Protecting press freedom
As the debate about the media in Britain intensifies, our country needs to decide the answer to this question.
Do we want to have a free press and accept that they will sometimes get it wrong, or do we want to have tight regulation in the hope of tackling press abuses and accept the risk that this will compromise the ability of the press to hold the powerful to account?
A few days ago I used the following Jefferson saying as my "Quote of the Day." I had not realised how relevant it would soon come to be to this week's political debate.
The last thing a society which wishes to be a fully functioning democracy can afford to do is hand government regulators more power over the newspapers. television, or social media.
There have been repeated attempts in recent days by certain rich and powerful individuals, and in the House of Lords, to press for another Leveson-type inquiry and limit what the press can write. Her Majesty's Opposition has now started down the same track.
I believe Britain should reject this and make a positive case against stricter regulation of the media.
Certainly the media has sometimes got things badly wrong. The whole phone hacking scandal showed them in a very poor light - though it is important to note that the courts dealt with wrongdoing on that issue very severely using existing pre-Leveson law. A large number of journalists and freelancers, including several of the most powerful people in the country, found themselves in the dock, and quite a few of them were convicted and went to prison.
It is also worth noting that the most damning single allegation which particularly damaged the reputation of the press - that the News of the World had hacked the phone of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler - was never proved. The evidence to the Leveson inquiry from the senior police officer who investigated this said that
It is not possible to state with any certainty"
whether her messages were deleted or who was responsible if they were.
Are the press biased?
There is a widespread perception among people involved in politics that "the media" are biased against the particular viewpoint of whoever is expressing the opinion, which is not always entirely unjustified but, while we have a plurality of news outlets expressing different opinions, is not a fatal problem either.
Almost every Conservative with whom I have discussed the matter thinks that the BBC is biased in favour of the centre left. However, a great many Labour supporters and just about everyone in Momentum thinks that the BBC is biased in favour of the Conservatives.
It's my impression that almost every pro "Leave" person I know who is active in politics thinks that the BBC is hopelessly pro-Remain, but I have also read comments from pro-remain ultras like Lord Andrew Adonis who are convinced that the BBC is overly helpful to Brexit supporters.
A YouGov poll reported here finds a similar pattern among voters as a whole.
(Despite the fact that I voted Remain, I actually think the Brexiteers are right on that one, the Beeb IS hopelessly pro-Remain and anti-Brexit, though I also think that they are genuinely trying to cover the opinions of both sides. When Lord Adonis had a go at the BBC's Nick Robinson for this on Twitter recently he merely appeared to be totally detached from reality.
Similarly, of Britain's national newspapers we all know perfectly well that there are about three newspapers which are strongly pro Remain, and which three they are, and that almost all the rest are hopelessly anti EU and pro-Brexit, though the better ones try to give both sides of the story.
Similarly we all know which two or three newspapers tend to take a centre-left view and which are usually on the right (which may or may not mean backing the Conservatives.)
But if you put that picture together most of the political spectrum has outlets which will publish their point of view.
What's the alternative?
Following the row about allegations of Jeremy Corbyn's contacts with a Warsaw Pact spy during the cold war, the Labour leadership and their Momentum allies have doubled down in attacking the press, calling for a new Leveson review, complaining about how much of the press is owned by "billionaires" and "tax exiles" and threatening that "Change is Coming."
I admit to finding this chilling.
First of all, it was legitimate to cover the story: I think Alex Massie was dead right when he argued that "Corbyn may not have been a spy; but he always opposed the west."
Secondly, as Charlotte Henry wrote here in an excellent piece on CAPX, what he is doing amounts to bullying the press.
She wrote
"Jeremy Corbyn has carefully cultivated his persona as a cuddly Left-wing pensioner who has unexpectedly been called upon by the people to lead the revolution, when he would much rather be pottering in his allotment. Well, yesterday, that mask slipped."
"The Labour leader says that the spy story, which he denies, “shows just how worried the media bosses are by the prospect of a Labour government”.
"The Leader of the Opposition is now openly threatening the British press with punitive regulation in direct retaliation for stories he does not like."
As Isabel Hardman similarly notes in the Spectator:
“What the Labour leader is doing isn’t so much threatening the press with Leveson 2, which naturally the press doesn’t want, but undermining the press as a vital part of democracy.”
The parallels between Corbyn and Trump in their treatment of the press and what looks like deliberate strategy of undermining the respect in which the media are held are striking, and - here are some words you won't get from me very often - well described in an article in The Sun here.
If this is how arrogant the Corbynistas are in opposition, God help the country if they ever get into power.
I think Britain as a country needs to make a positive decision to entrench the ability of both mainstream and social media to call power to account.
That means welcoming diversity of publications and being very careful indeed not to introduce forms of regulation which could potentially be abused by a government, company or wealthy person to punish the media for running true stories which they do not like or reasonable opinions which they disagree with.
