What does 'Freedom Of The Press' Mean To what extent does it exist in Modern Britain - Essay Example

?Press Freedom I Introduction There is no universally acknowledged definition of press freedom and its meaning varies from one nation to another. Proof of this is that albeit many countries guarantee it in their constitutions, in some of these countries, including developed ones, the press is muzzled. Even the collapsed Soviet Union guaranteed press freedom in its constitution but it was common knowledge that its press published only what the government wanted the public to read. An even glaring example is the manipulation of public opinion through the use of propaganda machinery by some of the perceived freest countries in the world for the purpose of legitimising their social and political agenda with the least opposition. Moreover, the history of press freedom shows that it always entails a form of struggle between the system and the press. The UK is no exception. The history of press freedom in the country is checkered with the Church and the Crown alternatively suppressing it in the name of religion or the King. Even in contemporary times, when the country is considered one of the freest democracies in the world, the complete exercise of press freedom is hindered by legislations or policies that lean more towards the promotion of other interests. The often underpinning rationale for the obstacles of press freedom is the ever-present contending interests between the private and the public and between the government. II The Concept of Press Freedom The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets forth the general manifesto of the concept of press freedom under Article 19 therein: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.” The term ‘freedom of the press’ is expressed in various according to a 1994 survey of 160 states’ constitutions: freedom of speech; freedom of speech and opinion; freedom of information, and; freedom of opinion. The express mention or the lack of it in a state’s constitution does not, however, guarantee its actual existence or absence (Czepek, Hellwig & Nowak pp. 25-26). Sweden, which often tops the lists of international press freedom surveys, made no mention of it in its constitution whilst North Korea, which does, often ranked the last in such surveys (Press Freedom Index 2010; Freedom of the Press 2010). Press freedom is often equated with democratic societies, but Noam Chomsky believes that there are “two different conceptions of democracy,” each shaping their own brand of press freedom. The first is participatory democracy where citizens are involved in the workings of the state and thus, communication channels are necessarily kept free and open. However, its antithesis – the non-participatory democracy – keeps people off the business of government affairs and thus, information and communication are controlled by the state. Chomsky believes that the second kind is most prevalent today (Chomsky 2002 pp. 6-7). Chomsky points out the US as a perfect example of the second type. President Wilson, for example, created the Creel Commission to oversee the government’s propaganda machinery and turn a generally pacifist public into a war-hungry, anti-German fanatics so the US government would be free to join the war unopposed. The same technique was used to whip up the public to a state of red scare so that it would be supportive of the government’s programs of eliminating unions and restricting press and political freedoms. An underlying rationale for “manufacturing consent” was the notion that the average man cannot fully grasp the intricacies of common political and social interests and thus, his thoughts must be directed. Only the intellectual elite can comprehend them and it must act to bring public opinion towards their fulfillment even if it entails deceiving them. In such types of democracies, press freedom becomes a casualty of the manipulative intellectuals (Chomsky 2002 pp. 8-13). Even the earliest forms of press freedoms took the shape that their states wanted them to be. In ancient times, the Greeks and Romans granted freedom of expression only to favoured citizens and never to women, aliens and minors. Republican Rome allowed press freedom until the Roman Empire was established and Caesars decided to spare themselves from any form of criticisms and thus, abolished it. The English inherited the Greek and Roman concept of elitist press freedom until the passing of the Magna Carta, (Cornwell 2004 pp. 19-20). The Church also took part in shaping and controlling press freedom for its own end. At the time when religion was the force that kept communities and societies together, any question or criticism against it was branded as heresy and was punished severely. Heresy was not only a religious offence but a political crime (Trager & Dickerson 1999 p. 28). In England, the Church and the Crown alternately controlled press freedom as printing was introduced by William Caxton in 1476. The royal licensing system made printing a monopoly by those favoured by the Crown or Church and Proclamation 1570 of Queen Elizabeth offered rewards to persons who can identify writers