|
Under a dictatorship the press is completely under the control of the
government. The implications of this are that the authorities discard all stories unfavorable to their policies and supplement the favorable ones with
propaganda and disinformation . All this involves control of TV and radio; in
many countries, listening to broadcasts such as the BBC World Service, now
available everywhere because of short-wave satellite output, is
proscribed.
People are not fools, however, and such dictatorship can lead to unrest and
produce the opposite to the intended effect. In most democracies, there is a varying degree of freedom. In Britain, for
example, the government only steps in during wartime, apart from exerting control over stories which the Home Office regards as dangerous to the
national interest, i.e. top security information. In these cases, a 'D Notice' forbids
publication. Otherwise, and in peacetime, the press is entirely free to publish
at will, subject to the following conditions: the material must be truthful, decent,
and compatible with the laws of libel.
Libelous material of course sells newspapers and magazines, and certain
unscrupulous editors will publish for this reason alone, setting aside money to
settle the damages in civil law which will inevitably follow.
Much of this is based on a section of the people's pleasure in seeing prominent
people discredited. For example, Jeffrey Archer was awarded a half million
pounds a few years
ago because his personal morals were brought into question; Elton John
received substantial damages because of a scurrilous and untrue account of
the way he was said to treat his pet dogs. The courts now tend to award
according to the seriousness of the alleged offence rather than on the
prominence of the person concerned. The crux of the matter is whether the
story is true. David Mellor, a prominent secretary of state, recently had some
aspects of his personal life exposed. He did not challenge the stories, and
chose to resign on the tacit admission that his lack of judgment precluded him
from parliamentary office.
A story may be defamatory, but if it is true there is nothing to stop its
publication. This is the basic test on which most editors take their decisions,
and logically there is no challenging this principle in a democracy. However,
there are two classes of reporting in the British tabloid press which have
incurred much public displeasure in recent years.
The first is the invasion of privacy. After some disaster, those closely
concerned are often hounded by the press for human stories . This amounts
to an unwarranted intrusion into private grief. The more distressed the
interviewee the less he or she is spared.
The second is the gathering of newshounds, the paparazzi , with their long-distance telephoto lenses, their listening devices and their phone-tapping
proclivities. These reporters dog the footsteps of very prominent people, such
as the British royals. It so happens that two royal marriages have recently
come on the rocks , with close friends of both parties involved in each case.
For some weeks these stories sold millions of extra copies of the tabloids.
There was much criticism in parliament, but nothing could be done; the stories
were not denied. The editors claimed the right to publish on the ground that
the stories were true, whatever methods were used to obtain them.
Perhaps decency is the other issue. Some men like looking at nude women,
and no doubt the regular 'Page 3 girl' sells many copies of the tabloids. The
editors know exactly how far they can go without incurring the laws against
pornography.
In Britain, complaints are heard by the Press Council, a self-governing but
rather toothless body. Today there is a strong move to tighten controls by
legislation, particularly in the case of infringement of privacy, and over the
methods used to obtain information, particularly trespass. However, in any
society there is always a demand for the sensational, and in a democracy
repressive legislation is unwise. Part of the health of a good system lies in
editorial freedom to criticize or applaud, and nobody should be exempted.
After all, if there is nothing to bring into the open, there is no story. On the
contrary, if there is real corruption, as in the cases of BCCI or Robert Maxwell,
the press does the public a service by exposing the details.
Completely free is too sweeping a phrase. Yes, the press should be free, but
subject to the controls mentioned above. Most democracies get it almost right.
|
