The Royal Charter: an impingement on Freedom of Press?

Freedom of press is important to protect the right of people to have the information they need to make informed decisions about the government, international affairs, and the virtues and disparities that administrate the world we live in.

Regardless of how poorly the press does its job, the principle behind freedom of press cannot be abandoned, because without it there is a lack of accountability towards the government. A free, independent news media (if such a thing exists) is an indispensable tool for any society that claims to be free.

Which feeds nicely into the Royal Charter.

It is easy to contest what makes a good and bad doctor or teacher. With journalists, the line is a lot more blurred. It is important to distinguish between good journalism, bad journalism, and outright criminality. Here, of course, I am referring to the phone hacking scandal, which was not only deplorable, but the actions of those involved should, and are, being taken as criminal offences.

However, when referencing the need for a Royal Charter, the hacking scandal has, without fail, cropped up on every single forum or comment piece I have found.

Firstly, the hacking scandal, categorically, should not be given as reason for imposing regulations on journalism. Libel and illegal activities transcend the boundaries of journalism.

You would not change the entire structure of Debenhams if a shop-assistant was found to be fiddling the till. In the same vein, the abhorrent actions of those intruding into people’s personal lives should not be considered synonymous with journalism. It is the justice system’s job, and there is no need for state regulation.

Lord Justice proposed “independent self-regulation” of the press, with Leveson stating that signing the Charter both underpins the regulation of British press and guaranteeing its independence from the government. There have also been talks about “exemplary damages” being imposed on those who do not sign the Royal Charter’s new arbitration system. In addition to this, the Royal Charter initially proposed policing the web, but have since withdrawn from the proposal, looking for amendments that would exclude small blogs and websites from the new system.

There are several things I take issue with here:

1. “Independent self-regulation” and allowing the government to “underpin regulation” is oxymoronic. If something is independent, it cannot be regulated; otherwise there is no true independence. As soon as you start placing restrictions on employing freedom of press, beyond criminality (because journalism is a profession and libel does not sit well with professionalism) it is no longer free. Supporting the Royal Charter’s principles means making a fatal concession by curtailing press freedom.
2. To threaten “exemplary damages” on those who do not sign the Royal Charter’s new arbitration system is hardly democratic. If anything it’s erring on a blend of Animal Farm and 1984: “you have agency to make your own decisions, but if we don’t like your decision, we’ll punish you, because even though everyone is supposed to have an equal voice in democracy, our voices are more equal than yours.”
3. Internet hits have escalated exponentially in the last few years, whilst newspaper sales have tumbled. The internet is the next generation of journalism, so why is the Royal Charter backing away from internet regulation? Surely, if the whole notion behind the Royal Charter is maintain some sort of journalistic parameter, the internet – rife with anonymous trolls, sexism, racism and bigotry – that has a far wider audience than papers – should be one of the first places the paw of regulation turns to?
4. With freedom of press, you’re going to have to read some stuff you don’t like. It is imperative that there is a distinction made between criminality and opinion articles stating views that overly tenacious and sensitive politicians are unable to bear the brunt of. If the government were to have an influence over the press, the two would quickly become equivalent.
5. The whole issue with the Royal Charter is the principle. Any regulation, no matter how big or small, goes against the notion of freedom of press. Arguably, we don’t have a free press anyway, but many people are content in their perceptive of press freedom, and the Royal Charter threatens this freedom with the Big Bad Words of Regulation.

Despite the heavy criticism of the Royal Charter, that is not to say the media industry is all fine and dandy.

There’s something inherently wrong with the media, supposedly representing freedom of press and speech, being run under the thumb of media barons such as Murdoch or Bloomberg, who are accountable to almost no one. In many ways, journalism has turned into a vessel for rich men to stamp their views on society under the guise of intellectualism and impartiality. As it stands, there is a risk that journalists have become the puppets of the influential – dancing whichever way the strings are pulled.

Just as freedom and democracy cannot be found through censorship, it cannot be found through the press being owned by a couple of rich businessmen.

Of course, it is far easier said than done, removing these media barons from the scene, because at the end of the day, media is an industry, and someone is going to be in charge and whoever is in charge, however benevolent or evil, is going to be incredibly influential on a global scale.

Ultimately, the issue with freedom of press is the following: who, if anyone, is most qualified to oversee the press? Why is one person more qualified when the next to decide how the media should be run when the media should be accessible to an entire population?

This, I think, is the biggest problem. When we know the answer to this, then we can start looking at regulation or deregulation of the industry.