PRESS FREEDOM

Why is the freedom of the Press so important? It is not because our newspapers are invariably literate, scrupulous and wise. They are not. It is because newspapers exist not only to protect their own freedom, but to defend the freedom of others. That freedom is threatened both at home and abroad.

Your hospitality tonight precludes me from giving you one of those high-minded lectures on the importance of your behaving responsibly, which some politicians in the past have made the mistake of delivering to your profession. In any case, I am bound to say that I am reasonably satisfied with the traditional arrangement under which we politicians leave you journalists to get on with your job while you journalists tell us how to do ours. [end p1]

It is an arrangement which, for all its exasperations, is essential to the functioning of parliamentary democracy.

Guardians of the public conscience you may be, and it is a noble role; formers of public opinion you certainly are, but you are also, and it is in this that your value largely consists, you are also reflectors of the public mind. Without you politicians would easily find themselves living in a cosy little world of their own imagining, blissfully ignorant, until too late, of what the people thought of them and of their policies. [end p2] The following paragraph was omitted from the press release

Charlemagne, Caesar and Napoleon were invited by Brezhnev to view the military parade in Red Square. As the endless procession of rocket troops, armour and guards divisions trundled past, Brezhnev asked Caesar what he felt. “With all this I would not have crossed the Rubicon twice but thrice” was the reply. Brezhnev then asked Charlemagne for his opinion. “Given but half of what I see here, I would not have stopped at the Pyrenees, I would have liberated Saudi Arabia” . All this time Napoleon had been sitting with his back to the Procession reading Pravda. Brezhnev, irritated, turned and asked the Emperor for his reaction. “All I know is that if I had had a newspaper like this I would never have learnt of my defeat at Moscow” was his reply. [end p3]

So press freedom is something which ought to be as dear to politicians as it is to journalists; I want to suggest to you tonight, however, (and I think I can do so without being “sensational” , a vice which I know you all deplore) that this freedom is in danger on a number of fronts.

As my first illustration, let me offer you what has been going on at the UNESCO Conference on press freedom in Paris.

Now I know that the Conference finally agreed on an urbane and almost totally meaningless declaration equally acceptable to those countries which believe in a free press and those which keep the press in irons. We are all supposed to be very grateful for this remarkable diplomatic achievement. [end p4]

The declaration originally proposed was appalling. It started from the proposition that the news agencies which deal in news to and from the former colonial territories are biased in favour of imperialist attitudes, and that through them the West continues to impose on the third world a pattern of political, economic and cultural dominance.

It went on to imply that governments should use their influence to correct this bias, to discourage ‘imperialist’ propaganda.

Clearly, it was really intended to provide intellectual and moral justifications for a ‘guided press’, that is to say, for a press which shall be free, but only free to express the moral and political attitudes favoured by government. [end p5]

To me it is astonishing that propositions of this sort should be solemnly debated by Western states. The ploy failed, but there are even dangers in the ponderous statement which was eventually accepted. The notion plainly survived that press freedom was only to be upheld when it was put to uses deemed virtuous by governments.

UNESCO should be reminded that the purpose of a free press is to defend not its own freedom, but the freedom of others.

It should have been pointed out in Paris that today less than one fifth of the states of the world enjoy even the limited political liberty of this country under William and Mary. [end p6] Control of the printed word is, of course, tightly maintained in the communist countries. But the majority of non-communist countries in the world today are also single party states. Some are fierce, some are mild, but all control the printed and broadcast word. In a guided press there can be no room for ‘independence’, ‘scrutiny’, ‘truth’ and ‘responsibility’. It can only be the weapon of an all powerful state, a lesson which successive tyrannies have taught the world.

But threats to a free press do not come solely from abroad.

At home, it is threatened by economic factors, or political pressures. [end p7]

Mr Moss Evans is a man of power, who will be with us for some time. It is as well to know what he has in store.

Mr Evans ' Press Commission would, besides issuing licences, (the licensing of newspapers was abolished in 1685) enjoy the following powers: to check ownership and control; to advise the Government on subsidies (subsidies were rejected, incidentally, by the Royal Commission); to establish a press finance corporation which in turn would subsidies new entrants such as the TUC, receive all advertising revenues, subtract a levy and then allocate monies, and finally, control the proportion of advertising to editorial. ([Note by MT] I assume this is a correct description.) [end p8]

Mr Evans' Commission would replace the Press Council and adjudicate upon complaints. It would have the power to take full remedial action necessary to correct any misleading information and to redress any lack of balance.

