MEANING EXPLAINED BY LEADING EDITO

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27010, 9 April 1953, Page 8

MEANING EXPLAINED BY LEADING EDITO

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

tßu W L. ANDREWS, Editor the “Yorkshire Post ” Leeds, and President ol th. lay w. i.. ' Gujld British Newspaper Eaitorsl Organisations representing Britain’s newspaper owners and their editorial staffs are now considering the draft constitution for the General Council of the Press, which comes into being on July 1. One of its most important functions will be to promote i schemes providing for recruitment, education and training of journalists, but its principal object will be to preserve the established freedom of the press in the United Kingdom—and maintain its character at the highest leveL

It was recently laid down by the newspaper profession, here in Britain, that when a young man or woman begins to train for journalism one of the very first lessons he or she must learn is what is meant by the freedom of the press. 'For this freedom is one of our national glories. K helps to make our newspapers liveiy, provocative and readable, but achieves far more than that. It enables our newspapers to play an invaluable ana indispensable part in the democratic running of a country. Like a free Parliament, the free press keeps the people free. It helps them, guides, them and defends them through the crises we all have to face. These may seem large and slightly oratorical claims. In what precisely does this press freedom consist? Not in a constitutional right specially for newspapers. The expression means that there is no official restraint, no censorship, on the publication of. books, newspapers and other printed matter. It does not mean that an author or editor may publish just what he likes without regard to the damage he may do to people. A great judge, Lord Mansfield, said in 1784: “The liberty ot the press consists in printing without any previous licence subject to the consequences of the law.” Rights and Duties

What do these consequences of the law mean? They mean that if a newspaper libels anyone it may have to pay damages. If it prints anything obscene, blasphemous or seditious or commits contempt of court (that is, prints something which jeopardises a fair trial or injures the reputation of a court) it is liable to be punished. But a newspaper has the right to utter fair comment and speak out strongly as a sworn champion to advance the interests of a cause it believes in.

With this power, the press, in the name of the community, can censure governments and parliaments, insist on the downfall of inefficient politicians, and secure the redress of injustice to the humblest of subjects. At first it was thought natural for the Government to regulate and censor the press. The first regular newspaper in London started when John Milton, the poet, was in his boyhood. Later he wrote an essay called the “Areopagitica: A speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing, to the Parliament of England.” This pleaded with burning eloquence the case for a free press. Parliament, no doubt believing it was right to stifle free opinion (which perhaps it assumed to be nearly always wrong or irresponsible opinion) refused to abandon , the censorship. In 1695, when the author of “Paradise Lost” had been in his grave for 21 years, Parliament let the act regulating the press pass out of existence. • It has never been revived. Britain, even in war time, has had no compulsory censorship, for the patriotism of the press was a trustworthy safeguard of momentous military secrets. The decision of 1695 did not mean that our newspapers could then go ahead unhampered. For many years they had to pay special taxes which were commonly known as taxes on knowledge. One of them was on advertisements. Unfounded Fears Hostility in Parliament towards the press often flared up. Parliament was afraid that newspapers, continually expanding their influence, might some day be a rival to itself. It even objected to its speeches being reported —an odd contrast with members’ very proper desire for publicity today. One Parliamentarian said in alarm.: “Hie stuff which our weekly newspapers are filled with is received with greater reverence than acts of Parliament,

and the sentiments of one of those scribblers have more weight with the multitude than the opinion of the best politician in the kingdom.” We must not suppose that all the virtues were on one side and all the vices on the other.. Some papers were shockingly reckless and some were bribed. Yet many newspapers fought like heroes for the people’s freedom They helped to make our country p O . litically mature. We journalists of today do not forget our predecessor! who suffered the shame of the pillory and the squalors of prison in the struggle for the right to say what we think of the way we are governed. The taxes on knowledge, first im. posed in the reign of Queen Anne, lasted well into the reign of Queen Victoria, and began to disappear just 100 years ago. The first to be cancelled was the advertisement duty which the House voted in favour of repealing on April 14, 1853. The compulsory newspaper stamp disappeared in 1855, and the duty on paper in 1861 The press became more and more powerful as education, printing and communications improved, until Abraham Lincoln declared in 1861: “The London ‘Times’ is one of the greatest powers in the world—in fact, I don’t know anything which has much more power, except perhaps the Mississippi.”

The history of repression and struggle has left strong marks on the character of Britain’s press today. The Englishman reading his newspaper at breakfast does not regard it merely as a sheet to tell him the latest news, ft is much more than a radio bulletin, much more than the day’s news processed and packaged. The reader looks on the newspaper as a living personality, a friend, an eager fighter for what he believes in. He welcomes its leading articles. Wide Choice of Views Any study of the British press would bring out as one of its dominating characteristics the tradition of guidance to the public, creation of opinion and waging of editorii campaigns. Does this mean that the complaint! of by-gone Parliamentarians against the press have died away and that every paper is now completely successful in reconciling its freedom and independence with restraint and a sense of responsibility in matters of national concern? I should not make that claim without reservation. If you grant freedom you grant the freedom to abuse freedom. There will always be some men who press their campaigns to an extravagant excess, some men whose partisan fervour leads them to injustice against opponents. With no agreed standard of taste throughout the country, some papers* will be tempted to exploit crime, sex and vulgarity. But the public can make its choice from a variety of newspapers. Different schools, of thought fight out their differences in the arena of politics. The reader is given plenty of facts to consider; every important point of view finds expression. The supreme virtue of this free press is that it enables the public to decide for itself what is right and what is the best thing to do. In so doing it pays very great respect to our most thoughtful snd public-spirited papers, so that restraint and a sense of responsibility do prevail in our great national decisions. Press freedom, though often resented by those whom it brings under critical scrutiny, is immensely better for the citizens than the stifling of independent opinion in the name of an all-powerful bureaucratic government.