief in the Post.

Price sent Wang an email saying: "A lot of people are wondering why we nibbed the Li Wangyang story last night. It does seem rather odd. Any chance you can shed some light on the matter?"

Wang answered: "I made that decision." When Price asked in a subsequent email: "Any chance you can say why? It's just that to the outside world it looks an awful lot like self-censorship."

Wang responded: "I don't have to explain to you anything. I made the decision and I stand by it. If you don't like it, you know what to do."

Price didn't let it go, and sent a further, longer, email:

"Li Wangyang, a good man died for his cause, and we turned it from a story into a brief. The rest of Hong Kong splashed on it

Your staff are understandably concerned by this. News is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations. Please explain the decision to reduce the suspicious death of Li Wangyang to a brief.

I need to be able to explain it to my friends who are asking why we did it. I'm sorry but your reply of, 'it is my decision, if you don't like it you know what to do' is not enough in such a situation. Frankly it seems to be saying 'shut up or go'...

The credibility of the South China Morning Post is at stake. Your staff - and readers - deserve an answer."

The paper subsequently went all-out on the story, carried a focus page devoted to the matter, plus editorials, two columns by Wang and has run other stories since.

Li was found hanged in a hospital room and the authorities initially claimed suicide was the cause of death. After a post mortem, this was revised to "accidental death".

Meanwhile, up to 25,000 people, including senior establishment figures in Hong Kong, took part in a protest march. The authorities have since ordered a criminal investigation.

Following the email exchanges, which have been widely distributed and published by the Asia Sentinel, Price is now said to fear for his job.

The controversy has raised fears that the Post, regarded as one of Asia's most influential English-language voices, has begun to bow to Beijing under Wang, who is the paper's first mainland-born editor and a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Congress.

Mak Yinting, chair of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, said: "I think it's important for Wang Xiangwei to communicate with his colleagues... It is now a public issue because self-censorship will weaken the credibility of the paper. I urge the SCMP to explain to the public whether it was only bad judgment or self-censorship."

When Xiangwei was appointed, many industry professionals had misgivings. The more optimistic hoped that the independent journalistic traditions at the century-old paper would prevail over political correctness.

The Asia Sentinel article has itself exposed other complaints about Xiangwei. At one point it said:

"It is generally acknowledged that the SCMP's China news coverage, commentary and analysis is consistently superior to any international newspaper. That's largely due to Xiangwei's knowledge of, and access to, the inner networks of the Beijing government, party and academics."

This elicited a comment from Wen Yiduo: "I take exception to your comments regarding Wang Xiangwei's knowledge and access to people. Wang Xiangwei makes a zero contribution to the China section, aside from assigning meaningless and stupid stories.

"Anything good that appears in the China pages is due to the many knowledgeable reporters who cover China. If anything, Wang Xiangwei censors news or gets in the way."

Source: Asia Sentinel

An extraordinary row has broken out among journalists who cover the United Nations at its New York headquarters. A reporter who works for a small investigative news site, Inner City Press, is in danger of being ejected from the UN correspondents association (UNCA) at the behest of journalistic colleagues.

According to an article in the National Review, Matthew Lee is being investigated for alleged unethical and unprofessional behaviour by a so-called "board of examination" set up by UNCA.

The Review's writer, Brett Schaefer, says: "Journalists both inside and outside the UNCA say the situation is one in which personal animosity has overridden professional judgment."

Lee, who has been responsible for breaking several stories about the UN, has often complained about other journalists failing to credit him for his work.

He has also written stories accusing the UNCA president, Giampaolo Pioli, of a conflict of interest involving Sri Lanka (see here). It is these personal disputes that lie at the heart of the UNCA investigation.

In an email to me from Inner City Press, the organisation concedes that "it isn't always as polite as other journalists would like us to be. We cover unpopular issues like... corruption within the UN's own agencies... We report on conflicts of interest within the press corps..." But, it adds, "is this a reason to eject us?"

Inner City Press argues that "big media is leading the charge against independent journalism" and points out that the examining board includes the UN bureau chiefs of Reuters, Bloomberg and AFP.

UNCA is a self-governing body and membership is not a prerequisite for obtaining UN press credentials, which are granted by the UN media accreditation and liaison unit (MALU).

