I could not help smiling when reading the Rutland Times Editors comment.
By Eileen Green
Has Ms Green not read her own paper, often filled with page after page of press releases from
Rutland County Council, Oakham Town Council and many other public figures connected to
local governance?
And not forgetting our charmer, Alan Ducan MP
This is the same paper that gave him front page coverage trashing The Rutland Anti Corruption Party.
Then refused the three members space to respond by insisting the editor, edited their letters.
She harps on about freedom of expression and free press?
Last week I watched a documentary which clearly showed the press had no freedom when
it came to the publishing articles relating to the Wallace Simpson affair, the rest of the world
was reading about it many months before and I believe all that happened within the 300 years of British
Press Freedom?
Johnston Press is the parent company that is destroying democracy and the freedom of expression that she
eludes to. It has killed off hundreds of local titles.
Kate Adie, once said to me the death of the local press will have a huge impact on local democracy.
The Rutland Times under the ownership of the Johnston Press has killed of democracy here in Rutland.
I am sure Pleasing the local Tories who win their seats mainly unopposed.
Whilst on the subject of elections this editor who talks of democracy and freedom of expression
refused to publish any candidates statements at the last County Council election.
But the public has to endure the patronising dribble dished out by Oakham Town Councillor Joyce Lucas,
and propaganda from our Tory MP.
And then they wonder why sales are so low they have to close the Rutland Times Office.
On
Monday 18 March, the House of Commons is due to vote on whether to
impose statutory regulation on our free press. At a stroke it would
break with 300 years of tradition.
In this special comment, we argue that in a civilised democracy this is entirely the wrong approach.
“I detest what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it,” Voltaire is famously said to have uttered.
George
Orwell borrowed the line in his proposed preface to Animal Farm,
entitled the Freedom of the Press. He concluded by adding his own
version of it: “If liberty means anything at all it means the right to
tell people what they do not want to hear.”
Britain, with one or
two notable exceptions in history, has avoided civil war and public
unrest because at the heart of its democracy has been a free speech
embodied in a free press.
Indeed for 300 years Parliament has not
sought to shackle our newspapers and magazines in any way, save through
Draconian defamation laws and to a lesser extent Contempt of Court
legislation. But on Monday March 18, all that is likely to change.
In
the wake of the phone hacking scandal and the subsequent Leveson
inquiry, Parliament seems determined to overturn centuries of freedom in
a knee-jerk reaction to the alleged illegal activities of one or two
national tabloid newspapers.
There can be no greater self-inflicted attack on our prized democracy in my view.
Of course, no-one condones phone-hacking and the appalling impact it had on its victims.
But
laws already existed to deal with such illegal behaviour. The issue
there was a lack of enforcement not a deficit of statute.
Quite
apart from this, the vast majority of the British media - most notably
its 1,100 local and regional newspapers - have always behaved
honourably. They have policed themselves effectively and efficiently
through the Press Complaints Commission and have rigorously enforced
their own Code of Conduct.
This newspaper and its parent company
Johnston Press, for example, have been committed to the PCC from the
outset - enshrined in the contracts of employment of all its
journalists.
But the new proposals which will effect equally the
smallest local weekly to the largest national daily will ultimately
bring with them such horrific bureaucracy that there is a real risk that
many editors will be submerged. Ultimately, anything contentious or
remotely investigative will be open to such widespread challenge that
our papers will be anaemic - packed with government-inspired press
handouts.
Do we really want Britain to emulate the worst and most corrupt of the world’s tinpot juntas?
A free press, with all its many faults, has done more to keep democracy alive than any other force.
If
the media is to perform its function it must be entirely independent of
statute. Of course it will make mistakes; inevitably it will cause
upset. But its strength comes from these inherent potential failings. We
must trust the public to reach their own conclusions and to have a
voice. If we do not we will lose much that defines us as civilised.
In
the wake of Leveson the newspaper industry itself has proposed a new,
tough independent regulatory process - which goes far beyond the
requirements of 90 per cent of our media.
Yet still the House of Commons seems determined enact statute to eventually influence every aspect of our operations.
The
Prime Minister David Cameron has displayed remarkable courage in
standing up for free speech but it seems unlikely he will prevail on
Monday evening. The Lib Dems - historically staunch defenders of civil
liberties and individual freedoms and rights - seem set to join forces
with Labour in appeasing a small but vocal minority.
But the
papers that will pay the price will be the trusted small weekly titles
the length and breadth of Britain. Titles like this newspaper - which
are already seeking to navigate through the perfect storm of digital
competition, recession, and rising production costs.
Meanwhile an
unregulated social media and offshore digital media are free to publish
whatever they wish - with none of the checks on accuracy, balance, or
good taste that your local paper has enforced for decades. And with none
of its accountability either.
If you care about freedom of the press it is still not too late to act you can email your MP before Monday night’s vote.
It
is not our place to ask MPs to vote in our interests, they will do what
they feel is right but it is important that legislation which is
drafted in the wake of misdemeanours by national papers is not allowed
to impact papers which have never and would never engage in such
practices. Let the law run its course against those who are proven to
have broken it.
And one final thought... how do we know about the
phone hacking scandal? How was it pushed into the public spotlight? By a
newspaper of course - principally the Guardian - perhaps the most
successful illustration of industry self regulation there has been.
Dave B
