Why should newspapers be regulated and not news websites or blogs? Lord Leveson's answer is partly that while some bloggers can and do carry out "valuable and professional" work, readers don't particularly expect them to - they expect the internet to be an "ethical vacumn", so that "People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular assurance or accuracy".
He also argues that people discuss things they see in newspapers, while apparently they don't discuss things they see online.
I don't agree with these conclusions. People may regard a personal blog differently to something that looks like a professional news website, but I do think there are many websites which readers take seriously. Readers also do discuss things they see on the internet.
It seems to me that there is a case for greater regulation of the news media but I can't see any reason why some websites (eg those associated with newspapers) should be regulated differently to others (eg those which are online-only news services) if both are presenting themselves as professional, reliable news sources.
See page 736 of his report. I reprint his comments below:
