The latest Exocet in the propaganda battle waged against the Leveson Royal Charter turns out to have a dodgy fuse.

It comes in the form of a poll commissioned by the front organisation for press barons, the Free Speech Network, springing back to life after six months of silence (their ‘latest news entry’ is dated 26 October 2012).

As you might expect, the poll is enthusiastically reported in newspapers owned by the backers of the doomed PCC: News International, Telegraph and Associated. Equally predictably, it purports to show that the public do not support the Royal Charter that was endorsed by Parliament in March and is due to go before the Privy Council for approval on 15^th May. One typically loaded question asked respondents to choose between these statements:“The new press regulation system should be set up in a way that gives politicians the final say if and when changes need to be made."

Or"The new press regulation system should be set up in a way that does NOT give politicians the final say if and when changes need to be made."

Little wonder that the survey was instantly dismissed as a ‘worthless piece of propaganda’ by the Guardian’s media commentator, Roy Greenslade.

Let’s look at its finding that 66.5% of people think ‘the new press regulation system should be set up in a way that does NOT give politicians the final say if and when changes need to be made’.

If people believe that, which Royal Charter is more likely to give them what they want? Is it the one approved by all parties in Parliament in March, or is it the one put forward by press barons with a view to creating the PCC Mark Two?Emphatically not the latter, which would not merely give working politicians a ‘final say’, but would allow them to continue routinely controlling the regulation system just as they have routinely dominated the PCC. (The chair of the PCC is a working Conservative peer and former Conservative Cabinet minister, while the chair of Pressbof, the powerful funding body, is also a working Conservative peer. But respondents to the Free Speech Network poll weren’t told that.)

The real Royal Charter, which is based on the Leveson recommendations, would not permit that level of political involvement because it aims to make the whole press self-regulation system as independent as possible.

So what does the poll question mean when it says ‘the final say if and when changes need to be made’? This refers to the provision in the real Royal Charter that any change in its terms would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament. The implication of the question is that this gives MPs ultimate control.

But that raises further questions. First, would it be better for the press itself to have ‘the final say’? Remember that Lord Justice Leveson found that history showed the press could not be trusted to regulate itself effectively.

Second, why is that provision for a two-thirds majority in there? Because the Charter aims to make it as difficult as possible for politicians to change the terms of the Charter. If there was no provision at all, then the Privy Council, a shadowy committee of ministers, would be free to meddle at any time. Instead, the Charter says that it will take two-thirds of members of both Houses to do it. That would require (a) an unusually strong political consensus and (b) a full, public debate. That is quite a protection for the public – and it would apply only if someone wanted to change the terms of the existing charter.

But the Free Speech Network and the papers behind it don’t care for such facts. They would rather ask loaded questions and publish loaded answers. You can see the full dataset here.See also: Alan Partridge on the Free Speech Network