So Lee's expulsion would not automatically deprive him of UN access. However, it is possible that it might weigh in the balance when he next applies for credentials, due in August.

A MALU spokesperson told Schaefer that UNCA's investigation of Lee would not directly influence its decision.

Lee is regarded as the UN department of public information's least-favourite journalist because he is persistent, is willing to ask uncomfortable questions, and has cultivated an impressive network of sources within the UN. In short, writes Schaefer, "he's a pain in their neck at every press briefing."

But several reporters admit that Lee's reporting is valuable. "Matthew covers the UN like no one else, often scooping much larger news organisations," says the New York Post's Benny Avni. "Matthew digs into how it works — and often into how it doesn't."

And Claudia Rosett, journalist-in-residence at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, notes that Lee "has broken a series of important stories over the years — stories that without his efforts might have gone unnoticed."

Inner City Press, a not-for-profit media outlet based in the Bronx, has been a member of UNCA for five years.

Lee's reporting has been cited in articles about the Middle East in The Guardian (examples here, here and here).

As Schaefer writes: "With all the corruption at the United Nations, you might think that UNCA would have better things to do than pick a fight with a single reporter."

Sources: National Review/Inner City Press

The Sun's Euro 2012 headline (click for full front page)

Wayne Rooney scored one of the easiest goals of his career when England beat the Ukraine in the Euro 2012 championships last night.

It was the only goal in a game played out largely in midfield and close, sometimes uncomfortably close, to England's goal.

By far the most significant event was John Terry's clearance from the line - over the line, in fact - while, overall, the most significant aspect of the match was the cohesion of the England team.

Yet the headlines in this morning's national newspapers all belong to Rooney because goal-scorers always get an inordinate amount of press attention.

And Rooney's hair transplant provided the pop paper headline-writers and subs with plenty of puns - and exclamation marks.

So we had "Hair weave go!" on the Daily Mirror's front page and "Weave done it!" on page one of The Sun. Its picture caption said Rooney was celebrating "the thatch of the day".

The Daily Mail, which didn't mention the victory on the front page (how odd), chose the back page headline: "THATCH the way to do it!"

The Daily Star's page one used a tried-and-tested play on Rooney's name with "Roo done it Wayne.. just!" On the back page it went for "Hairoo." And the Daily Express, which carried a front page masthead blurb, put "It had to be Roo" on the back.

By contrast - please forgive this pun - Metro's editor was clearly thinking outside the box by ignoring Rooney to publish a page one picture of Terry's spectacular clearance, but with an awful heading: "Taste of Terry's all-no-goaled." Right picture, wrong headline.

As for the serious quartet, there were pictures on each of them, all featuring a smiling Rooney after scoring his goal. The headlines were sober too, though The Independent did use "Not a hair out of place."

In a short front page analysis, The Times's Simon Barnes referred to Terry's clearance as "a slice of outrageous fortune" and a "fit of of generosity from the gods."

Several writers were moved to suggest England had enjoyed unusual good luck. In The Guardian, Daniel Taylor wrote of "the sense that England may suddenly have good fortune on their side."

In The Times, Oliver Kay referred to the "Latin proverb... that fortune favours the brave. Too often in the past England have not deserved their luck."

And James Lawton, in The Independent, in an article headline "Lucky devil Hodgson must have done a deal with fate", wrote that manager Roy Hodgson "should just offer his thanks that some mysterious force, including maybe his own good judgement, allowed him to escape from something that should always be known as the siege of Donetsk."

This view was echoed by Steven Howard in The Sun: "We know about Lucky Jim - now it's Lucky Roy." And the Mail's Matt Barlow wrote of "England's warm embrace with Lady Luck."

Henry Winter, in the Daily Telegraph, registered amazement that the additional assistant referee had not seen the ball cross the England goal line, arguing that he had been about as much use as a chocolate samovah.

Todd Larsen, the man once tipped to replace Les Hinton as CEO of Dow Jones, has unexpectedly stepped down from his role as the company's president, says a company press release.

Larsen has held the presidential post at Dow Jones, the division of News Corp that publishes the Wall Street Journal, since January 2010. He has notably overseen the transition to digital.