There would also be a committee of employers and trades unionists charged with ensuring good industrial relations. This would mean ‘the full recognition of trade union rights at all levels’, (presumably the National Union of Journalists' Closed Shop) and ‘the active encouragement of industrial democracy’ which must mean the implementation of the Bullock proposals. [end p9]

The implications of so radical a change, if a future majority Labour Government were to prove sympathetic, are frightening. It would mean, at best, a politically neutered press, or at worst, a trade union dominated press. It would have lost its most important role, that of public scrutiny.

Mr Evans is not the only emasculator. Some years ago the Labour Party published a document called ‘The People and the Media’. It should not be forgotten. [end p10]

Its main idea was that newspapers and the broadcasters should be controlled by committees representing their editorial and production staffs and a number of interests such as the Unions, the CBI, and the major political parties. This might appear fine at first sight, but it would in effect mean that journalists and broadcasters would be controlled by the very people whom they should be reporting and discussing. [end p11]

I don't think that press freedom is in very great danger from laws overtly designed to limit it, such as the laws of libel, although I know that many of you have anxieties, some of which I share, about the operation of the Official Secrets Act.

The real peril today arises from the fact that we are moving ever more closely towards what political philosophers call the “Corporate State” . A corporate state is one in which all real power rests with bodies which are held to represent particular interests (what old-fashioned Socialists used to call “vested interests” ). [end p12]

To an increasing extent, you are hemmed in by well-intentioned institutions (some of them, at least, come in that category) which want to limit or direct your activity; you have the race relations authorities and the sex equality authorities, who wish to ensure that you will report nothing which might injure the cause entrusted to their care; worst of all, you have those who are urging you to convert yourselves into a highly-organised closed shop designed to press a point of view, instead of remaining as you are, a glorious loose scrum.

The IOJ is to be congratulated on the robust stand it has taken against this proposal. Elements within the NUJ do wish to achieve a closed shop—so far, thank goodness, without success. [end p13]

But is journalism just another industrial activity like mining or engineering? Surely not, Journalism belongs to literature and to politics. Should there be a Writers' Union as there is in the Soviet Union? The idea should be abhorrent to us. Should there be a politicians' Union to which all parliamentary candidates should belong? The idea is obnoxious to any democracy.

Why then, should there be a union of writers and journalists with the sole right to issue a licence to print and which would be the only body able to offer its members access to the public prints? The moderates in the NUJ say they seek a closed shop in order to raise pay. They see what the print unions are paid, and, not unreasonably, they are jealous. But as you well know there are extremists within the NUJ who would not only restrict [end p14] access, but also seek to control what their members might write.

The “Trots” say that nothing should be written to offend the trades unions. They would discriminate against the National Front, but not against the Socialist Workers' Party. And would there not be all sorts of dangers if all journalists were obliged to belong to the TUC, which is affiliated to the Labour movement?

A journalist whose function it is to express an opinion for public consumption would be placed more at risk by a closed shop than any other trades unionist. Newspapers exist not to protect their own freedom but to defend the freedom of others. Could a journalist succeed in doing that and still hold on to his licence? [end p15]

We are still waiting for the Press Charter; though let me say at once that I am sceptical of the value of such a document.

In any event, Mr Booth knows that he would never be able to persuade the present House of Commons to accept a Charter that did not have within it a clause allowing a journalist to be free of union membership. Would a majority Labour Government be as modest? The answer is clearly ‘no’.

In Britain we are seeing our freedoms chipped away one by one. A closed shop in journalism would mean handing over one of our most precious liberties to one union. Were the NUJ to consist entirely of saints it would not be right to give so much power to so few. The freedom of the press underwrites all our other freedoms. If we remove it we shall all lose our liberty. [end p16]

These then are my fears when I look at your profession from the outside. At present there is little that I can do to remove these dangers. If journalism is to be saved it will need the will and determination of journalists themselves. [(Note by MT] 5%; statistical factor.)