For a change, the editors of the Sun and the Sunday Times are
right. The new report on the press by Sir David Calcutt QC, widely leaked in
last Sunday's papers, makes recommendations that, if implemented, would
seriously undermine the ability of the press to do the job it should do in a
free society.
The most dangerous proposal is that the Press Complaints
Commission be replaced by a new tribunal, consisting of a judge (appointed by
the Lord Chancellor) and two lay assessors" (appointed by the Heritage
Minister), with powers to impose big fines on newspapers if they breach a statutory
code of conduct.
The press is already over-deterred from tackling the rich
and powerful by the costs of defending libel actions (to say nothing of the
size of libel damages); it is already over-constrained by Britain's ludicrous
secrecy laws. A government-appointed body with powers to decide what
constitutes proper journalistic practice and to penalise newspapers that do not
conform is an affront to democracy. It should be opposed in Parliament and, if
that does not work, its findings should be ignored by editors.
Other parts of the new Calcutt report are less worrying.
Nevertheless, new criminal offences covering trespass, long-distance
photography of people on private property and electronic surveillance could
have a significant impact on investigative journalism, even if a "public
interest" defence is allowed. They too should be vigorously opposed.
This is not to claim that the attitude of the British press
to privacy is blameless. But the breaching of privacy is not the press's main
fault, nor are the Calcutt measures the best way of dealing with it.
There have been far fewer breaches of privacy than is popularly
believed and the most famous (from Virginia Bottomley's love-child to the
"Squidgy” tapes) have involved public figures whose private lives are
relevant to their public positions. Far more important than breaches of privacy
are the concentration of press ownership, the lack of political diversity in
the national press and the political bias, cultural prejudice and
trivialisation that characterise the tabloids - none of which figure in Calcutt
In any case, the costs of clamping down on press breaches of
privacy, in terms of preventing exposure of real wrongdoing, are far greater
than any supposed benefits: press freedom is more important than privacy. The
Calcutt report should be spiked without further ado.
Much the same goes, unfortunately, for Clive Soley's Freedom
and Responsibility of the Press Bill. Mr Soley is a decent and honourable man,
and the idea behind his proposal, that newspapers and magazines should correct
inaccuracies in reports, is a worthy one. The problem is the means proposed by
Mr Soley to secure this end: the imposition on editors of a duty to correct
inaccuracies, with a statutory, lay-dominated Independent Press Authority
being given the power to adjudicate contested cases and, in the last resort,
to take miscreants to court.
If Mr Soley's bill became law, it would give another weapon
to the nuisances and bullies who currently use the threat of libel proceedings
to extract apologies from newspapers that have done nothing worse than annoy or
embarrass. It should be opposed by all supporters of a free press.
