Protecting innocent people from media probes
The Independent wrote an editorial on Monday arguing that ‘Censorship is not the answer’, in response to the news, highlighted by Rumbold below, that: “news outlets should be prevented by law from reporting stories the Government judges to be against national security interests.” The paper even went as far as comparing it to 42 days legislation.
Let me explain what is actually going on here. The secret service, police and Home Office are supposed to have established a protocol in publicly talking about terrorism related raids and arrests. This came after criticism that various agencies were leaking information about raids to the media to further their own agenda. Anyone remember the idiotic rumours in the national press when Forest Gate raids took place? There have been more since, “terror in the skies” etc, and the alleged plot to kill a Muslim soldier. Various papers including the Telegraph and Sun have even had to pay out for calling people terrorists when they weren’t.
So the government is finally getting its act together and putting forward legislation that would stop the media from pouncing on unsubstantiated rumours based on “anonymous sources” when it relates to terrorism related threats. Given its hard to plug holes, since the press use almost anyone as a “legitimate source”, this is a sensible move. It would not only stop crazy theories, but also prevent people being accused of crimes that have yet to be proved. The system of self-regulation doesn’t work and the Press Complaints Commission is a toothless waste of space.
Surprise surprise then, that newspapers oppose any such restrictions. Newspapers sell more when terrorism is on the front page, even if a few weeks or months after the event they quietly declare on page 37 that it amounted to very little. The Indy’s attempt to compare it to 42 days is a joke. This move should be welcomed.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Media, Terrorism
Sunny, endorsing the move for the government to advance its powers in this manner seems incredibly illiberal.
First they come for the newspapers, next the bloggers?
I take it that you’re referring to the leaking of information about terrorist plots, before trials: and not suggesting – for example – that there was no plot to behead a British soldier?
There is a case for tightening reporting proceedings when it comes to people who have merely been accused/arrested. But handing over vast and ill-defined powers to a lying and power-mad state isn’t the answer. They they will be able to supress anything they want.
You need to regain your cynical eye Sunny.
Sunny – ‘So the government is finally getting its act together and putting forward legislation that would stop the media from pouncing on unsubstantiated rumours based on “anonymous sources” when it relates to terrorism related threats.’
It is an interesting article on a complex issue.
The slightly bigger question to my mind is how have we got to a place where the government has to act? Why have the media dumbed down (for want of a better turn of phrase) to the point where ‘news’ can be anything from disinterested presentation of substantive events to total cobblers?
I certainly see where Rumbold (3) is coming from, but is there not an element here that the press are being reigned in because they are just asking to be? And the double standard is unpalatable.
It was particularly distasteful getting a lecture from Paul Dacre on the subject of protecting rights/privacy and the Human Rights Act. That felt like being lectured to by Jordan on putting my chest away.
Stark reality is that freedom of the press as currently practised looks suspiciously close to being no more than the freedom to dumb down in order to sell more copy. Fair enough, but no one should be kidding them self that somehow that is the same thing as freedom of the press as an intrinsic component of a healthy democracy. Whose ever interest the media hysterics are in, it does not appear to be the public.
Self regulation has failed to protect the public or drive up standards. Hysterical sells. I am not a big fan of more regulation on the media, but I certainly wont shed too many tears for the hacks either.
Thanks for the a bit more balance MaidMarian – it seems everyone else prefers hyperbole.
I wonder what people would say if they were the ones smeared as terrorists by newspapers without being first charged or convicted by one.
David T – I’m referring to the number of people arrested and named compared to those who actually got charged.
That’s an unfair characterisation, you’ve backed a plan by the government to increase it’s powers of intrusion and control.
The reaction has seen bloggers from all parts of the political spectrum respond critically to your endorsement (which says something in its self).
Unity provided a very good and practical way for curbing the problems on LC without giving the government such a boon to their propaganda options.