APPENDIX 108
Memorandum submitted by Mr Jonathan Virden
Last week I heard that the Select Committee
on Culture, Media and Sport was having a spot of bother with editors
of some newspapers.
This stimulated me to dig out an essay I had
written some years ago and to revise it.
I attach a copy of the essay and hope that you
may find a moment to read it.
I acknowledge that the views expressed are very
extreme, but it was fun to write in that manner.
However I am sure that you will find the few
essential points. They are at the real centre of the debate you
were trying to have with some very tiresome people who are vital
to our society in many ways.
Annex
THE SWORD OF THE PRESS
(Jonathan Virden)
The press hangs over each individual like the
Sword of Damocles. It can be instantly catastrophic, without the
possibility of return to the previous state of affairs. It dangles
by a thread over every citizen and there seems to be little effective
balance to prevent repetition.
Can privacy be a right? Probably not fully so
in a modern society, where evil cohabits with the good, the ordinary
and the original.
And yet apprehension exists. Fear is always
present. That which causes great hurt to someone else may happen
to you. The media pack regularly besieges someone's home or the
homes of friends or relations, for days on end, with endless pestering
and destruction of flowerbeds.
The press, most permanent of the media, can
do much damage to the life of an individual. But all media have
great power to hurt without good cause. And the relatively penniless
citizen has no way to exact revenge or reduce repetition elsewhere.
There are laws to protect the innocent and those
whose activities or presence attract attention, however odd they
are. But these laws are manifestly inadequate today. The fact
that hurt to innocent citizens actually happens shows conclusively
that self-control by the media has failed. Society as a whole
has not got the balance right yet. Something more could be done
to check needless harm.
Should ordinary citizens be allowed to be hurt
without good cause by the fading of memory or legal inertia? Instant
severe retribution would restrain editors and their proprietors.
The press quotes "public interest"
as defence for its livelihood and the public work it does, of
which there is much that is good, indeed essential for the well-being
of society
"Public Interest" is a term with two
meanings and more uses.
Public interest means that people often choose
to buy newspapers with money. They are interested; that is normal
human nature. The makers of newspapers have to preserve the interest
of the public or die for lack of sales. The ever-debasing emotional
currency of sensationalism is the hard-to-avoid outcome of this
public interest where newspapers compete with each other. From
this sense a plea of public interest is a clear and simple admission
of guilt where needless harm has happened. As an excuse for hurt
it should be wholly disallowed.
Public interest also means the aspect of the
attention of the media to the detail of what is going on, both
good and, more usually bad. No society pretending to be free should
curb the freedom of an investigative press to search among the
daily activities of individuals and organisations, to pry on what
was done, by whom and when. It is a fundamental safeguard of democracy,
supported through the ultimate judgement of the good sense of
most people. But this restraint comes only in the legal framework
which surrounds the activities of all who publish anything. And
that comes slowly.
Today in England, it seems to be far too easy
for the media to step over the line of civilised decency and then
plead "public interest", hiding behind the confusion
of definition. A plea of public interest should be taken as proof
of guilt until proven to be otherwise. That proof must be provided
within a very short time; delay should be taken as proof of guilt.
There are plenty of laws and conventions, which
are supposed to constrain editors' judgement within the limits
of human decency. But they are seen not to work to prevent unnecessary
hurt even if that is only peripheral to the purpose of publication.
To make a proper balance between media and citizen
another sword is required. It must dangle by a delicate thread
over all media. It must have a quick, hurtful and irretrievable
effect. For example the mandatory cessation of publication, printing,
distribution or broadcasting in any form for the next two issues,
without appeal, starting on the following day. "Off-the-air"
for a week or more would suit a case where great offence or misery
is seen to have been caused without good reason. Huge fines on
the proprietor for each and every copy found to evade the ruling.
A £1,000 fine for each copy imported by anyone from foreign
printing would deter well. A fine on each reporter and cameraman
found to have been present, whether publishing or not, would be
a means of self restraint on the whole group. Importers and distributors
of foreign matter can be similarly punished.
Someone like an ombudsman might be appointed.
How will he or she operate? From where will their sense of what
is hurtful and unnecessary come? Who would make the judgement?
A biased jury would be ideal, stimulated by a general sense of
outrage.
To make the risk not worth taking a panel of
persons who have been hurt previously by media would be ideal.
Perhaps each of 19 would serve for only 19 cases each on an overlapping
rota; one joining and one leaving for each case. A non-voting
chairman could keep order during private discussion. A couple
of suitable assistants may ensure that evidence is properly prepared
and presented. A simple majority of such people, producing a small
number of examples of severe retribution would rapidly reform
any thoughtless enthusiasm for publication of anything which hurts
any citizen without good cause.
One hour should be allowed for presentation
of each side of the argument. Decision must be made on the same
day.
This requires no change to any part of the present
law. Such a panel would certainly keep the eye of the editor and
his owner on how much they may cause distress for no good purpose.
The panel might be called the Sword of Damocles.
14 March 2003
| 
