16 Dec 16 | Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, Index in the Press, Media Freedom, Statements
This letter appeared in The Times on 16 December 2016
Sir, Index on Censorship has published stories by censored writers for more than four decades. Now we ourselves face the prospect of censorship via legal action in the UK. As it stands, legislation on the statute means that we — as an independent publisher that declines to join the press regulator Impress — face the prospect of crippling legal costs, even if we won a case that had been brought against us. Our publication, to which last month the British Society of Magazine Editors gave an “editor of the year” award for its work, could be forced out of business. Any regulation that could potentially bankrupt the media and make investigative journalism too costly to publish should be fiercely resisted.
Rachael Jolley
Editor
Index on Censorship magazine
10 Sep 14 | Leveson Inquiry, News and features, United Kingdom
“The greatest threat to freedom of the press in our country is our libel law. Why do we have this weird defamation law, where the idea is that if we get something wrong about someone, we have to pay a pile of money? We should correct it with equal prominence. Take money and costs out of the picture. Because, on the whole, only the rich can afford it,” investigative journalist Nick Davies told an audience at the Frontline Club last night.
Davies, who unveiled the extent of the phone-hacking scandal and has just published his book Hack Attack, was in conversation with author and former ITN chief Stewart Purvis (above), talking about hacking, press regulation and this week’s launch of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso).
Below are some highlights.
On his hacking investigation:
“The crimes weren’t serious enough to spend seven years of your life working on it. What makes it interesting is it’s about power. The thing that Murdoch generates – aside from money and circulation figures – is fear. Once a media mogul has established this kind of fear – he doesn’t have to tell the government, the police or the PCC what to do. They will all try and placate him. That’s really what this book is about and if there is any justification for doing this much work on one story, it’s that.”
On Ipso – which he describes as a “phoney regulator”:
“If Ipso turns out to be subject to the same influences of the big news organisations as its predecessor the PCC, then it is very worrying because Ipso has considerably more power. It has the power to investigate; it has the power to levy fines. You imagine what would have happened if that had been in place when we were investigating phone hacking. They could have killed that story off.”
On the greatest threat to freedom of the press:
“The greatest threat to freedom of the press in our country is our libel law. Why do we have this weird defamation law, where the idea is that if we get something wrong about someone, we have to pay a pile of money? We should correct it with equal prominence. Take money and costs out of the picture. Because, on the whole, only the rich can afford it.”
On whether the truth has caught up with Murdoch, as the book’s subheading suggests:
“There was a moment when the truth caught up with Murdoch – that day in Parliament with his son – but slowly the power comes back. Now he is meeting Nigel Farage [Ukip leader] as if this Australian with American citizenship has any sort of influence at all about what happens in our next election. What is wrong with our system that he is allowed to display such arrogance? We are the voters. It will be interesting to see if in the run up to the 2015 elections he and his newspapers throw their weight around as usual. I fear we will see a familiar pattern, as the bully in the playground.”
On the future of journalism:
“The biggest best hope for journalism is that it continues to attract energetic, bright, idealistic young people. But then you see them being fed into this mincing machine. The key to our revival is fixing the broken business model. We need to find a solution to this problem.”
On the internet:
“[With internet news], you end up with fragmentation. The communist produces news for communists, the racist produces news for racists. Nobody is factchecking, nobody is accountable. It’s much worse, potentially, than the mainstream news organisations that come in for such a kicking. The internet is potentially a very destructive force. I’m not necessarily saying it will go this way, but it could rank up there with nuclear weapons, where you say, ‘Christ, that was clever of us to invent that, but we potentially wish we hadn’t done it’. I just don’t know where it is going to go.”
On citizen journalism:
“In an ideal world, we should have professional journalists. There are too many people on the left whose knee-jerk reaction is to assume that all journalists working for big corporations are corrupt and unable to tell the truth. To dismiss journalists from these organisations going to Syria and Iraq and risking their lives as corporate puppets is really disgusting. There is a belief that if the profession of journalism dies out, we’ll be better off with citizen journalists. Do you want citizen doctors too?”
On who he’d like to play him in the film version of his book (the rights to Hack Attack having just been bought by George Clooney):
Colin Firth
Join us to debate the future of journalism and whether it might lead to democratic deficit at the Frontline Club on October 22, or subscribe to Index on Censorship magazine to read our special report on the future of journalism and whether the public will end up with more knowledge or less.
This article was posted on 10 Sept 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
27 Jan 14 | Africa, Kenya, News and features
Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta has introduced tough new media laws. Image Demotix/David Mbiyu
Kenya’s media are preparing to launch a challenge to a new system of regulation introduced by President Uhuru Kenyatta.
Early this month, jointly with the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), journalists instructed senior lawyer Mr. James Aggery Orengo, who is also a senator, to file a petition challenging the Kenya Information and Communication Amendment Bill 2013.
