Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Professor Brian Cathcart—Written evidence
4. I am a teacher these days as well as a journalist and I try my best to communicate these
values to tomorrow’s journalists. If there is a threat to freedom of expression I want to
resist it both on my own behalf and on theirs; I like to think that I will be in the first rush to
the barricades.
5. There is no conflict between this commitment to freedom of expression and my desire to
see that privacy is protected in the United Kingdom and that there are sufficient restraints
on press intrusion. It is obvious that freedom of expression is not and can never be
absolute. The most famous illustration of this point is that we do not have the right to shout
“Fire!” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. By the same token it is generally agreed
that we need laws or regulation in relation to libel, contempt of court, incitement to
violence and more banal matters such as dishonest advertising. Freedom of expression,
therefore, while it is vital to democracy, must also be restrained in some respects.
Accepting that principle does not automatically imply accepting or advocating state control
of the media.
The press and freedom of expression
6. Tempting and familiar though the idea may be, the modern British press and freedom of
expression are not two sides of the same coin. It is obvious that even at its best, the press
could not reflect all the views of society, nor could it address the full range of society’s
interests. There is just too much to cover. But if the press aims to be a true medium of
freedom of expression it should make the effort. C.P. Scott wrote in 1921:
A newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly, and its first duty is to shun the temptations of
monopoly. Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the
supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of
presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free, but facts are sacred.
"Propaganda", so called, by this means is hateful. The voice of opponents no less than that of
friends has a right to be heard. Comment also is justly subject to a self-imposed restraint. It is well
to be frank; it is even better to be fair. This is an ideal. Achievement in such matters is hardly given
to man. We can but try, ask pardon for shortcomings, and there leave the matter.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2002/nov/29/1
7. Scott was writing of the need for plurality and openness within one newspaper. Not only
do most of our national newspapers not even try to achieve this on their own accounts, but,
far worse, there is also a general absence of plurality and openness across most of the
papers as a group. A substantial majority of titles representing an overwhelming majority of
daily sales present their readers with a remarkably similar world view which draws on a
similar and limited pool of information.
8. This is not a party political point: the consistency lies in general values and attitudes
shared by all mass-circulation papers. Crudely put, people claiming benefits are frequently
spongers, politicians are generally corrupt, members of ethnic minorities are suspect or
worse, the courts are too soft, the European Union is a plot against Britain, protesters and
strikers are irresponsible and so on. Whatever our views on these matters, we have to
accept that these are not the only perspectives available. Why this set of attitudes has
become so uniformly established across so many papers is a subject for another day; the
point is that it has, and that contrary views struggle to make themselves heard.
148