Magazine article Times Educational Supplement

Press Freedom Is under Attack. Is It Worth Fighting For?: Resources

Magazine article Times Educational Supplement

Press Freedom Is under Attack. Is It Worth Fighting For?: Resources

Article excerpt

The answer, argues David Harrison, is yes. Its loss would leave our rights and even our democracy in jeopardy.

A few years ago, I ran a training course for journalists in Syria. My students, like the rest of the population, were living under a dictatorship, though there were tentative signs that the Damascus government was easing its controls; enough, at least, to invite a Western journalist to give lectures on how a free media works.

The journalists, mostly in their twenties, were bright and enthusiastic about the idea of a free press. But on the last training day, a young man who had excelled on the course said to me: "Mr David, we can see why a free press is desirable, but when we go back to our newspapers the editors will not allow us to practice what we have learned because they know it will get them into trouble with the government."

It is a comment I have heard repeatedly in recent years from journalists in the countries where I have worked and lectured, but where the press is kept on an impossibly tight leash.

The level of freedom given to any media always depends on governments. And tyrannical rulers used to peddling propaganda through a state-controlled media are unlikely to suddenly allow their actions to be subjected to scrutiny. Journalists who fight to tell the truth are often punished with threats, beatings, jail sentences and - as we saw recently with the killing of Sunday Times journalist Marie Colvin in Syria - even death.

Debating the value of a free press has never been more timely, especially in the UK. Here, for centuries, a vigilant and free media has allowed journalists to question those in government, expose their frauds and frailties and hold even the most powerful to account. But the phone- hacking scandal - which saw the closure of the UK's biggest-selling Sunday newspaper, The News of the World, and prompted the relentless probe of the Leveson Inquiry - threatens to change the face of our press forever.

Certainly there were questions that needed to be asked. Has the press been allowed to become too powerful? Was the relationship between media baron Rupert Murdoch, his lieutenants, former prime ministers and public officials too cosy to prevent corruption? And what responsibility do the police have to investigate their own ranks and expose those being paid, along with other public officials, for confidential information that led to stories for the now-defunct newspaper?

So what do we do now? Though the Leveson Inquiry has provided a deeply unedifying glimpse into the seedier side of what is still referred to as Fleet Street, it is hard not to feel that the inquiry is being used by some as an excuse to hobble the media and prevent legitimate investigations in the future.

For many MPs, it is payback time for a press that has, quite literally in some cases (think John Prescott), caught them with their pants down. And for MPs who had details of their lavish and often preposterous expenses revealed, the chance to put the boot in has been impossible to resist.

Celebrities, too, have an obvious interest in shackling the media, including Leveson Inquiry witness Hugh Grant, who was exposed by a newspaper after being caught with a prostitute in a car on Sunset Boulevard, LA. (There was no skulduggery here. Attention was attracted, allegedly, because the brake lights on Grant's stationary car kept flashing.)

Even the police - who sent 20 officers to arrest a single journalist at his home during the phone-hacking investigation; a greater number than they might deploy to apprehend a terrorist - appear keen to shift the blame on to the press. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.