Some Draft Conclusions

To read the report scroll down to the 10 April and read up.

Some Draft Conclusions

There will be more evidence to consider in this enquiry before we have to reach any firm conclusions, but I’m clear about one thing and that is ‘libel tourism’ is an issue if only because those from outside the UK using our courts for libel actions are denying them to UK citizens who may be seeking justice in other matters.

 

There are a number of questions this enquiry has sought to answer and even after hours of questions and reams of paper submissions it is often a fine balance between two positions that determines a conclusion.

 

I genuinely don’t know wwhether the successful action against the Daily Express and others for libel in the McCann case indicates a serious weakness with the self-regulatory regime because there is no comparable to case.

 

I do think that culture, as identified by Judge Stack, is perhaps the largest contributing factor to how the media approaches a story.  Possibly far more influential than the libel laws of the country.  But how far that culture is reflected in or shaped by a nation’s legal framework and constitution is one for another enquiry.

 

Certainly recent changes in the UK, allowing agreements that are effectively ‘no-win-no-fee’ appear to have given the weak a real chance of obtaining redress.  But I cannot yet conclude whether it has curtailed press freedom.

 

The internet clearly threatens the enforcement of censorship on the media, offering an alternative source for news reporting and the publication of views, opinion and gossip through which individuals could be defamed or reporting restrictions broken.

 

In the absence of an international forum to determine such matters we are left with different legal systems that are open to exploitation by third parties seeking the one that increases their chances of success.

 

While I personally feel that the balance between press freedom and personal privacy is out of kilter, the sales figures for the tabloids and gossip mags suggest there is still an appetite for knowing everything and anything about public figures.

 

The visit to the Washington Post and the New York Times assured me that there are still ethics and principles being applied in the print media and while I think we should place a higher importance to freedom of speech in the UK, I fear abuse given the current lower standards and practices of some of our media.

 

Nevertheless, I still favour a written constitution and a bill of rights giving freedom of speech at least as high a value as the 1^st Amendment to the US constitution.

 

Perhaps the kind of press I would like to see in the UK is summed up by Eugene Meyer, a former owner of the Washington Post, whose seven Principles are displayed at the entrance to the newspaper’s HQ.

1. The first mission of a newspaper is to tell the truth as nearly as the truth can be ascertained.
2. The newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it, concerning the important affairs of America and the world.
3. As a disseminator of news, the paper shall observe the decencies that are obligatory upon a private gentleman.
4. What it prints shall be fit reading for the young as well as the old.
5. The newspaper’s duty is to its readers and to the public at large, and not to the private interests of its owners.
6. In the pursuit of truth, the newspaper shall be prepared to make sacrifices of its material fortunes, if such a course be necessary for the public good.
7. The newspaper shall not be the ally of any special interest, but shall be fair and free and wholesome in its outlook on public affairs and public men.

Now if those principles were followed in the UK we wouldn’t have had to hold this enquiry.