Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain

Top Menu

  • About US
  • Join US
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Comment
  • Question and Answer
  • Watch us Live

Main Menu

  • Home
  • Viewpoint
  • Islamic Culture
  • Da’wah
  • Media
  • People
    • Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabahani (Founder)
    • Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zallum (Successor)
    • Sheikh Ata Abu Rashta (Ameer)
    • Abdul Wahid
    • Abu Yusuf
    • Jamal Harwood
    • Taji Mustafa
  • Books
  • Youth
  • Covid-19
  • About US
  • Join US
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Comment
  • Question and Answer
  • Watch us Live

logo

Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain

  • Home
  • Viewpoint
    • Abortion isn’t about Roe v Wade but Truth v Hypocrisy

      June 27, 2022
      0
    • Bangladesh Floods: farcical mantra of economic success disguising failure to provide basic ...

      June 24, 2022
      0
    • The Sectarian Card – Shia and Sunni divisions under the spotlight

      June 5, 2022
      0
    • Making Sense of Pakistan

      April 16, 2022
      0
    • How Should We View the War in Ukraine?

      March 30, 2022
      0
    • The India Hijab Issue from an Islamic Perspective

      March 24, 2022
      0
    • DEEP DIVE: The Weaponisation and Politicisation of British Citizenship Laws

      March 12, 2022
      0
    • Our Role in the Ukraine war is to Expose the Propaganda

      March 2, 2022
      0
    • Muslims Should Rejoice Over the Islamic Ruling System

      January 21, 2022
      0
  • Islamic Culture
    • Reading Quran

      The story of the man who was told to “Enter Paradise” and ...

      January 24, 2022
      0
    • Significance of Rabi’ul-Awwal

      October 10, 2021
      0
    • Virtues of the Month of Muharram

      August 10, 2021
      0
    • The significance of first 10 days of Dhul Hijjah

      July 10, 2021
      0
    • The Honour of the Prophets

      April 30, 2021
      0
    • A to Z of Ramadan

      April 19, 2021
      0
    • The Dawah to Allah (swt)

      December 29, 2020
      0
    • Miracle of the Quran

      Q & A - Compilation of The Holy Quran During the Reign ...

      December 27, 2020
      0
    • Imam Bukhari: A Role Model for the ‘Ulema and Da’wah Carriers to ...

      November 17, 2020
      0
  • Da’wah
    • National Conferences : From al-Hind to al-Quds: Speak Out | Act | ...

      June 18, 2022
      0
    • Public Demonstration - Independence Not Intervention

      April 22, 2022
      0
    • VIDEO : [LIVESTREAMED] Pakistan in Crisis: The Players, Politics, and People

      April 20, 2022
      0
    • Ramadan Message: The World Needs Islam - We Must Work for the ...

      April 1, 2022
      0
    • The India Hijab Issue from an Islamic Perspective

      March 24, 2022
      0
    • Ramadhan event: Kyiv to Kabul: The World Needs Islam

      March 20, 2022
      0
    • Obituary of a Dawah Carrier Dr. Youssef Haj Youssef

      December 30, 2021
      0
    • Open Letter to Imams and Muslim Leaders

      September 28, 2021
      0
    • Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain Sends Delegation to Chinese Embassy Condemning the Inhumane Treatment ...

      June 30, 2021
      0
  • Media
  • People
    • Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabahani (Founder)
    • Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zallum (Successor)
    • Sheikh Ata Abu Rashta (Ameer)
    • Abdul Wahid
    • Abu Yusuf
    • Jamal Harwood
    • Taji Mustafa
  • Books
  • Youth
  • Covid-19
News Watch
Home›News Watch›What’s all the fuss about the royal charter meaning the end of press freedom?

What’s all the fuss about the royal charter meaning the end of press freedom?

By Press Editor
November 4, 2013
802
0
Share:

The royal charter doesn’t establish any regulation of the press – but the fourth estate still needs urgently to re-establish credibility

If most of the press is to be believed, we have ceased to be a free country. For the Daily Mail last week, the signing of the royal charter on the press was a “judicial farce and a dark day for freedom”. For the Mirror, it was “the death warrant for press freedom”. For the Express, “freedom of the press is cast aside after 300 years”. These judgments may be premature.

The royal charter does not establish any regulation of the press: it will set up a body to certify that any self-regulator created by newspapers is independent. There is no question of any pre-publication censorship: all complaints to any self-regulatory panel will be investigated after the event, in the same way as with the existing Press Complaints Commission.

What is proposed is that the new body should contain an arbitration procedure that will be quicker and more open than the commission, and cheaper and more accessible than the law. It will enforce the PCC editors’ code of practice, promising accuracy and respect for privacy.

