How Kelvin MacKenzie and the Daily Mail undermine the case for press freedom.
Kelvin MacKenzie and the Daily Mail. A man and a newspaper who’ve been ever more vocal in their campaign for greater press freedom and the right to free expression as the super injunctions row has escalated, with Kelvin especially pious in insisting the truth is out there and the truth must out, ranting and raving on the Sky News late night paper review whenever he gets the chance.
The Mail have also led the charge – and by and large, who can disagree with them? As Mike Harris argued on these pages:
Whilst many people would argue that Max Mosley’s private peccadillos are his own personal business, and his alone, few would wish to see those breaking super-injunctions via Twitter found in contempt of Court and jailed.
As the European Court found, effective sanctions that uphold privacy may be in breach of the fundamental right to freedom of expression.
Yet for all that, nothing does more to undermine the case for press freedom than newspapers deliberately lying, a charge both the Mail and MacKenzie were accused of on This Week last night:
As Lord Steel says:
“If we had a law that said ‘if you say something untrue in a paper you must publish the retraction on the same page with the same prominence’ that would make the editors think twice.”
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
7 Responses to “Kelvin MacKenzie, the Daily Mail and press freedom”
Rory Gallivan
The statement by Lord Steel was absolutely terrifying.
Imagine, for example, that the Mail on Sunday, because it was a slow news week, published a front page splash about a publicity-hungry celibrity that contained an error most people would consider trivial, but the celebrity decided to make a fuss about. The paper would then have to splash the apology on its front page the following week, at the expense of, for example, an important story arising from an investigation into corrupt politicians.
Such a law would lead to a cowed media, much less able to effectively carry out the important work it does. It would be a gift to media manipulators such as Alastair Campbell.
Richard Jones
This is the way bad journalism should be dealt with! http://bit.ly/iZei4w