Do we want to have a free press and accept that they will sometimes get it wrong, or do we want to have tight regulation in the hope of tackling press abuses and accept the risk that this will compromise the ability of the press to hold the powerful to account?
A few days ago I used the following Jefferson saying as my "Quote of the Day." I had not realised how relevant it would soon come to be to this week's political debate.
The last thing a society which wishes to be a fully functioning democracy can afford to do is hand government regulators more power over the newspapers. television, or social media.
There have been repeated attempts in recent days by certain rich and powerful individuals, and in the House of Lords, to press for another Leveson-type inquiry and limit what the press can write. Her Majesty's Opposition has now started down the same track.
I believe Britain should reject this and make a positive case against stricter regulation of the media.
Certainly the media has sometimes got things badly wrong. The whole phone hacking scandal showed them in a very poor light - though it is important to note that the courts dealt with wrongdoing on that issue very severely using existing pre-Leveson law. A large number of journalists and freelancers, including several of the most powerful people in the country, found themselves in the dock, and quite a few of them were convicted and went to prison.
It is also worth noting that the most damning single allegation which particularly damaged the reputation of the press - that the News of the World had hacked the phone of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler - was never proved. The evidence to the Leveson inquiry from the senior police officer who investigated this said that
It is not possible to state with any certainty"
whether her messages were deleted or who was responsible if they were.
Are the press biased?
There is a widespread perception among people involved in politics that "the media" are biased against the particular viewpoint of whoever is expressing the opinion, which is not always entirely unjustified but, while we have a plurality of news outlets expressing different opinions, is not a fatal problem either.
Almost every Conservative with whom I have discussed the matter thinks that the BBC is biased in favour of the centre left. However, a great many Labour supporters and just about everyone in Momentum thinks that the BBC is biased in favour of the Conservatives.
It's my impression that almost every pro "Leave" person I know who is active in politics thinks that the BBC is hopelessly pro-Remain, but I have also read comments from pro-remain ultras like Lord Andrew Adonis who are convinced that the BBC is overly helpful to Brexit supporters.
A YouGov poll reported here finds a similar pattern among voters as a whole.
(Despite the fact that I voted Remain, I actually think the Brexiteers are right on that one, the Beeb IS hopelessly pro-Remain and anti-Brexit, though I also think that they are genuinely trying to cover the opinions of both sides. When Lord Adonis had a go at the BBC's Nick Robinson for this on Twitter recently he merely appeared to be totally detached from reality.
Similarly, of Britain's national newspapers we all know perfectly well that there are about three newspapers which are strongly pro Remain, and which three they are, and that almost all the rest are hopelessly anti EU and pro-Brexit, though the better ones try to give both sides of the story.
Similarly we all know which two or three newspapers tend to take a centre-left view and which are usually on the right (which may or may not mean backing the Conservatives.)
But if you put that picture together most of the political spectrum has outlets which will publish their point of view.
What's the alternative?
Following the row about allegations of Jeremy Corbyn's contacts with a Warsaw Pact spy during the cold war, the Labour leadership and their Momentum allies have doubled down in attacking the press, calling for a new Leveson review, complaining about how much of the press is owned by "billionaires" and "tax exiles" and threatening that "Change is Coming."
I admit to finding this chilling.
First of all, it was legitimate to cover the story: I think Alex Massie was dead right when he argued that "Corbyn may not have been a spy; but he always opposed the west."
Secondly, as Charlotte Henry wrote here in an excellent piece on CAPX, what he is doing amounts to bullying the press.
She wrote
"Jeremy Corbyn has carefully cultivated his persona as a cuddly Left-wing pensioner who has unexpectedly been called upon by the people to lead the revolution, when he would much rather be pottering in his allotment. Well, yesterday, that mask slipped."
"The Labour leader says that the spy story, which he denies, “shows just how worried the media bosses are by the prospect of a Labour government”.
"The Leader of the Opposition is now openly threatening the British press with punitive regulation in direct retaliation for stories he does not like."
As Isabel Hardman similarly notes in the Spectator:
“What the Labour leader is doing isn’t so much threatening the press with Leveson 2, which naturally the press doesn’t want, but undermining the press as a vital part of democracy.”
The parallels between Corbyn and Trump in their treatment of the press and what looks like deliberate strategy of undermining the respect in which the media are held are striking, and - here are some words you won't get from me very often - well described in an article in The Sun here.
If this is how arrogant the Corbynistas are in opposition, God help the country if they ever get into power.
I think Britain as a country needs to make a positive decision to entrench the ability of both mainstream and social media to call power to account.
That means welcoming diversity of publications and being very careful indeed not to introduce forms of regulation which could potentially be abused by a government, company or wealthy person to punish the media for running true stories which they do not like or reasonable opinions which they disagree with.
Comments