Today, in the United Kingdom, a simmering debate will boil over. Freedom of the Press will be discussed, argued and belligerently defended.
Freedom of the Press is a subject most media professionals have an opinion on, though ultimately most of us ordinary people care very little about, largely because we have become accustomed to filtering the truth from newspaper editors’ hysterical grandstanding and adept at recognising blatant intrusion, distrusting whatever is broadcast as a result.
Even the cleverest of people conjoin Freedom of speech with Freedom of the Press as if they are the same thing. In my opinion, they are not and the difference is clear, yet because they are nefariously presented as the same thing there is a significant danger that Freedom of speech will be further eroded by Government intervention.
Without any doubt, methods employed by the media to get a story must be curtailed but not at the expense of our individual right to free speech. Freedom of the Press and Freedom of speech must be considered as two entirely separate issues.
Freedom of speech allows us to speak freely on any subject we feel moved to impart.
Freedom of the Press has come to mean something else entirely and is very often taken as the inalienable right to examine every corner of an individual’s private life whether they like it or not and then, publish whatever has been said and done to the world at large.
Surely, if an individual wishes everyone to be a party to their private thoughts and opinions the legitimate method for doing so would be to organise an interview with a journalist. To achieve a story by any other means is deceptive and fraudulent.
As it stands, the principal of Freedom of the Press is seriously undermining Freedom of speech.