The new laws have neither been published nor gazetted in the Kenyan gazette as required by law.
Journalists are waiting for the bill to be published and gazzeted in the Kenyan gazette, before they move to court.
Senior Counsel Paul Muite who ran for presidency in last year’s general elections and lost, is among a host of lawyers who will represent the media in court.
The draconian media bill was passed by the National Assembly, and signed into law by President Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta late last year.
President Kenyatta’s assent paved the way for formation of a government controlled body, with mandate to punish journalists and media houses, whose reporting is perceived to be against the law.
The new law imposes Kshs. 20 million fines on media houses and Kshs. 1 million shillings on individual journalists seen to have contravened the law.
Individual Journalists are also faced with the danger of being suspended from the journalism profession, a move that is out rightly oppressive and intimidating.
The law restricts press freedom, and breaches constitutional rights for access to information granted to journalists.
The controversial laws seek to gag the freedom of expression and press freedom, as lawfully entailed in the constitution of Kenya 2010.
However, the fines will only apply to persons and media houses that contravene the provisions of the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism.
Before passage and ascension, media practitioners, various politicians NGOs had voiced concerns over the ruthless bill.
The bill went through parliament unamended, even after The Media Council of Kenya (MCK) had agreed with Kenyan law makers to amend contentious issues, in the Kenya Information and Communication Amendment (KICA) Bill 2013.
Chairperson of the Media Council’s Ethics and Public Information Committee Grace Munjuri said “the amendments will not only protect the rights of the media stakeholders, but will also ensure that journalists exercise responsible reporting.”
Speaking a few days before ascending to the media bill, President Uhuru Kenyatta had suggested that there was nothing unconstitutional with the bill.
Addressing residents at a function in Chuka in Kenya’s Tharaka Nithi County, in the company of his deputy William Samoei Ruto, the head of state accused the media of “misleading the country on provisions of the legislations”.
The two leaders said the media itself had hatched a plan to mislead Kenyans on the contents of the Bill, saying there should be responsibility in everything we do as Kenyans.
This article was posted on 27 January at www.indexoncensorship.org
26 Nov 13 | Comment, Media Freedom, News and features, United Kingdom
Martin Moore of the Media Standards Trust has written a long article for the New Statesman on the “topsy-turvy” world of the debate on press regulation and restrictions.
Moore undoubtedly makes some good points about the absurdity of some newspapers protesting potential political interference in the press while not raising a even the mildest objection to the government and secret services actual threats to the Guardian over its coverage of GCHQ surveillance techniques (similar points were made with elan by the Spectator’s Nick Cohen a few weeks ago).
The MST director berates newspapers for having “got the debate the wrong way round” both “in principle and in practice”.
But Moore and his comrades who support the Royal Charter, in the Media Standards Trust, Hacked Off, and individuals, themselves must take some blame for the topsy-turviness of the language around regulation.
Take the idea of “exemplary damages”, which, it is proposed, publications that do not sign up to a recognised regulator will be subjected to.
The pro-Royal Charter argument has been that the existence of exemplary damages, and the avoidance of them are “incentives” to join the regulator. They are not. They are a punishment for not joining the regulator. An incentive would suggest putting publications at an advantage; but under the current proposals, all that joining a regulator does is to put publications on a level footing with individuals or organisations who would not be considered subject to the regulatory scheme. An “incentive” to avoid default punishment is akin to a threat from a protection racket.
Further on in his article, Moore calls for a British version of the US’s First Amendment. It’s a nice idea.
But Moore says that Lord Justice Leveson proposed a British First Amendment. This is not the case.
What Leveson recommended was this:
In passing legislation to identify the legitimate requirements to be met by an independent regulator organised by the press, and to provide for a process of recognition and review of whether those requirements are and continue to be met, the law should also place an explicit duty on the Government to uphold and protect the freedom of the press.”
At first glance, that’s all very lovely. But it is meaningless at best, dangerous at worst, and certainly not a First Amendment style law.
Meaningless because all sorts of countries have constitutional guarantees of a free press. China, for example, states in article 35 of its constitution that “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.” Fine words.
Dangerous as it could imply that the government of the day ultimately holds press freedom in its hands. This, it may be argued, is the case anyway, but to explicitly say it is not ideal. As noted in a recent Huffington Post article by Hacked Off’s Brian Cathcart, the British government has made many attempts in the past to stifle press freedom. I don’t really see why we should explicitly say the concept belongs to them.
The first amendment states simply:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
To claim that Leveson’s proposal, specifically to create a law about freedom of the press, is the same thing, is odd. When coupled with the proposal of punitive measures for those publishers who do not wish to play the government’s game, the claim is absurd.
This article was originally posted on 26 Nov 2013 at indexoncensorhip.org
