Journalists deserve full protection of law

Journalists know that their work can bring themselves into potentially risky situations, even in the local press – sometimes more so because we live and work in our communities. As well as the positive events we cover, our stock-intrade is controversy, human misfortune and wrongdoing. The newspaper proprietor William Randolph Hearst, who provided the inspiration for the film Citizen Kane, once said that the definition of news is “what somebody does not want you to print. All the rest is advertising.”

Naturally then, we will print stories – many of them – that people would rather we didn’t.

If we wanted an easy life we would ignore controversial subjects and stick to the fluffy stuff but that would be letting down our readers who expect us to take on those who abuse power, and those who make our communities less safe and less enjoyable by their behaviour. What we don’t print are the phone calls, the emails and other messages we get that rail against our audacity to print such stories.

One expects those who haven’t evolved from our Neanderthal ancestors to lack an understanding over the concept of a free press and the important part it plays in a vibrant democracy.

Of course we don’t mind “feedback” but often this can descend into vitriolic attacks and sometimes (more than our readers probably realise) into abuse and on rare occasions, threats.

Journalists learn to develop thick skins. But when someone threatens to stab the editor in the face and drive a car into your office, it takes it to a new level.

When that happens we become more like ordinary citizens. We react like normal people – we fear for our families and we expect the protection of the law.

In the case reported this week, the court deemed it appropriate that the man responsible for these menacing threats deserved a community order requiring him to do an average of 45 minutes a week over a year and stay away from our offices for six months.

We’re not asking for the book to be thrown at him, but surely that is wholly inadequate?