Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Professor Steven Barnett—Written evidence
Professor Steven Barnett—Written evidence
Biographical Note: Steven Barnett is Professor of Communications at the University of
Westminster, specialising in media policy, regulation, press ethics, and the theory and
practice of journalism. Over the last 25 years, he has advised government ministers in the
UK, has given evidence or served as an adviser on several parliamentary committees, has
been called to give evidence to the European Parliament, and has been invited to speak at
numerous national and international conferences. He has directed over thirty research
projects on the structure, funding, regulation and business of communications in the UK and
around the world, and his work is frequently quoted in parliamentary debates and
government reports. He has been a member of the NUJ for nearly 30 years, and has been
involved in the training of journalists from former iron curtain countries. He was a
columnist on the Observer newspaper from 2000-2004, and writes frequently for the
national, online and specialist press as well as being widely quoted by the international
media. He is an editorial board member of the British Journalism Review, and his new book
“The Rise and Fall of Television Journalism” is being published by Bloomsbury in November.
One page overview of evidence
(this is followed by one page of relevant quotes, then answers to the committee’s specific questions)
• Press standards and intrusion have been a problem for at least 30 years, partly because
of the uniquely competitive nature of Britain’s national newspaper market.
• During the Calcutt committee’s hearings in 1990, newspaper proprietors and editors
pleaded to be allowed a final chance to reform themselves. They have manifestly failed
to prevent widespread newsroom excesses. There should be no more “last chances”.
• Proposals for reform should not be confused with any desire to “rein in” Britain’s
popular press. This is categorically not an issue of tabloid versus broadsheet values, but
about promoting acceptable standards of journalism – on every publication in the
country.
• Public figures, and ordinary members of the public suddenly finding themselves in the
public eye, have been routinely subjected to gross invasions of privacy which can cause
enormous personal and family distress. Such behaviour has no place in a civilised society.
• In any democracy, the balance between free expression and the right to privacy is a
delicate one, but each is properly protected by the Human Right Act. There is no
justification for preferring free speech rights (s.10) over privacy rights (s.8).
• A public interest framework needs to be established by Parliament which would ensure
that any invasion of privacy genuinely designed to expose wrongdoing, injustice,
incompetence, or hypocrisy would have a legitimate defence.
• With the legitimacy of Parliament behind it, such a public interest defence would
safeguard and promote genuine watchdog journalism while protecting individuals from
gratuitous journalistic behaviour designed simply to satisfy a public appetite for gossip.
• Public figures who are not abusing or exploiting positions of power have the same right
to privacy as ordinary citizens. We are not entitled to know about the intimate (and
often distressing) details of their lives simply because they are high achievers or high
earners.
• Neither commercial viability nor public “shaming” are justifiable arguments for breaches
of individual privacy. We are not entitled to know about the lawful intimate activities of
public figures, simply because some editors or columnists may disapprove.
• Current approaches to redress and self-regulation under the PCC are wholly
inadequate. Punitive fines for breaches of an agreed journalistic code, powers of
36