ABSTRACT In this article I revisit the debate around statutory underpinning in the context of the UK Leveson Inquiry of 2011–12 to refocus discussion on the conceptual distinctiveness of this term. Refusing the idea that it is simply a term of art for statutory control, I argue that statutory underpinning enables a strong articulation of the accountability relationship between the press and the public. The article discusses the concept and its operation in the Leveson Report. I then explore the uniqueness of the term on three levels: that of the technical specificity of the recognition criteria; the underpinning of the independence of the press; and finally the articulation of an accountability relationship. I turn to the work of philosopher Onora O’Neill to provide philosophical context on how underpinning offers a significant pathway to media accountability.

中文翻译：

---

重新调整法定基础：莱夫森后的媒体监管和问责制

摘要在本文中，我将回顾2011-12年度英国Leveson调查中有关法定基础的辩论，以使讨论重新集中于该术语的概念独特性。我拒绝认为这仅仅是法定控制的术语，我认为法定基础可以使新闻界与公众之间的问责制关系更加清晰。本文在“ Leveson报告”中讨论了该概念及其操作。然后，我从三个层面探讨该术语的唯一性：识别标准的技术特异性；新闻独立的基础；最后是问责制关系的阐明。