Get the Heck Out of My Press

The press, the democratic world’s fourth estate, has never been more effective. In this, the age of information, news can reach us as quickly as it develops. We can now tweet and blog and IM the revolution, not to mention broadcast it. Freedom of the press has long been seen as essential in any free country, but in recent weeks, one nation, my very own, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has scarily begun to repeal some of that freedom.

Following the enormous phone-hacking scandals of recent years, during which many of the UK’s leading publications infringed on the freedoms of private individuals — often in a truly disgraceful fashion, from sleazily-obtained celebrity stories to the bribing of high-ranking police officers — a ministerial investigation led by Lord Lelveson was instigated. Subsequently, the 200-year-old newspaper News of the World was shut down in a vain attempt to ward off further accusations. Many of the most perverse and unsavory stories — such as the hacking of the cellphone of a kidnapped then murdered girl, Milly Dowler, that gave her parents false hope of her survival, all in search of a cheap scoop — were linked to Rupert Murdoch’s behemoth News International. That multinational corporation alone controlled close to a third of the British media and was trying to expand. The Murdochs were quizzed on live TV, much to the great amusement of most of the populace, myself included. But there always seemed to be something standing in the way of the real story. Murdoch senior’s close ties to the ruling caste of British politicians, from all parties, was undeniable. He even had one of his paper’s ex-editors, Andy Coulson, working in the government cabinet. Furthermore, the senior executive of the company, Rebecca Brooks, was a regular guest at Prime Minister David Cameron’s house. Both of those former News International employees have been arrested and charged.

It’s no surprise that the press needed a shake-up, but after months of deliberation, the legislature has agreed upon restrictions that have come to be seen by many as rather unwholesome. By resorting to a Royal Charter — sounds dodgy, I know — Parliament can now impose fines of several million dollars on media sources (even online) that do not follow their rules. It can also stop certain things from being published. It seems like a clear step towards state censorship. The new restrictions were criticized and mocked across the world from countries that behold free press, such as the U.S., to authoritative regimes, such as Iran and Ukraine. One must not forget that it was in fact the free press that was able to uncover the scandal in the first place. Thus, as it had already applied a check on itself, extra legislation seemed like nothing other than a post-collateral guilt trip. Nevertheless, although the Royal Charter has the potential to set a scary trend, legislation does nothing more than what is necessary in order to protect the people. The recent scandal would not be able to reoccur. If we did not have laws that do that then what use is any form of effective government?

Freedom of expression is one thing; using and exploiting other innocent people for the purpose of tabloid excitement is another thing altogether. The headline may be startling, but the fine print is somewhat reassuring. The sort of things that would provoke this new supervisory body to instigate such fines would not likely be published anyways. It could have gone even further — Hugh Grant and other members of the powerful new lobby group Hacked Off were pushing for actual legislation, but the prime minister rightly veered away from the idea. But the main wider-ranging issue, has not been addressed.

One cannot forget that one of the main reasons behind what happened was that the press, especially that run by megalomaniacal moguls such as Murdoch, had and still have too much power, and, what’s more, they really know it, thus gaining the confidence to pull off stunts such as these. Tougher regulations are required in order to safeguard individuals who, for a long time, have been greatly detached from the workings of the higher realms of British public life. However, these laws alone will not bridge that gap. The lingering suspicion that it was the political elite’s fault for allowing characters such as Murdoch to play king-maker has not disappeared. Thus, while the regulations themselves are probably enough to protect private individuals, they do not address the real problem. The press was only guilty when it was allowed to wield too much power, and that power had nothing to do with the detritus it printed. The real culprits are those who are still in charge and still representing once great institutions like the press and a non-corrupt government.