Back to News

SHARE:

 

Lords Communications Committee told to abandon press freedom in FLJS policy briefing

Published on
Sunday 21 October 2012
Category
College & Community

A provocative new policy brief published today by the Foundation for Law, Justice and Society was presented by the author to the House of Lords Communications Committee today, advising them to abandon the concept of ‘press freedom' altogether.

The policy brief, entitled The End of Press Freedom, is published by the Foundation for Law, Justice and Society as part of a series assessing the progress of the Leveson Inquiry and the future of media regulation, was written by the Director of the Media Policy Project at the London School of Economics Dr Damian Tambini. He argues that the term ‘press freedom' is increasingly used to protect the self-interest of one of many converging media sectors, to block reforms, and close down debate about the appropriate form of media accountability.

Dr Tambini presented the FLJS policy brief to the Communications Committee as part of his oral evidence to their new inquiry into media convergence and its public policy impact, which was launched in August to look at modern day media convergence, and how public policy may need to do more to adapt and reform in its wake.

Tambini argues that, “if we free policy debate from the constraining notion of freedom of the press, but apply stringent tests of freedom of expression, we are more likely to achieve a policy settlement that stands the test of time”.

The policy brief is the fourth and final such publication to emerge from a Panel Discussion held at Wolfson College Oxford in May, entitled Redirecting Fleet Street: Media Regulation and the Role of Law. Podcastsand policy briefs by panellists including the political philosopher and crossbench Peer Baroness Onora O'Neill; former Managing Editor of The Times George Brock; and Lara Fielden, formerly of the BBC and Ofcom, have been published on the FLJS website over recent months.

This latest policy brief demonstrates that the terms ‘freedom of expression' and ‘freedom of the press' have often been used interchangeably, owing to the historical pre-eminence of the printing press as the principal information distribution platform. Dr Tambini develops the thesis that the rise of broadcasting and mass access to the internet has fundamentally altered the nature and value of press freedom, since state control of printing as a technology would have a less decisive impact on the free circulation of ideas in society.

Whilst Tambini concedes that the media are arguably one of the key guarantors of good political governance in serving accountability and playing a watchdog role, in his view, self-regulation of the press as overseen by the Press Complaints Commission has palpably failed. If the press are allowed too much freedom, they can also undermine good governance, as the Leveson Inquiry has heard, through the abuse of media privileges and the trading of policy favours in return for favourable coverage.

Tambini concludes by predicting that in the future, media regulation will not be determined by delivery platform. Instead, he makes recommendations for a new regulatory framework in which size of enterprise, its importance in opinion formation, and its ability to effectively self-regulate, rather than medium of delivery, should be the guiding principles that determine the scope and nature of regulation.

The four policy briefs published by the Foundation for Law, Justice and Society will also be presented to the House of Lords on Thursday, in a motion by one of the authors, Baroness Onora O'Neill, that the House takes note of the relationship between media standards and media regulation.