Keeping our press free is the best way to counter Kremlin

THIS week we have learned again that Britain is being poisoned, both literally and metaphorically. Sergei and Yulia Skripal, critically ill in hospital, are the most obvious victims of Russian aggression. But this appalling attack on our own soil has only highlighted the wider attack from the same source – Russia’s attempt to poison our public discourse.

In response to the attack, the usual tactics have been deployed by President Putin’s publicly run media. Russia Today, the state-owned, UK-based channel described the claims of a Russian link to the Salisbury attack as “fanciful”. On Russian state TV, it was suggested that Britain deliberately arranged the attack in order to stoke “Russophobia”. It is we, not Russia, who are guilty of spreading propaganda in the wake of the attacks, declares their foreign ministry, as part of an “anti-Russian campaign”.

The tactics are familiar: hard evidence is dismissed as a political smear. Absurd conspiracies are put forward to stoke a wider nationalist narrative; that Russia is under attack from arrogant Western elites, hell bent on humiliating the Russian bear.

So, even as victims lie gasping for their lives in a hospital bed in England, truth is bent beyond recognition. Russia is industrialising false information: less an Iron Curtain these days than a web of lies. Exploiting the very virtues we uphold – of free expression and freedom of speech – the purpose is to further corrode trust in our public realm, and weaken our society.

So, beyond the necessary sanctions proposed by the Prime Minister this week in response to the Salisbury attack, there is also a wider response necessary. We must reject any attempt to draw moral equivalence between Britain’s vigorous free media, and the highly polished counterfeit versions that Russia is promoting.

Firstly, that means cracking down on Russia’s ability to broadcast falsehoods in this country – by, for example, tougher regulation of the soft-sell propaganda of Russian Today and its Sputnik offshoot. That Alex Salmond, the former Scottish first minister, continues to act as a frontman for RT is a shameful stain on his reputation. I hope we can soon pull the plug on it. But secondly, we must do something more: we must promote our own traditions of a free media, and ensure its own wings are not clipped.

There was, of course, an overdue overhaul to British media practices following the Leveson inquiry when the extent of the illegal phone-hacking in some newsrooms was uncovered.

Tighter regulation is now in place. Six journalists went to jail for breaking the law. But, as is often the case when the spotlight is placed on malpractice in one industry, we always run the risk of over-correction. And, running through Parliament now, there is the real danger of a self-inflicted attack on our own media that would have Putin rubbing his hands.

For example; amendments to the Data Protection Bill currently going through Parliament propose that all newspapers and magazines which do not sign up to the new state-approved regulator will have to pay the other sides’ costs in an action for breach of data – whether they win the case or lose it. The consequence could be disastrous, especially for small, independent newspapers which cannot afford the risk of going to court. They wouldn’t be able to pay, so, most likely, editors would simply drop investigations, for fear of being taken to court. They might feel compelled to print apologies even when they had written something correct.

Scotland enjoys a full third of the land mass of the UK, but less than 10 per cent of the people. But even in rural communities, people continue to support some wonderful local titles: The Oban Times, Annandale Observer, The Shetland Times, and Turriff Advertiser, to name a few. All face being sucked in by a proposed law which threatens their very way of life. So why not simply sign up to the new state regulator? Because journalists are rightly nervous that, where state regulation comes in, political interference is never far away.

After all, the terms of conditions of this regulator can be altered by a vote of parliament – putting political control into a system, something which is anathema to the spirit of a free press.

Worse, the new press regulator of newspaper standards, Impress, is funded mostly by none other than the tycoon Max Mosley, whose campaign for privacy stems from a Sunday newspaper’s decision to print photos of him at a sex party. It is surely not unfair to question his own motives in this regard.

British media is rightly – and proudly – known the world over as tough, tenacious, irreverent and robust. As a politician, that scrutiny can sometimes be uncomfortable – but that is exactly as it should be. It pains