The Student Room Group

Why is there freedom of the press?

All the press seem to do is harass and annoy people as well as spread malicious celebrity gossip which is none of their business.

Why is there a law that allows for freedom of the press when that freedom is constantly taken advantage of?

Surely press journalists should have someone's permission before being allowed to write stories about them.
Freedom of the press is fundamental to democracy. A free press holds government to account. There are of course irresponsible media, and how their actions should be regulated is problematic; but you are overlooking the work done by responsible journalists who inform the public and scrutinise the powerful. Without free media, the Post Office scandal and many other matters of public concern in the UK would not have come to public attention. In the US, the crimes of Richard Nixon and Donald Trump would never have been exposed.

Absence of press freedom leads to autocracy. No dictatorship allows a free press.
(edited 2 months ago)
...maybe you just read tabloid crap?
Freedom of the press is useful for the reasons described above, although I would say there should be additional protections against press harassment and the press should be held to account more for spreading misinformation.

The press itself should be held to account.
A problem for democracy is unregulated social media, especially when controlled by people such as Musk and Zuckerberg.
Lies spread on social media like wildfire.

As for traditional media, Leveson 2 appears to be dead and buried.


(edited 2 months ago)
Original post by UOM2024
All the press seem to do is harass and annoy people as well as spread malicious celebrity gossip which is none of their business.
Why is there a law that allows for freedom of the press when that freedom is constantly taken advantage of?
Surely press journalists should have someone's permission before being allowed to write stories about them.

Freedom of the press is indeed essential to democracy, as it allows journalists to investigate and expose corruption, hold powerful figures accountable, and ensure that the public remains informed about important issues that affect their lives. Throughout history, there have been numerous instances where the press has played a pivotal role in uncovering scandals and injustices.

UK Examples:

1.

The MPs' Expenses Scandal (2009): In the UK, one of the most significant examples of the press holding the government to account was the MPs' expenses scandal, uncovered by The Daily Telegraph in 2009. The investigation revealed widespread misuse of public funds by Members of Parliament, who had been claiming expenses for everything from second homes to duck houses. This exposé led to a public outcry, the resignation of several MPs, and reforms in the expenses system, highlighting the critical role the press plays in ensuring transparency and accountability in government.

2.

The Post Office Scandal (2019): Investigative journalism was also crucial in uncovering the Post Office scandal, where hundreds of sub-postmasters were wrongly accused of theft and fraud due to faults in the Horizon computer system. Journalists played a key role in bringing this injustice to light, leading to a public inquiry and the eventual quashing of many wrongful convictions. This case underscores how a free press can amplify the voices of those wronged by powerful institutions, leading to justice and reform.

3.

The Windrush Scandal (2018): The Guardian played a critical role in exposing the Windrush scandal, where British citizens, mainly of Caribbean descent, were wrongfully detained, denied legal rights, threatened with deportation, and in at least 83 cases, wrongly deported from the UK by the Home Office. This scandal highlighted severe flaws in the UK government's handling of immigration cases, leading to a formal apology from the Prime Minister and the resignation of then-Home Secretary Amber Rudd.

USA Examples:

1.

Watergate Scandal (1972-1974): In the United States, the Watergate scandal remains one of the most famous examples of the press holding the government accountable. The Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein conducted a relentless investigation that uncovered a series of illegal activities carried out by members of the Nixon administration. Their reporting ultimately led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon in 1974. This case is often cited as the gold standard of investigative journalism, demonstrating how the press can uncover wrongdoing at the highest levels of government.

2.

The Pentagon Papers (1971): Another landmark moment in US history where the press played a crucial role was the publication of the Pentagon Papers by The New York Times and The Washington Post in 1971. These classified documents revealed that the US government had systematically lied to the public and Congress about the Vietnam War. The Nixon administration attempted to prevent the publication, but the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the newspapers, upholding the principle of press freedom. The publication of the Pentagon Papers significantly eroded public trust in the government and intensified opposition to the Vietnam War.

3.

The NSA Surveillance Exposé (2013): More recently, in 2013, The Guardian and The Washington Post published a series of reports based on leaks from Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor. These reports exposed the extensive surveillance programs conducted by the US government, which included the collection of phone records and internet data from millions of Americans and foreigners. The revelations sparked a global debate on privacy, security, and the role of government, leading to significant legal and policy changes.

These examples demonstrate that while the press can sometimes engage in sensationalism or overstep boundaries, its fundamental role in a democracy is to act as a watchdog. By exposing corruption, injustice, and abuse of power, the press ensures that those in positions of authority are held to account, and that the public remains informed and engaged in the democratic process.
Reply 6
Original post by UOM2024
All the press seem to do is harass and annoy people as well as spread malicious celebrity gossip which is none of their business.
Why is there a law that allows for freedom of the press when that freedom is constantly taken advantage of?
Surely press journalists should have someone's permission before being allowed to write stories about them.

You are assuming many of those supposedly being harassed and gossiped about don't want the attention. Lots of people seek the media for self promotion. That said, the press is slowly being reigned in after affairs like Scofield and Hugh Edwards and of course the Royals and other celebs keep suing and winning.

Free press and speech is the hallmark of a thriving democracy. It is not perfect, but imagine living somewhere like Russia where you can be locked up for saying the wrong thing.
Original post by hotpud
You are assuming many of those supposedly being harassed and gossiped about don't want the attention. Lots of people seek the media for self promotion. That said, the press is slowly being reigned in after affairs like Scofield and Hugh Edwards and of course the Royals and other celebs keep suing and winning.
Free press and speech is the hallmark of a thriving democracy. It is not perfect, but imagine living somewhere like Russia where you can be locked up for saying the wrong thing.

The Huw Edwards case has nothing to do with freedom of the media. The idea of the press being "reigned in" is troubling. There is a need for some form of media regulation, but it is vital to strike a balance between regulation and curbing an essential freedom. If in doubt, err on the side of freedom.
I add that Royals and celebs lose as often as they win. Prominent losers include Charles (when he was Prince of Wales), Naomi Campbell, and Princess Caroline of Monaco. Harry and Megan win some, lose some.
Reply 9
Original post by Stiffy Byng
The Huw Edwards case has nothing to do with freedom of the media. The idea of the press being "reigned in" is troubling. There is a need for some form of media regulation, but it is vital to strike a balance between regulation and curbing an essential freedom. If in doubt, err on the side of freedom.

The Huw Edwards case was ground breaking because despite the press knowing full well who the mystery BBC presenter was, absolutely no one published the name for weeks. And that is a first for the press because not so long ago they would have been falling over themselves to be the ones to get the exclusive.

Contrast that to the late 90s / early noughties where journalists were actively listening into and intercepting phone messages on celebrity phones and trawling through the bins of celebrity solicitors...
(edited 1 month ago)
It may be that Edwards had obtained an injunction to restrain publication. Injunctions of that kind are in general not a good thing, but they are still granted on occasion.

Quick Reply