critical of her (Cornwell 2004 pp. 20-21). One of the most notable pleas for press freedom in early England was John Milton’s 1644 Areopagitica, where he attacked the licensing system. He argued that a free, unrestrained marketplace of ideas is necessary so that the ‘truth’ will emerge under the self-righting principle (Trager & Dickerson 1999 pp. 44-45). III. Freedom of the Press in Contemporary Britain In the 2010 world press freedom index published annually by the France-based press freedom watchdog Reporters Sans Frontieres, the United Kingdom press was ranked 19th closely followed by the US at the 20th, in a that was jointly headed by Finland, Iceland, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland (Press Freedom Index 2010). Freedom House, on the other hand, ranked UK at 26th together with Barbados, Canada and Costa Rica (Freedom of the Press 2010: Table of Global Press Freedom Ranking). It is believed that the UK media type is characterised as a liberal model with the following features: market-domination; neutrality and pluralism, and; non-institutionalised self-regulation (Czepek, Hellwig & Nowak 2009 p. 197). Self-regulation has been the hallmark of the British press since 1953 with the creation of Press Council, a voluntary entity of editors and publishers (Sterling p. 213). In 1990, the body was abolished and substituted by the Press Complaints Commission due to its ineffectiveness in containing members from violating journalism ethics in the 1980s. Initially, the PRC was on a test run and its failure would have meant enacting relevant statutory press. Fortunately, in 1995, the government admitted the improvements brought by the new entity to overall press behaviour (Press Complaints Commission). Generally, the UK press is seen as a free and open environment, its rights of which are respected by the government. Freedom of the press is expressly guaranteed by the law and recently, obsolete laws, viz. blasphemy and blasphemous libel, hampering its full exercise were abolished. Nonetheless, press freedom watchdog Freedom House notes that the law that can compel journalists to reveal information the authorities will deem important to investigation remains intact. This was overshadowed by a North Ireland court decision in 2009 dismissing police application to compel a journalist to submit materials given to her by the Real IRA. Other pieces of legislations that the Freedom House considered as remaining obstacles to the exercise of full press freedom are the following: Prevention of Terrorism Act, which makes speech that tends to encourage terrorism criminal event in the absence of direct link between the speech and a terrorist act; a 2006 law that incites hatred or violence towards a religion, and; a libel law that tends to favour the plaintiff by placing the burden of proof on the defendant. There is also the issue of harassment against journalists covering Northern Ireland and the unsolved murder of journalist Maureen O’Hagan in 2001. On the other hand, positive features of contemporary British press freedom include a strong, free and independent public broadcasting system, relatively unrestricted internet access for most citizens and although surveillance is allowed, this is subject to approval by the home secretary (Freedom House 2011). V Conclusion Press freedom, an amorphous concept without a universal singular definition, is often and commonly equated to the concept of democracy. A scrutiny of historical and contemporary forms of the concept refutes this, however. Even in the freest of nations, press freedom surrenders a part of it to conflicting interests that are at play in the social, legal and political make-up of the state. Absolute press freedom, therefore, is almost always non-existent; only diluted and compromised press freedom. States explain this away in the name of national security; private interests cite the inviolability of privacy, and; legal entities justify it in the name of peace and order. Press freedom in contemporary Britain is not exempt. Although perceived as one of the freest democracies in the world, press freedom in the country sometimes take a backseat to these conflicting interests. It seems even press freedom must give in to the balancing of interest doctrine. References: 2010. Freedom of the Press 2010: Table of Global Press Freedom Ranking. Freedom House. Available at [Accessed on 2 February 2011]. 2010. United Kingdom, Press Freedom. Available at [Accessed on 3 February 2011]. Cornwell, N., 2004. Freedom of the Press: Rights and Liberties under the Law. ABC-CLIO. Chomsky, N., 2002. Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, 2nd ed. New York: Seven Stories Press. Czepek, A., Hellwig, M. & Nowak, E., 2009. Press Freedom and Pluralism in Europe: Concepts and Conditions. London: Intellect Books. Press Complaints Commission, 2010. History. Available at [Accessed on 1 February 2011]. Press Freedom Index 2010, Reporters without Borders. Available at [Accessed on 2 February 2011]. Sterling, C., 2009. Encyclopedia of Journalism, Volume 1. London: SAGE. Trager, R. & Dickerson, D.L., 1999. Freedom of Expression in the 21st Century. Pine Forge Press. Read More