John Kampfner

Though the timing may be opportunistic, Ed Miliband is right. Libel reform, privacy and media standards need looking at Two cheers for Ed Miliband. In calling for an independent review of the way newspapers behave he is taking a big political risk, opening the door to concerted hostility from media magnates. He also happens to be right on the principle that freedom of expression and holding truth to power are not synonymous with dodgy journalistic practice. He might deserve a third cheer if it were not for the brazen opportunism he and his party are showing by taking on Rupert Murdoch only now that the love is lost. Before the caveats and the cavilling, credit should be given where it is due. Miliband is seeking to take on the good work carried out two years ago by the cross-party Commons select committee on culture, media and sport. When the MPs issued their report they correctly identified and separated out three related strands: the need for libel reform; issues of privacy; and press standards. Their inquiry looked at the media in the round, but also at some egregious cases of abuse. This included the hounding of Gerry and Kate McCann , and the bugging of telephones of politicians and celebrities by the News of the World – which News Corporation is only now, drip by drip, beginning to admit. The MPs made a point that should be blindingly obvious to the media profession – that legitimate investigation is vital to keeping checks on the powerful, but that intrusion into people’s lives, particularly through subterfuge, is not. Seen from one level, the British media are forced to operate under considerable constraint. Until now England and Wales have been global pariahs, sporting some of the most restrictive libel laws in the developed world. It is a tribute to all political parties, but mostly the coalition, that the Libel Reform Campaign led by Index on Censorship and its partners has produced draft legislation that goes some way to removing the chill on free expression and investigative journalism. Sure, the bill is not perfect, but the great should not be the enemy of the good. After all, this is the first serious attempt in 70 years to tackle the problem. Privacy is the thorniest problem. Hypocrisy should be exposed. What about the celebrity who parades their private life in choreographed photoshoots for glossy magazines but then wishes to hide from public view when things go awry? That is a moot point. Assuming you are a public figure but you make no pronouncements on lifestyles or ethics and you do not parade your life in the glare of the cameras, surely you are entitled to privacy? You are, thanks to the Human Rights Act . But as ever, our suspicious judges are interpreting the legislation in a manner hostile to a free media. Ranged against the long lens is the epidemic of the super-injunction . The master of the rolls (the second most senior judge in England and Wales) is due to report on an issue that serves as a perfect example of rich man’s justice. The very idea that the media should be gagged and that the public is prevented from knowing that such an order exists is more in keeping with a dictatorship. This brings us back to media standards. One of the biggest hindrances to strong investigation is cost. Editors and the bean counters who oversee them are reluctant to invest in long-term projects that might prove fruitless. The democratic deficit in the demise of

Posted by on April 21, 2011. Filed under News, Politics, World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.