The man who did become CEO, Lex Fenwick, paid tribute to Larsen's "deep commitment to Dow Jones for more than a decade". He added: "Our digital business... is at the forefront of the industry, and that is a testament to Todd's leadership and guidance."

Robert Thomson, who is both editor-in-chief of Dow Jones and managing editor of the Journal, spoke of Larsen as "an inspiring leader... providing guidance and insight when there has been a paucity of prescience in our industry."

Fenwick, who arrived at Dow Jones from Bloomberg in February, also announced a series of other executive appointments and departures.

Alisa Bowen, formerly general manager of the Journal's digital network, has been named head of products for Dow Jones, and Joe Lanza, president of financial markets, will assume a new role as head of the company's data strategy unit.

Among the senior staff leaving the company are Scott Schulman, president of Dow Jones corporate markets; Lynne Brennen, senior vice president of circulation; and Bethany Sherman, senior vice president and chief communications officer.

Larsen started with Dow Jones in 1999 as corporate director of strategic planning and development and worked his way up. He was responsible for steering the company after Hinton's resignation in July last year.

Hinton stepped down as Dow Jones CEO on the same day that Rebekah Brooks resigned as CEO of News International.

Sources: News Corp/Poynter/Reuters

You know you cannot judge a book by its cover. You may feel more certain about judging a magazine by its cover. But how do you judge a cover by its cover?

That was the problem for the judges of the annual magazine cover of the year competition. For the record, they had four central judging criteria:

A high standard of imaginative design, photography and/or illustration; how the cover fits with the overall brand positioning; cover lines that brilliantly sell the content; and how the cover appeals to both new and core readers.

With those in mind, the judges managed to create a 15-strong shortlist, which can be found here. Despite the criteria, it's an apples and pears situation and completely subjective.

My first choice, for instance, is Stylist, but that's because it shows the divine Nigella Lawson drenched in salted caramel - a very sweet combination.

Anyway, the winner will be announced tomorrow evening during what is billed as the Professional Publishers Association's "glittering awards ceremony" at London's Grosvenor House hotel. Is there ever a promise of an unglittering ceremony?

Source: PPA

Could the pioneering US online magazine, Salon.com, be on the way out?

Chris O'Brien, a columnist with the San Jose Mercury News, thinks the end is nigh, arguing that the company stands on the precipice because its financial statements "are an absolute horror show."

Salon's story is something of a salutary lesson. O'Brien writes:

"This one-time trailblazer now seems destined to serve as a cautionary tale about how rapidly the internet is disrupting the media business. While newspapers know that story all too well, even all-digital businesses like Salon are not immune."

Salon.com began in San Francisco in 1995 as a "progressive online magazine" and rapidly created what O'Brien calls "enormous buzz" by producing "stellar journalism."

It carries reviews and articles about music, books, and movies, along with lifestyle articles and is particularly strong on developments in digital technology.

But its attempts to secure revenue have been far from stellar. Largely underwritten by philanthropists, it once generated $8m annually through a subscription service, which propelled it to an IPO in 1999.

After that, the company tended to focus more on its free, ad-driven business and lost most of its subscribers - and its revenue. At the same time, the web changed - through the advance of blogs, social media and large-scale aggregation - but Salon failed to change with it.

It tried to innovate in 2008 by launching the hybrid blogging platform Open Salon, though Huffington Post had been there and done that first.

Co-founder David Talbot then tried to revive Salon with a kind of NPR-style membership service called Salon Core. That didn't take off and Talbot has now stepped down as CEO, to be replaced by Salon's chief technology officer, Cindy Jeffers, a former Huffington Post staffer.

Media analyst Ken Doctor is quoted by O'Brien as saying that Salon's problem is the intense competition for ad spend from both new and traditional news organisations.

So is a not-for-profit Salon the answer? Doctor said: "They are betwixt and between these two models. They're going against the economics of the business at this time. You've got to ask,how essential are they and to whom?"

O'Brien says he is rooting for Salon but concludes: "Right now, I fear it's become mostly an exercise in futility and an example of the relentless wave of creative destruction rolling across media companies everywhere."

