Richard Sambrook posts at the End of Journalism, on freedom of speech. (There’s a hat-tip to dear old Simon ‘Cue’ Cumbers, among others.)
He ends his piece:
…if you doubt whether accurate, impartial, independent journalism can make a difference, you should recognise that some of theforces opposed to it don’t doubt it for a second.
I prefer Lydia Polzer‘s observations:
Maybe when we are asking what threatens a free media, we are really trying to establish, what the media needs to be free from. It is not just the political but also the social and economic context in which the media are operating that determines the extent and nature of its freedom.
The media will always be a reinforcing part and a reflection of the political and economic system within which it operates. The hopes pinned on the media as a tool for a more democratic society should not be too high.
Think I’d agree with that. Good reporting is bearing witness. Journalism is most powerful – and most dangerous for those practising it – when the act of bearing witness most threatens those with power.
In societies like ours (the UK) where journalism itself still wields power, it becomes another form of negotiated influence. Maybe that’s why I prefer the BBC‘s foreign reporting, which manages – just – to tread outside those confines.
4 responses to “Freedom of speech and the media”
It’s common to see phrases like “free speech” and “free media” used interchangably, but I’d suggest that they are quite different and have different traditions. One of the UK’s many gifts to the world was “free media,” as in an independent media that can freely criticize the government. This dates back to the 1600’s when Parliament gave newspapers the right to cover their proceedings, albeit mostly for the selfish reason of generating public support against Charles I. On the other hand, in my view “free speech” is a gift of America to the world, and is about the right of every individual, not just the media, to freely criticize the government. Neither the UK nor the US currently enjoy completely free media or free speech. But, I am a bit confused by the tolerance among UK journalists for the domination of broadcast news by the more or less government-controlled BBC. It begs the question of how committed UK journalism really is to a “free media,” as in one that is sufficiently independent to critize government (Steve Boriss, The Future of News)
The BBC is also a huge journalism employer…
Adrian, Yes, and doesn’t that get in the way of UK journalists being independent — free to criticize the government? And, if so, why am I not aware of a movement within UK journalism to force non-government-controlled competition into broadcast news?
I agree – the nearest you would get to a public critic is Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, who has spoken out against subsidised media – but then he included News Corp’s loss-making outfit The Times in that critique.