Society of Editors' report calls on MPs to act on media freedom

The freedom of the media to report and investigate stories in the public's interest should be protected in any new constitutional legislation brought in by the UK's government, the Society of Editors has said.

The industry body, which has more than 400 members in national regional and local newspapers, magazines, broadcasting, digital media, media law and journalism education, has called on prospective MPs to pledge their support for media freedom ahead of the general election as part of a report on the current state and threats to media freedom in the UK.

The report, compiled by Peter Cole, Emeritus Professor of Journalism at the University of Sheffield, and available below, looks at the current state and impact on media freedom in the UK of: Freedom of Information legislation, court reporting restrictions, family courts and the media, super-injunctions, data protection laws, libel legislation, the Press Complaints Commission, the Human Rights Act and the role of the media as a public watchdog.



It suggests that the current state of Freedom of Information, data protection and libel legislation is thwarting progress towards greater media freedom, despite reform and promised changes in these areas.

"Gordon Brown has had much on his mind, but libel and opening up the family courts to the media have fallen victim to running out of parliamentary time - 13 years. Over that timescale FOI is barely out of nappies, the ability to jail a journalist for a data protection crime is not only on the statute book but its implementation is again under consideration," says the report.

"And the tension between privacy and freedom of expression remains not only unresolved but left to the judges. Libel costs favour the very rich, who are encouraged to gamble (with lawyers running the casino), and overseas litigants who could never bring a case except in Britain. The very rich, corporately and personally, can seek and obtain super injunctions which are so secret they cannot be mentioned by the media."

There has been "significant progress" with FOI "despite institutional foot-dragging and the government’s failure to designate more organisations performing public functions to fall within its scope", says the report, and "a welcome change of culture" in court reporting restrictions for the media. But more can be done to promote and protect media freedom, as the repeated obstacles to reforming libel legislation and a lack of funding for new local news initiatives for reporting public bodies show, it adds.

"There are too many threats to the media, sometimes unintended in poorly drafted legislation. Worse, there are far too many misguided or simply ill-informed criticisms, and denigration of self-regulation of the media industry, often from those with vested interests, which undermine both our newspapers and our broadcasters. There is still much to be done to change ambivalent attitudes to freedom of the media (…) While the media may be imperfect, news outlets must be free, warts and all, to investigate, expose and criticise on behalf of the public," says Donald Martin, president of the society and editor designate of the Sunday Post, in an opening statement.

The Society, which said it plans to produce reports assessing the current state of media freedom in the UK on a regular basis, has used the report to put 10 questions to prospective parliamentary candidates to gauge their attitudes towards media freedom:

Ten questions to ask Parliamentary candidates
1. Are freedom of expression and free and independent media vital to a free and democratic society?
2. Should that principle be enshrined in any new Bill of Rights or other constitutional legislation?
3. Do you accept that the media played an important democratic role in revealing the problems of Parliamentary expenses which will, in the long term, improve respect for politicians?
4. Should the media be encouraged to investigate wrongdoing rather than be hindered in its work?
5. Should there be root and branch reform of the laws of libel which have remained largely unchanged for more than a century?
6. Should lawyers in no-win, no–fee cases be allowed to double their fees and in effect make 130 per cent profit?
7. Should government and organisations acting on behalf of the public and spending public money be required, through the strengthening of the Freedom of Information Act, to be open about their work, releasing information to the media and the public unless there is an extremely good reason for keeping it confidential?
8. Should the media be encouraged and allowed by law to properly report family courts in order to promote public confidence in the judicial system?
9. Should government, recognising the public interest in vibrant, free and independent media, find ways of freeing media organisations from unnecessary bureaucratic controls and economic pressures that threaten their viability?
10. Should regulation of the press remain independent of government and the law and should regulation of broadcasting be relaxed to reflect the expansion of channels and global competition from digital media?

Free daily newsletter

If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).