Source: Mercury News

Three Sudanese newspapers were ordered by the government not to distribute their Sunday issues at the weekend after they had printed them.

The move is seen is an escalation of the government's campaign against press freedom ahead of plans by the authorities to end fuel subsidies.

Independent Sudanese newspapers have been experiencing an increased government crackdown in recent weeks, usually exercised by its controversial security wing, the National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS).

It was the NISS that issued orders to the dailies Al-Ahdath, Al-Watan and Al-Jarida not to distribute their Sunday print runs. No reasons were given.

Later, the same papers were told they could not send Monday's editions to the presses until approved by an NISS agent.

These moves indicate the return of the pre-publication censorship system under which Sudanese newspapers suffered in recent years before it was officially suspended in 2009.

Another title, Al-Midan, the weekly mouthpiece of the opposition Sudanese communist party, has received orders not to publish for a month.

Al-Jarida's editor-in-chief, Osman Shinger, told AFP that the publisher had incurred "heavy financial losses" because it could not distribute. He said: "They want to kick us out of the market. It is a bad thing for the freedom of expression in Sudan".

Newspapers are under strict instructions by the NISS to refrain from reporting statements by South Sudanese officials or Sudanese rebel groups from the western region of Darfur or the border regions of South Kordofan and Blue Nile.

Sources: Sudan Tribune/AllAfrica.com/AFP

Seen from a global perspective, the shrinking of Fairfax, Australia's second-biggest newspaper publisher, is hardly a new phenomenon. Similar events happen on an almost daily basis in the United States and Britain.

But it is a shock for the company's staff. For some strange reason, as I discovered when I was last in the country, Australian journalists seemed to be oblivious to the effects of the digital revolution.

They imagined that the flight of advertising to the net and the public's growing online enthusiasm would somehow have a different outcome in Australia.

So this morning's Aussie newspapers treated the loss of 1,900 jobs at Fairfax as if it was astonishing and unprecedented news. It was the splash in the rival-owned The Australian, "Fairfax downsizes its future", and in Fairfax's Melbourne title, The Age, "Fairfax to shrink jobs, newspapers".

It was also front page news in Fairfax's Sydney Morning Herald, which - like The Age - is to go tabloid as part of the restructuring operation.

Meanwhile, Fairfax journalists are also exercised by the intentions of its major shareholder, Gina Rinehart - reputedly the world's richest woman - because she might threaten their editorial independence. She has a 19% stake in the company and there is a belief she may launch a takeover bid.

They have also recently been protesting about the outsourcing/offshoring of production jobs at some community newspapers. Subbing of several Fairfax titles is being switched to New Zealand.

Their main problem remains the one facing the Australian newspaper industry and the world's newspaper industries - the inexorable move from print to screen. Everyone knows it now, but as Andrew Jaspan pointed out, the Australian newspaper owners were too slow to catch on.

As Fairfax's chief executive Greg Hywood said: "Readers' behaviours have changed and will not change back." He should also have added "advertisers" to readers.

Look at the fall in ad revenue in the first half of this year - down 10%. And circulation revenue fell too, down 5%.

The number of print readers has fallen every year since 2006, from close to 3m to under 2m, while the number of digital-only readers surpassed 5m for the first time last year.

Shares in Fairfax have fallen almost 90% over the past five years as the company has struggled to adapt to structural changes.

Nor is Fairfax alone. The shift has also hit News Limited, the Australian division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, and the biggest publisher in the country's newspaper market. It is planning to cut more than 1,000 jobs.

There are still places where paper sales are defying the downward trend, most notably Japan, and also countries where print is growing because it is something of a novelty, such as India, Russia and China.

Otherwise, in the economically advanced countries where print has been around for, say, a couple of centuries, print is on the way out.

Nothing happens at the same time everywhere, so there are countries where the trend is slower, but there is no defying the march of history, as the journalists in Australia have now discovered.

Sources: Reuters/The Guardian/FT/The Australian

Editorial jobs are being cut at several Johnston Press titles in south Yorkshire and the north Midlands.

The cuts involve production journalists and photographers at the Doncaster Free Press, Derbyshire Times, Sheffield Star and Sheffield Telegraph.

