That's comfortably one of the worst articles I've ever read.
It is poor, and I suspect that the author wrote almost all of the article before Leveson announced his conclusions. This isn't a victory for the politicians but an attempt to improve behaviour and standards in what has become a very sleazy industry.
The important thing to keep in mind is that Leveson has recommended an independent regulatory body, not political interference. The statutory part, let's not forget, is to ensure that the independent body is and remains independent (and robustly independent, hopefully), and not to put into law what the press should and should not do. I trust that Cameron realises this, and that his opposition is just a knee-jerk response based upon his instinctive dislike of regulation backed by law.
And when you consider that Dan Hodges' main attack is the style in which Leveson presented his findings, I think he is just playing to his audience.
These are worthwhile proposals and should initially be considered on a non-partisan basis, with a view to eventual implementation.