No one should be judge in their own cause, a principle of natural justice that is the basis of fairness in any proceeding. The problem of the PCC and its discredited predecessors – which turned a blind eye to evil practices from blagging to voicemail hacking – is that the big newspaper groups have run, funded and suborned it.

Of course, editors do not adjudicate particular complaints against their own newspaper, and there are carefully selected lay people alongside industry professionals. But George Bernard Shaw was right to argue that every profession is a conspiracy against the laity. Newspaper people are no exception. You do not judge Jack harshly, because he may judge you harshly next time.

Self-regulation has always been flawed for exactly these masonic reasons, a point made by virtually every newspaper when self-regulation failed in other trades. Most newspapers were excoriating, for instance, about the failure of the City’s self-regulating bodies to blow the whistle on Robert Maxwell’s plunder of the Mirror pension fund.

According to the newspapers, self-regulation failed in securities trading, banking, construction and many other fields. But it works brilliantly in just one area: newspapers. This inconsistency is ludicrously implausible. No wonder 71% of the public, according to a recent opinion poll, back Leveson-style independence for the regulator.

The real worry of the newspaper barons is that a new regulator would enforce the rules drawn up by the industry itself, which at present are a Potemkin village. If the Sun could not make up fictional stories when accuracy is too boring, time-consuming or costly, how would it make money?

At present, the Sun does not suffer much embarrassment owning up to its fictions, because the PCC tries to “resolve” issues to a point where all but the most persistent complainants capitulate. When there is a PCC ruling against a paper, “due prominence” is too often defined as the bottom of page 28, with a headline so dull that it would normally precipitate a subeditorial sacking.

Lord Leveson could not have been clearer on the surveillance, harassment and intimidation inflicted by the press on the families of Madeleine McCann, Milly Dowler, Sebastian Bowles, Holly Wells, Jessica Chapman and many others. This is nothing to do with exposing evil doings by the powerful, for which there are public interest exemptions. It is about selling more newspapers by destroying the lives of ordinary people. These are folk who do not have the time and resources to hold abusive newspaper power to account.

Nor are these isolated cases. As Leveson found, there is a tabloid culture that runs roughshod over the editors’ code, and the PCC does not bother to draw any lessons from multiple misdemeanours, let alone increase the penalties for repeat offenders.

During Leveson’s sittings, the Mail group was subject to nine complaints of intrusion into personal grief, most of which were “resolved” (for which read the complainants were too catatonic from obfuscation to keep going). Even then, the Mail on Sunday failed to learn, as we know from its sending a reporter to the memorial occasion for Ed Miliband’s uncle. Only openness – clear arbitration judgments – will sort this out.

The British press respects a similar system in the Republic of Ireland, where many produce special editions without editors being led away in chains to Dublin Castle. There may even be benefits. The NGO Transparency International recently asked 114,000 people in 107 countries which of 12 institutions they considered corrupt. In Britain, 69% of respondents said the media were corrupt, higher than any other British institution, and up from 39% three years ago. The fourth estate urgently needs third-party testimonials to re-establish its credibility.

Providing that the Liberal Democrats hold Maria Miller’s cold feet to the fire, my guess is that enough newspapers will set up a self-regulator to meet royal charter standards of independence. Other newspapers will join because the costs of staying out – paying both sides of a libel case, win or lose – will be too high, particularly once lawyers spot the nice new earner. The system will bed down. Everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Chris Huhne

Guardian

Previous Article

Lack of support for parents who live ...

Next Article

Why Muslims Should NOT Use “Personal Freedom” ...

0
Shares
  • 0
  • +

National Conferences

Join US on Telegram

Podcast

Latest Posts

Viewpoint

Abortion isn’t about Roe v Wade but Truth v Hypocrisy

he recent US Supreme Court verdict reversing Roe v Wade dominated the front pages of every Western media outlet. Abortion has become so toxic that even the worst cost of living crisis ...
  • Bangladesh Floods: farcical mantra of economic success disguising failure to provide basic protection

    By Editor
    June 24, 2022
  • National Conferences : From al-Hind to al-Quds: Speak Out | Act | Liberate

    By Editor
    June 18, 2022
  • The Champions of Free Speech Haven’t a Leg to Stand on

    By Yahya Nisbet
    June 13, 2022
  • Two July Conferences on Indian and Zionist Oppression Organised by Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain

    By Yahya Nisbet
    June 10, 2022
  • The Sectarian Card – Shia and Sunni divisions under the spotlight

    By Editor
    June 5, 2022
  • Muslims Must Condemn the Hate Filled Film and the Attempt to Divide Us

    By Yahya Nisbet
    June 5, 2022
  • Protest in London Says No To More Democracy, Yes to the Khilafah

    By Yahya Nisbet
    May 7, 2022
  • Press Centre