Earlier this month, at a National Union of Journalists' meeting in Sheffield, members voted that they had no confidence in management after the Telegraph editor and Star deputy editor were made redundant.

Johnston Press also announced 19 editorial redundancies at the Leeds-based Yorkshire Post and Yorkshire Evening Post last week.

Michelle Stanistreet, the NUJ's general secretary, said: "If Johnston Press want to turn the company's fortunes around they have to wake up to the fact that its journalists are its best asset.

"Losing experienced, talented, loyal staff who are passionate about the communities they serve, and the consequential impact on content and quality will do nothing to make more readers turn to their local newspapers, whether in print or online."

Source: NUJ

Gillian Tett, the award-winning Financial Times assistant editor who has run the paper's New York division for two-and-a-half years, is taking a break to write a book.

She will continue to write for the FT, but it means that she will give up the role of US managing editor, to be replaced by Martin Dickson. He has been the FT's deputy editor since 2005.

Tett will return some time early in 2013 to what the FT describes as a "top management and comment role". FT editor Lionel Barber paid tribute to Tett's "superb job" in the US.

The FT also announced that Gary Silverman is being promoted to the new post of deputy US managing editor.

Dickson is being replaced as deputy editor by John Thornhill, the FT's news editor. And his current job is being taken on by Alec Russell, the comment and analysis editor.

Tett is credited with having predicted the financial crisis in 2006. Last year, she was awarded a president's medal by the British Academy. She was named journalist of the year in 2009 and business journalist of the year in 2008.

It was suggested in 2010 that the "sharp, glamorous" Tett, was the most powerful woman in newspapers.

Sources: Financial Times/Daily Beast

Newsprint space restrictions mean that articles usually have to be cut. So it was with the contributions to today's Media Guardian print feature about the Leveson inquiry: After all we've heard, what should be done?

So, to keep faith with the seven people who so speedily responded to my requests, I am publishing the full, unexpurgated versions of their original contributions. (NB to sub-editors: you may judge my skills, or lack of them, by comparing the two versions. NB to Bill Hagerty: Twiddly bits restored!)

Anyway, I simply asked the seven to share their hopes for the future, and here's what they wrote:

SIMON KELNER

Rarely, if ever, in the field of public inquisition has there been quite such a knowledge gap between the investigators and the investigated.

The Leveson inquiry has devoted huge amounts of time - and public money - to establish facts that were perfectly obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the way newspapers work.

It is only reasonable, therefore, that within the industry there is a certain amount of fear about whether the new system of regulation proposed by the inquiry will - as well as giving the public more protection - pay enough regard to the realities of operating a free and independent press in an increasingly hostile commercial environment.

It was clear from the exchange between David Cameron and Lord Justice Leveson last week that while both men know what they want, they don't quite know how to get it.

Lord Justice Leveson said that he had no intention of creating a framework that provided more work for lawyers (the irony of which, as he looked out on the serried ranks of legal representatives, will not have been lost) so we can assume that his mind is inclined towards more effective self-regulation.

His main difficulty will be in trying to find a one-size-fits-all remedy. Our national press is not homogenous: it's a many-headed beast, and the commercial pressures and editorial imperatives are very different at one end of the market from the other. Whatever form the new regulation takes, this should be recognised.

And whatever new body emerges, it has to be guided by people who have a clear knowledge and understanding of the particular exigencies of running a modern newspaper.

A new code of conduct will be introduced but in order to ensure all newspapers come into line, and to give the public some confidence that this is not just self-regulation by the self-interested, there will have to be some form of statutory underpinning.

There is an attraction, for example, in levying VAT on any newspaper that refuses to abide by the new code. And, in trying to get a balance between stick and carrot, perhaps we can then start looking at our libel laws.

Simon Kelner is chief executive of the Journalism Foundation and a former editor of the Independent

LORD FOWLER

I remember as a journalist in the 1960s being amongst a group of reporters who were door-stepping the occupants of a house in London.

I cannot remember the reason but what I can remember is the scurrying away there was when the words "complaint to the Press Council" were uttered. I very much doubt if raising the threat of the Press Complaints Commission would have that effect today - and that is part of the trouble.

