This morning I took part in a debate organised for World Press Freedom Day by UNESCO at the House of Commons. The motion was "World press freedom is in retreat". I joined Stephen Whittle from the Reuters School of Journalism in opposing the motion. The arguments I used can be seen in THIS short article on Comment is Free. My arguments centred around the notion that the internet has made press freedom easier in many cases.
One look around the room told me we were on a hiding to nothing in the debate, and I wasn't wrong, but it was a good natured debate and great fun. It was dominated by people from Russia, or experts on Russia, who made a good first of telling us that Russian people are fed up with seeing news programmes which all said the same thing. Funny, I thought, that could apply to the UK too! It was astonishing that they all seemed to hark back to the 'good old days' of the Soviet Union. I don't seem to remember there being a lot of freedom of the press about then either. It is, however, truly terrible how journalists in Russia are suffering persecution, but it is not only in Russia. Look at Zimbabwe. Stephen Whittle made the excellent point that good journalism is never easy. Reporting in difficult circumstances is something which has always attracted pressure and criticism from authorities.
The contribution which really got my goat was from Ben Hutchison, who is Vice Chairman of the D-Notice Committee. This is the committee which decides what newspapers may report on issues of national security. He kept a straight face while arguing against the very kind of censorship his own committee has the power to impose. Breathtaking hypocrisy.
Needless to say we lost the vote at the end of the two hours, but I much enjoyed myself.
Was Tessa Bloggersphere Jowell there to back up her insipid "code of conduct" arguments?
ReplyDeleteWasn't there a D-notice issued on some quite personal details of several of the NL inner circle or was that just rumour?
That mention of the D-Notice committee is way off line.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, it is not called the D-Notice committee and hasn't been for more than a decade. It's called the DA-Notice committee and this stands for 'Defence Advisory'.
Secondly the DA-Notice committee has no power whatsoever to impose any censorship. It has no statutory role at all. It is a unique creation: it assumes that the press want to publish stories, but don't actually want to damage national security, and so creates a forum in which national security experts can be consulted by journalists for confidential advice.
There are a tiny number of standing DA notices which tell the press what sort of stories will damage national security. Editors can choose to consult the committee about the precise details and get advice. However, the DA notice committee cannot exercise any form of pre-publication censorship at all. If a story is published which does potentially damage national security, then it is up to the usual criminal prosecution apparatus to take action.
Frankly the DA notice committee is an absolute triumph of the British constitution: it preserves press freedom and national security.
Sorry Iain,but I agree with David Boothroyd.The committee is a very sensible compromise.
ReplyDeleteCan I make clear, I also approve of the D Notice Committee. I was making the point that Hutchison was being hypocritical in his stance.
ReplyDeleteIain, any chance of posting the general thrust of Hutchinson's argument that annoyed you so? Only I'm confused because, as David points out, the DA-Notice Committee has no censorship powers. So I can't see how arguing against powers which he doesn't posess makes Hutchinson a hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteWorld Press Freedom Day by UNESCO.
ReplyDeleteNo thanks. Anything sponsored by this grotesque one-worlder outfit is no good.
I never voted for them. They're a bunch of arrogant leeches. They have no legitimacy and no authority. There is not one UN agency that has accomplished anything that could not have been better achieved by national governments.
In addition to which, what would this fascist organisation know about freedom?
You shouldn't be buying into this one-worlder garbage Iain. They pick things no one can argue with, then colonise them.
Anything from the UN or any of its agencies must be rejected.
David, he described it as the D Notice committee himself!
ReplyDeleteActually it's called the "Defence Press and Broadcasting Committee" but as it was known as the D-Notice committee from 1912 to 1993 this name has somewhat stuck in the public mind.
ReplyDeleteBut it never had the power to censor anything.
Internet = Freedom to smear.
ReplyDeleteDavid Boothroyd: 4.22 PM
ReplyDeleteActually it is the "Defence, Press & Broadcasting Advisory Committee"
Iain,
ReplyDeleteI was once told by a very experienced debater that "it takes real conviction and understanding of your opinion to be able to convincingly argue the opposite".
It does not necessarily make you a hypocrite, just someone who understands the issues.
Mind you, I was told that after refusing to debate in favour of the death penalty... everybody has their limits in openmindedness...
I attended the lunch held afterwards for the two Russian speakers at the debate and you can read my write-up of the event by clicking on my name. They spoke of the current climate concerning Russia and press freedom.
ReplyDelete