Britain has been a beacon of press freedom for a long time. Constrained only by laws covering libel and real national security, the papers have been able to publish almost anything about anything or anyone. Comment ranging from high praise (not normally a media thing) to severe criticism has been allowed and encouraged. So has pertinent or even impertinent enquiry.
No more.
Earlier in the year a grubby agreement was hammered out, - strangely at night and in the office of the Leader of the Opposition,- at a meeting of consenting adults representing the three main political parties and a pressure group led by the acting profession. All this used indignation rightly felt about phone hacking to amplify the outrage so as to justify legislation potentially covering anything said parties did not like or want to see in print. Politicians saw it was a wonderful opportunity to obstruct and prevent searching enquiries into duck houses, incorrect interpretation of entitlements to expenses ,inappropriate behaviour and other activities which might undermine their standing in the world of real people. Celebrities saw it as a means of ensuring that they only received the right sort of the publicity they crave to keep the money rolling in. Reports from Sunset Boulevard might become risky or expensive to run. As contrary views might have derailed the night's work non consenting adults,- notably the press,- were not invited or asked to make any submission . They were expected to accept whatever this politically adopted pressure group decided to throw at them,- shut up and stop being nosey. "Don't you know who we are?"
Satisfied with this bonding (for them) and bondage (for the press) evening, the attendees then submitted a draft Royal Charter for press regulation first to a supine Parliament where few, including no Liberals, seriously questioned the measure. They then sent hapless ashen faced Nick scuttling off to stick it under the nose of the monarch and demand/grovel that she sign . Going to the Palace probably gave him a real buzz but is unlikely to have done much for her afternoon. It is not recorded whether tea and Dutchy Originals were offered. By convention Her Majesty had no option but to exercise the royal ballpoint rather than tell him staight that she didnt think much of politicians hiding behind her rather than doing their own dirty work by passing legislation of their own.
So far so bad , even if the newspapers continue to ignore the Charter and set up their own regulator not paid for from the (empty) public purse. What we have seen is potentially the most repressive move against the freedom of the press in any major western country.
The international by product is that Britain can no longer take less liberal countries and regimes to task when they muzzle the press or make it impossible for investigative journalists to function.
Silence from Britain is the best Commonwealth Kenya's citizens can now expect when they protest against the passing of the Information and Communications (Amendment) Bill by their National Assembly. The country's press is lively and vibrant . It has boldly shined torches on corruption, malpractice and greed ,particularly amongst MPs. The Standard newspaper has recently labelled them as MPigs. It has since carried headlines including "Democracy under Attack",- and so it is just as it is here. Publishers of anything MPs don't like could be rewarded with heavy corporate and personal fines. No prizes for guessing where those ideas came from.
That's Kenya which despite everything is one of the brighter stars on the African scene. What can Britain, the orginal upholder of good governance and virtue now say to other recalcitrants? Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, even China are now beyond our rebuke or even friendly word in the ear from the Ambassador. Until now the answer has been "Quite a lot". Now it's "Nothing."
Perhaps even more sobering and damaging both to ourselves and the world, the same goes for anything we might have said about other countries' greedy, self interested and self serving politicians. Previously we could have said quite a lot. Now, nothing without being accused of gross hypocrisy. Haven't we done well?
No more.
Earlier in the year a grubby agreement was hammered out, - strangely at night and in the office of the Leader of the Opposition,- at a meeting of consenting adults representing the three main political parties and a pressure group led by the acting profession. All this used indignation rightly felt about phone hacking to amplify the outrage so as to justify legislation potentially covering anything said parties did not like or want to see in print. Politicians saw it was a wonderful opportunity to obstruct and prevent searching enquiries into duck houses, incorrect interpretation of entitlements to expenses ,inappropriate behaviour and other activities which might undermine their standing in the world of real people. Celebrities saw it as a means of ensuring that they only received the right sort of the publicity they crave to keep the money rolling in. Reports from Sunset Boulevard might become risky or expensive to run. As contrary views might have derailed the night's work non consenting adults,- notably the press,- were not invited or asked to make any submission . They were expected to accept whatever this politically adopted pressure group decided to throw at them,- shut up and stop being nosey. "Don't you know who we are?"
Satisfied with this bonding (for them) and bondage (for the press) evening, the attendees then submitted a draft Royal Charter for press regulation first to a supine Parliament where few, including no Liberals, seriously questioned the measure. They then sent hapless ashen faced Nick scuttling off to stick it under the nose of the monarch and demand/grovel that she sign . Going to the Palace probably gave him a real buzz but is unlikely to have done much for her afternoon. It is not recorded whether tea and Dutchy Originals were offered. By convention Her Majesty had no option but to exercise the royal ballpoint rather than tell him staight that she didnt think much of politicians hiding behind her rather than doing their own dirty work by passing legislation of their own.
So far so bad , even if the newspapers continue to ignore the Charter and set up their own regulator not paid for from the (empty) public purse. What we have seen is potentially the most repressive move against the freedom of the press in any major western country.
The international by product is that Britain can no longer take less liberal countries and regimes to task when they muzzle the press or make it impossible for investigative journalists to function.
Silence from Britain is the best Commonwealth Kenya's citizens can now expect when they protest against the passing of the Information and Communications (Amendment) Bill by their National Assembly. The country's press is lively and vibrant . It has boldly shined torches on corruption, malpractice and greed ,particularly amongst MPs. The Standard newspaper has recently labelled them as MPigs. It has since carried headlines including "Democracy under Attack",- and so it is just as it is here. Publishers of anything MPs don't like could be rewarded with heavy corporate and personal fines. No prizes for guessing where those ideas came from.
That's Kenya which despite everything is one of the brighter stars on the African scene. What can Britain, the orginal upholder of good governance and virtue now say to other recalcitrants? Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, even China are now beyond our rebuke or even friendly word in the ear from the Ambassador. Until now the answer has been "Quite a lot". Now it's "Nothing."
Perhaps even more sobering and damaging both to ourselves and the world, the same goes for anything we might have said about other countries' greedy, self interested and self serving politicians. Previously we could have said quite a lot. Now, nothing without being accused of gross hypocrisy. Haven't we done well?
