Press Freedom at Risk
Millions of Britons were justifiably outraged over last year’s serial revelations of illegal and unethical behavior by the powerful and influential tabloid press in Britain. But the regulatory remedies proposed Thursday by an official commission of inquiry seem misplaced, excessive and potentially dangerous to Britain’s centuries-old traditions of a press free from government regulation.
In a nearly 2,000-page report, the commission, led by Lord Justice Sir Brian Leveson, cataloged the glaring misdeeds of Rupert Murdoch’s sensationalist tabloid, The News of the World, which is no longer published.
Noting, among other things, the tabloid’s “reckless disregard for accuracy,” and “lack of respect for individual privacy,” it called on Parliament to create an independent regulatory body with the authority to fine newspapers up to $1.6 million for violating its guidelines. This new organization, which newspapers could join voluntarily, would replace the largely ineffective Press Complaints Commission, run by the news industry itself, which is supposed to uphold a code of ethical journalistic practices agreed to by participating publications.
Creating an independent regulatory body would require new legislation. To his credit, Prime Minister David Cameron seems opposed to proceeding in that direction. Conscientious members of all political parties should oppose it as well.
British newspapers operate in a harsher legal environment than the American press. They must navigate an Official Secrets Act, which criminalizes the publication of classified information and a plaintiff-friendly libel law, which lacks American-style exceptions for public figures. But they have been free from government licensing since 1694. A regulatory panel backed by law is a big step in the wrong direction.
Press independence is as essential a bulwark of political liberty in Britain as it is everywhere. That independence should not, and need not, be infringed upon now. Much of the conduct described in the report on Thursday — hacking into voice mail messages of ordinary citizens and illegally obtaining medical records — is not news gathering. They are illegal acts under British law. So are bribery, corrupt relations with police officials and political figures and other abuses attributed to the tabloid press.
In such instances, newspapers can claim no shield against civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution. Those remedies, not government regulation, are the right ways to stop the kind of behavior alleged against The News of the World, and good deterrents against misconduct by other papers.
This is very rich indeed, from the newspaper which possesses more government sycophants on its payroll than any publication in history, and has let down the American people in its coverage of Republican and Democrat alike. Judith Miller's many sins in the coverage (or lack thereof) of the Iraq War, a complete lack of objectivity in dealing with the Obama Administration - the New York Times is not in the position to question the journalism standards of a high school newspaper, much less the standards of a nation.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Did you follow the Leveson Inquiry?
This is very rich indeed, from the newspaper which possesses more government sycophants on its payroll than any publication in history, and has let down the American people in its coverage of Republican and Democrat alike. Judith Miller's many sins in the coverage (or lack thereof) of the Iraq War, a complete lack of objectivity in dealing with the Oba ...[text shortened]... stion the journalism standards of a high school newspaper, much less the standards of a nation.
Originally posted by sasquatch672If you don't know about the Leveson Inquiry and its currently unfolding political and legal repercussions, on what basis can you criticize the NYT's take on it?
Not closely. Something to do with Gordon Brown's son, cystic fibrosis...that's about all I know.
Originally posted by FMFThe NYT has no basis on which to criticize any journalistic entity besides itself. It ceded that right over ten years ago.
If you don't know about the Leveson Inquiry and its currently unfolding political and legal repercussions, on what basis can you criticize the NYT's take on it?
Originally posted by sasquatch672The NYT is criticizing the findings and recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry.
The NYT has no basis on which to criticize any journalistic entity besides itself. It ceded that right over ten years ago.
The NYT editorial is defending journalistic freedom.
Did you not even read your own copy pasted OP?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FMFThe NYT is doing what all the media outlets are doing and defending their ability to harass people and
The NYT is criticizing the findings and recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry.
The NYT editorial is defending journalistic freedom.
Did you not even read your own copy pasted OP?
make stuff up in the name of journalistic freedom.
While it is true that some of the practices that were uncovered (phone tapping for example) are already
illegal, many of the activities that were (rightly) criticised are NOT illegal.
Thus the NYT's claim that it's all illegal already and thus no new legislation is required is plainly a lie.
Personally I would have a truth requirement for all media outlets that claim to be 'news' based.
If you can't reasonably and objectively justify any factual claims/assumptions of your stories at time
of printing/publishing (within reasonable limits, people obviously make honest mistakes) then you can
be fined (and the fine for serious infringements should be a number of mill plus the net or gross profits
from the sales of the papers/whatever that carried the story.)