The post you are reporting:
From the Executive Summary of the Leveson' Report. Regarding the relationship between the press and Parliament...
"...117. Taken as a whole, the evidence clearly demonstrates that, over the last 30-35 years and
probably much longer, the political parties of UK national Government and of UK official
Opposition, have had or developed too close a relationship with the press in a way which
has not been in the public interest. In part, this has simply been a matter of spending a
disproportionate amount of time, attention and resource on this relationship in comparison
to, and at the expense of, other legitimate claims in relation to the conduct of public affairs.
In part, it has been a matter of going too far in trying to control the supply of news and
information to the public in return for the hope of favourable treatment by sections of
the press, to a degree and by means beyond what might be considered to be the fair and
reasonable (albeit partisan) conduct of public debate.
118. On the other hand, politicians (supported by some academic commentators) have argued that
this has been necessary to counteract the attempts of some sections of the press to discredit
their motives and distort the policies that they seek to promote. I have concluded that in
these kinds of respect, growing public awareness and impatience is simply making this kind
of conduct counter-productive for politicians (if not for the press) in the critically important
attempt to seek public trust and confidence. I need do no more than draw attention to that
fact.
119. There are other respects, however, in which the evidence suggests that politicians have
conducted themselves in relation to the press in ways which have not served the public
interest. They have placed themselves in positions in which they risked becoming vulnerable
to influences which are neither known about nor transparent. There is thus no mechanism
for holding them to account (which is, of course, the usual responsibility of the press itself).
The result has been to create what was, at least potentially, a perception of conflict with their
responsibilities in relation to the conduct of public affairs. A number of clear opportunities to
address this perception have been missed and there has been a persistent failure to respond
more generally to public concern about the culture practices and ethics of the press.
120. I have concluded that a combination of these factors has contributed to a lessening of public
confidence in the conduct of public affairs, by giving rise to legitimate perceptions and
concerns that politicians and the press have traded power and influence in ways which are
contrary to the public interest and out of public sight. These perceptions and concerns are
inevitably particularly acute in relation to the conduct by politicians of public policy issues in
relation to the press itself..."