Despite weeks of debate, scrutiny, anger, fear and opining, the Leveson Inquiry’s 2,000-page findings and suggestions have ruffled relatively few feathers. The principal result is the need to establish a press-organised self-regulatory body that receives its remit from legislation but is independent of both the press and the government.

This decision may appease those, like the Independent and the Telegraph, who feared a stripping of the freedoms the press has enjoyed for three centuries with the imposition of statutory regulation. However, it also assuages those who have been the victims of careless journalism as it ardently calls for stronger regulation over the press.

The impetus behind the suggestion of independent, self-regulation can be found in the investigation of the relationship between politicians and the press. The report says that the closeness of this relationship may have impacted the ability of politicians to act indifferently on this matter.

Leveson says, “It should not be acceptable that it uses its voice, power, and authority to undermine the ability of society to require that regulation is not a free for all, to be ignored with impunity. The answer to the question who guards the guardians, should not be 'no-one'.”

The CIPR affirmed its support of the Leveson Inquiry, saying in a statement, "The freedom and plurality of the press is fundamental to a thriving democracy, with this independence also being vital to the professional practice of public relations. In order to preserve the fundamental freedom of the press, it is the CIPR’s belief that press regulation should be run by a new, independent, non-statutory body."

Prime Minister David Cameron supported much of Leveson’s report, however did not support the need for legislation outlining the establishment of a regulatory body. He says the incentives recommendations within the report had the potential for politics to infringe on free speech and the freedom of the press. “We should think very very carefully before crossing this line,” he says. However he does believe a regulatory body should be put in place immediately and that “the onus should now be on the press to implement them and implement them correctly.”

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s response says there is little danger of legislation infringing on the freedom of the press as this will not be the first time the press is involved in legislation. Clegg says legislation is necessary to ensure that the independence of the regulatory body is not weakened over time and urged Parliament to pursue Leveson’s suggestions, saying, “We need to get on with this without delay.”

What remains unsaid is the relevance of the Leveson suggestions in an era in which the traditional press is persistently challenged by online media. While the so-called ‘guardians of democracy’ may retain the power and influence within Britain’s civil society, regulating only this arm of the United Kingdom’s media leaves a sizable portion of media outlets unregulated. Blogs, online journals and magazines and other outlets retain their relative liberty from regulation.