The commission does not have the clout that is necessary for a body which above all is there to protect the public interest. It has no powers of investigation or enforcement. It is seen by the public not just as a defender of freedom of expression but also the apologist for some of the excesses. Did no one at the commission know or suspect the phone hacking of the last years ?

The PCC must be replaced by a new credible regulator armed with the powers that the commission has lacked. It must be self-evidently independent and entirely fearless.

At the same time, we should recognise one crucial difference between self-enforcing bodies that oversee, for example, solicitors. Journalism is not a profession. Anybody can be a journalist and the sanction cannot be the withdrawal of a certificate to practise. The sanction must be a financial penalty certainly on the paper and probably on the journalist also.

At the foundation of the new system there must be a code of practice accepted by the press itself. And what happens if one media group says it is not willing to accept? It is at this point there should be a reserve statutory power to enforce membership.

Lord Fowler, an ex-journalist and regional newspaper chairman, formerly chaired the House of Lords communication committee

MICHELLE STANISTREET

The PCC failed abysmally as a regulatory body - a self-serving organisation for the media bosses, more akin to a gentleman's club than a regulator with teeth.

Journalists were denied a seat at the table and the sprinkling of independent representatives proved insufficient to dilute the vested interests and properly stand up for the rights of readers.

Unlike Ofcom, it refused complaints from third parties giving papers a free hand in peddling bigotry, whilst vulnerable groups like asylum seekers and the disabled struggled to get genuine redress.

The NUJ wants a truly independent body, with press freedom and journalistic standards at its heart. To have teeth, it needs to be underpinned by statute, with a press ombudsman to mediate with the public.

An overarching body would hear appeals from the ombudsman and administer an ethical code - the NUJ's code of conduct would make a great start - and decide on punishments, including fines and compensation, for newspapers that breach the code.

It would respect a conscience clause for journalists. Leveson can take inspiration from the Irish Press Council - which has a role for the NUJ and other civic groups. This is a chance for real reform that we cannot allow to be squandered.

Michelle Stanistreet is general secretary of the National Union of Journalists and was books editor at the Sunday Express

STEPHEN ABELL

After the initial catharsis of victims voicing their legitimate grievances back in October, the course of the inquiry is now familiar to all in its minutiae: Lord Justice Leveson's expressive eyebrows, levitating and descending in disapproval or approbation; Robert Jay and his sesquipedalian (a word he will know the meaning of) tendencies; the steady troop of defensive editors and politicians, with their sometimes oddly conflicting memories.

But now we enter the crucial phrase; what does Leveson actually do about the great oxymoron in the room: regulation of the free press?

Leveson's published criteria for future regulation are broadly sensible, and indeed recognisable: it should be effective, cheap, cover all "newspapers", preserve freedom of expression, and be a free public service than protects the vulnerable.

It is the latter point that those who currently work at the Press Complaints Commission would recognise as the reason they get up in the morning (it is certainly not for the universal applause).

I believe that Leveson should look to build on what the PCC has generally done well (been an efficient complaints and pre-publication service), but make some crucial developments. First, editors and proprietors should self-regulate properly, with transparent audits into their internal decision-making processes.

Second, there should be fines for failures of those processes, which could be used to help the industry fund the new, more independent regulator. Third, the system should be incentivised to encourage membership: kitemarks, libel relief, meaningful press cards, access to shared resources are all valid avenues to explore.

Finally, we should all recognise that – even before the Internet – there was no perfect solution for the paradox of keeping something free but also in check. Leveson must recognise that even his very best will not be the final answer.

Stephen Abell is a partner at the Pagefield consultancy and former director of the PCC

GEORGE BROCK

There's a way round Leveson's problem. The inquiry has looked at many things, but the heart of the matter is the tension between privacy and disclosure in the public interest. There's a bargain waiting to be struck, if Leveson and the government are bold enough. Law, regulation and incentives should work together.

Create a better privacy law than the current muddle, not just to avoid unjustifiable invasions by news media but also because digital technology creates an urgent need for clearer and more effective limits.

Enable quicker, cheaper legal dispute resolution in privacy and defamation cases. Improve and make consistent the public interest defences in both civil and criminal law: robust defences for disclosures which have public value. When assessing a public interest defence, a court would take into account how the quality of the editorial process in question is monitored and maintained.

