Responsibility as well as freedom

A packed and controversial media agenda gives the government a golden opportunity to act decisively to strengthen a free press that acts in the public interest, says Lord Fowler.

‘Super injunctions’ and Twitter have been much in the headlines of late. At times you think there must be nobler causes than the right to expose the extra-marital affairs of television ‘celebrities’ and footballers. But of course there are more important issues at stake.

If it is possible to use super injunctions to suppress information which is of genuine public concern, then the press has every right to campaign against them. If Twitter is able to avoid the legal rules that restrain mainstream media in this country then, again, the press has every right to protest.

And these are not the only difficulties facing the media in Britain. Many would claim that the defamation laws unnecessarily restrict free speech and sometimes make London a centre for libel tourism.

While there is still the prospect of an appeal from Max Mosley on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that pre-notification of publication should not be required, if that decision was to be reversed, then genuine investigative journalism could be harmed.

It is difficult to argue with media companies that some restrictions should be removed. So why do I find myself only partly convinced by their arguments? It seems to me that the essential issue in these cases is where the public interest lies.

We no more want parts of the media who regard themselves as above the law than we want unreasonable restrictions on our right to know. I would find the case being put by media companies more impressive if they would concede that in some cases they have been in the wrong, and have acted against the public interest which they should be serving.

Phone hacking is the prime example. It is the worst scandal to have affected the British press for years. Yet, with the honourable exception of two or three national newspapers, it is massively under-reported. I just wonder what would have been the press reaction, had the BBC and not the News of the World been in the dock. I would have guessed that the director general would have long since been forced to resign. More than that, a campaign would have been in full flow to rid the public of the licence fee.

The truth is that the phone hacking scandal raises questions which are just as important for the public interest as the super injunction. How did it continue for so long? Who knew about it, and was it just confined to one newspaper? Why on earth did journalists believe that they had the right to go on illegal ‘fishing trips’ of this kind?

Why did the police halt an investigation which has now been re-started? Another question is: where exactly does it leave the Press Complaints Commission? Last week it was quick enough to condemn the Daily Telegraph for the methods that paper used to expose the views of Lib Dem MPs at constituency surgeries. But when it comes to phone hacking, the public interest has not been upheld. There is not one neat solution to all these problems.

We will soon have the advice of the expert committee on super injunctions and we now have the promise of legislation on defamation. The prospect is for a bill next year and, if that is the case, then some of the other issues can be swept up in it. Action of that kind would probably be more effective, and certainly quicker, than some kind of omnibus privacy bill. That still leaves the acid test of phone hacking.

The case for an independent inquiry – preferably judicial – is overwhelming. There is no other way of discovering just what happened and why. But for ministers this will present problems. Politicians prefer courting the press rather than confronting it.

We want a free press to expose scandals like thethalidomide case. We want a free press to expose the secrets of officialdom when they affect the citizen. But it is no part of the role of a free press to take action which is illegal and adversely affects the citizen. Let us hope that this government has the courage to properly confront the issue of phone hacking. It might also lead to a better balance between the press and the public.

Lord Fowler is a Conservative peer and chairman of the Lords communications committee.

Have your say...

Please enter your comments below.

Name

Your e-mail address

Listen to audio version

Please type in the letters or numbers shown above (case sensitive)