Press freedom is urder grave threat
Why new regulations could spell end for investigative journalism
WHAT do Lance Armstrong, Robert Maxwell, Tim Yeo and Jeffrey Archer all have in common?
All four are liars who would have been able to cover up their deceit if newspapers had been governed by draconian new regulations currently being considered by the Westminster Government.
The British press has a proud tradition of exposing hypocrisy, battling bullies and providing a voice for those who don’t have one.
The Sunday Post has led the way for more than 100 years as a campaigning, investigative newspaper prepared to fight for its readers.
But the very freedom that allows the press to hold politicians, role models and corporations to account is on the verge of being destroyed by a wealthy self-interested minority.
Newspapers are at a chilling crossroads where they will either be forced to sign up to the statebacked press regulator Impress or face financial penalties so severe that investigative journalism will, effectively, end.
It’s impossible to underplay the extent of the consequences of the changes – which would mean newspapers having to pay the hefty legal costs of liars who sue for libel over stories they know are true but want kept out of the public domain.
For instance, the scandal that brought down cheating cyclist Lance Armstrong would never have been published. The American sued The Sunday Times over a June 2004 article linking him to banned drugs and was paid a substantial sum to settle his libel claim.
When disgraced Armstrong was banned from cycling for life in 2012 after his drug-taking was finally exposed, he was forced to pay damages for his fraudulent denials.
But the paper has said it wouldn’t have published its original public interest story if the regulations under consideration were in place.
The new regulations would likely also have seen brazen Tory MP Tim Yeo get off the hook. He was caught in a newspaper sting offering his services to what he thought was an energy company while chairman of the important Westminster energy and climate change committee.
He sued for libel using a no-win, no-fee law firm and lost. But, under the new regulations, the newspaper would have been asked to pay his full costs anyway.
Serial litigant and pensions thief Robert Maxwell repeatedly tried to use the law of libel to cover up his corruption.
Meanwhile, disgraced author Jeffrey Archer won a £500,000 libel action in 1987, but was later found to have committed perjury to secure the victory and was jailed.
The Archer and Maxwell scandals are highly unlikely to have emerged in the new regulatory environment in which the costs of publishing important public interest journalism would simply be unsustainable. So how did we reach this point? It began with the Leveson Inquiry which called for statutory press regulation and an independent watchdog acceptable to newspapers in the aftermath of phone hacking by some downmarket newspapers in London.
The Sunday Post and most major newspapers, including the Daily Mail, The Times, The Telegraph and The Sun, have signed up to a code of conduct and complaints system run by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO).
It can levy large fines – as much as £1 million – and can force newspapers to prominently correct inaccuracies. However, IPSO refused to accept Government approval for fear it would amount to state regulation and threaten historic press freedom.
Indeed, IPSO chairman Sir Alan Moses, a former senior judge, said Britain’s press would be “doomed” if it signed up to state-backed regulation.
In 2012, Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act was passed by parliament as a way of forcing publishers to sign up to a Royal Charterbacked regulator, but it wasn’t enforced.
On Tuesday, the Government’s consultation will close into whether Section 40 should be repealed, kept under review, scrapped or enforced.
So why don’t newspapers just sign up to the Royal Charter-backed regulator Impress to avoid the hefty burden of legal costs?
Impress is an organisation backed by pressure group Hacked Off and almost entirely funded by motor-racing tycoon Max Mosley, who was the subject of a newspaper sting that exposed details of his private life.
He has donated £3.8m towards the running costs of Impress, which was appointed the industry’s statutory regulator as the only applicant, even though it is not supported by a single major news organisation.
Although Section 40 is only applicable under English law, Scots newspapers would be at risk from the consequences of its enforcement as titles like The Sunday Post have a large readership in England.
The Sunday Post editor Richard Prest said: “The Sunday Post has a proud history of fighting on its readers’ behalf. We have, over many years, investigated issues such as charity rip-offs, medical scandals and fraudulent practices.
“Those at the sharp end of such investigations don’t like being held to account and will often lie in an effort to squirm out of trouble.
“The issue with Section 40 is that even if such an individual or company sues The Sunday Post and loses their case we would still be liable to pay their legal costs, which could be substantial.
“That is simply wrong. The impact of Section 40 would have a chilling effect where newspapers such as The Sunday Post would shy away from investigations simply because we could be landed with a hefty legal bill even when we have been 100% right.
“The Sunday Post has always taken its responsibilities seriously and, in the very rare cases where we have got something wrong, we have always held up our hands and apologised. Therefore, I would implore you to support the campaign to maintain a free press to fight on your behalf.”