Any publication that ever expected to find itself in court would have a strong incentive to join a regulatory organisation, which should not need backing in statute. Editorial codes of conduct would need to be transparent, enforceable and supervised by people independent of the newsroom. Good journalism would gain; bad journalism would lose.

George Brook is head of journalism at City University, London and a former managing editor of The Times

MARK STEPHENS

In making his recommendations, there are two fundamental questions Lord Justice Leveson must ask: (1) Will regulation be effective? (2) Will the proposed regulations distort the market for news and information?

The PCC was wholly ineffectual and ineffective. It is far from clear that any future regulator will be more effective.

We have perfectly good criminal laws, unenforced, by pliant policemen which would've stopped the excesses of the media. Laws criminalising phone hacking, bribery of policemen & public figures, harassment, trespass, etc.

In the US, phone hacking stopped dead in 1998, after a Cincinnati Enquirer journalist hacked the phones of executives of Chiquita Bananas. The company paid a $10m pre-action and the journalist went to jail. All this on a public interest story.

Since then we have seen the growth in the US of "newsgathering torts" which have prevented the excesses we saw grow unchecked in the UK.

Any new regulator proposed by Leveson LJ will operate in a market of print papers – when most news is increasingly to be found on the web and increasingly newspapers are closing, or downsizing – only last week in the US, the Times-Picayune shed half its workforce losing 200 jobs. Another paper was closed. This trend is being replicated in our local newspapers.

If any regulatory framework is harsh we will see regulatory arbitrage with a move away from traditional print to online news sources like MSN, Yahoo, Huffington Post at the expense of traditional print journalism.

The law has the advantage of applying to all media, web included. Perhaps Lord Justice Leveson's real problem is how do you find policemen who have never taken a tip-fee or hospitality from a newspaper, to freely investigate what are in fact crimes not regulatory challenges?

Mark Stephens is a media lawyer with Finer Stephens Innocent

BILL HAGERTY

Following the inquiry that lost its way, diverting from its original brief to become no more than an unprecedented display of collective amnesia that could keep sociologists busy for several years, Lord Justice Leveson should renew his study of the suggestions for a fail-safe system already put forward on behalf of the newspaper industry.

Lord Hunt, chairman of the about to become redundant Press Complaints Commission, has urged for a new regulatory authority with a standards arm in addition to a mediation service, backed up by a contractual system through which it could potentially levy serious fines.

He also envisages a commercial contract between the authority and publishers that would commit publishers to cooperating fully with any standards investigation that takes place and to paying for the investigation if systemic failures are uncovered. In other words, self-regulation with teeth.

Measures to ensure it has real bite makes it essential for any serving editors or senior executives to be eliminated from the standards and appeals committee and replaced by equal numbers of lawyers, media academics, lay members and – why not? – former editors no longer tied to a title or group.

Astride this muscular set-up should be, as suggested by Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre, an ombudsman with contracted investigative powers.

And I would also like to see the introduction of a conscience clause in journalists' contracts of employment, enabling them to refuse any assignments they considered unethical or – horrors – illegal and giving them recourse to the authority if disciplined for their action.

Leveson doubtless will wish to go further, but the swift adoption of these home grown measures is – to coin a phrase – very much in the public interest.

Bill Hagerty is a former editor of The People and is the outgoing editor of the British Journalism Review

The Country Last Supper (click for bigger image). Photograph: Ric Hardacre

Here's a Leveson inquiry update to Leonardo da Vinci's The Last Supper. Devised by Ric Hardacre, it can be found here.

Acre (@richardacre), who describes himself as a producer of electronic soundscapes and a "guerilla recycler", helpfully provides a caption.

That is, of course, Rebekah Brooks replacing Jesus. Meanwhile, from left to right, here is the line-up with (some of) the comments by Hardacre:

The Labour trio...

Gordon Brown: Generally looking pissed off that no one listens to him. He's had this exact facial expression for the past 25 years.

Tony Blair: Trying to introduce Ed to his best mate Rupert. Or, at least, get his attention. Rupert?

Ed Miliband: Wants nothing to do with News International. But, as with everything Ed says or does, it comes across as a wimper.

News International (all backs turned to Labour)...

Andy Coulson: Drink in hand and sighing as he wishes it would all be over.

Rupert Murdoch: Wielding the knife. Who is he going to sacrifice next to save his empire? Or is it time for revenge?

James Murdoch: Didn't know what anybody was doing, signed cheques without asking why - but it's OK because daddy loves him.

Rebekah Brooks: The only woman, she is oblivious to the men around her falling over themselves to get in her good graces, saying more about their behaviour than hers.

The Tories

David Cameron: Trying desperately to put some distance between himself and Brooks, but still the closest.

George Osborne: Mr Shadow. No one knows what he actually does. Maybe he stands behind Cameron and operates him.

Jeremy Hunt: He doesn't know what all the fuss is about and thinks everything is absolutely fine.

The Lib Dems (The other half - sorry, 1/8th - of the coalition. No one is paying them any attention, not even their supposed partners)

Norman Lamb: Accusing News International of threatening to "do over" the Lib Dems

Nick Clegg: Looking like a lost little puppy, at the end of the table with the rest of the children

Vince Cable: No one is listening to his complaints about the current state of affairs - not even Nick.

Not pictured: Michael Gove - he's out riding the horse.

From today, the Daily Mail & General Trust (DMGT) is no longer listed in the stock market's FTSE indices. The company has therefore disappeared from the FTSE 250.

The move, announced back in late April, is due to new rules that give precedence to companies whose shares carry voting rights. So DMGT's non-voting shares no longer qualify.

It is part of the overall desire by the Financial Services Authority to give priority to companies that allow the investors the chance to exercise their power.

But there is no suggestion that the de-listing reflects badly on the state of DMGT as a business. Stockbroking analysts remain upbeat about the company, with several urging investors to buy.

For example, though Panmure Gordon's media analyst, Alex de Groote, regards the "well-flagged" as an "unhelpful development", he says it will have no impact on the fundamentals.

On 30 May, it was reported that the Daily Mail's editor, Paul Dacre, had sold nearly three-quarters of his shareholdings in DMGT.

The sale, which yielded him just over £400,000, left him with just 37,861 shares in the company.

Sources: StockMarketWire/The Guardian

I want to underline the significance of an important legal settlement last week in which the Metropolitan police agreed to pay more than £200,000 to Mark Lewis, the lawyer who has represented scores of phone hacking victims.

I do so because the settlement has gone largely unreported outside The Guardian, meriting only odd paragraphs elsewhere.

So it bears repeating that Lewis secured the libel settlement after a senior Met officer effectively accused him of exaggerating the scale of the News of the World scandal.

It was a key example of the way in which those who were trying to expose the hacking scandal prior to the Milly Dowler revelation in July last year suffered from continual "official" denials of their (correct) allegations.

On Thursday, the high court was told that Lewis's action had been settled, with the Met agreeing to pay him £30,000 in damages plus all of his £176,000 legal costs. Even so, it did not mean, according to a Scotland Yard spokesman, that the Met were admitting liability.

The case goes back to September 2009, when Lewis gave evidence to the Commons culture and media select committee. He told MPs that there were 6,000 phone-hacking victims, which contradicted the News of the World's single "rogue reporter" defence.

Two months later, the Press Complaints Commission chair, Lady Buscombe, made a speech to the Society of Editors in which she said that the then Met assistant commissioner, John Yates, had passed her reliable evidence showing that Lewis's statement was incorrect.

Lewis sued Buscombe, the PCC and the Met on the grounds that he had been accused of lying to parliament and, in so doing, damaged his reputation. In November 2010, Buscombe and the PCC apologised to Lewis and paid him £20,000 in libel damages.

Following last week's settlement, Lewis said: "The Metropolitan police have spent about £250,000 unsuccessfully defending my claim, which could have been avoided if there had been a proper investigation into the activities in 2006 rather than one where only [journalist] Clive Goodman and [private investigator] Glenn Mulcaire were prosecuted."

Since the incident, both Buscombe and Yates have resigned from their posts. Lewis, meanwhile, continues to represent people who allege that they have been victims of hacking. And, of course, he represented Milly Dowler's parents too.

Sources: The Lawyer/The Guardian