Suppressing The Press

In a democracy the freedom of the press is vital to its survival and, whilst there is plenty of recent evidence that the press do not always toe the line in quite the way we might want, I believe it is this freedom of expression that makes us stand out as a society.

I am often asked to help a range of organisations deal with the media, and from time to time I find myself in hot water, but better that than to have no voice, which is the fate of many who oppose the system in which they live, or choose to buck the status quo for fear of reprisal.

I raise the subject because increasingly organisations of all sorts, whether private enterprises or government departments, are seeking to stifle the views of potential dissenters, or those who may not have the same, usually hidden, agenda.  

We have seen ‘gagging’ orders used in relation to several government employees, where independent observers are of the opinion that such agreements should only ever be used in the public sector if it is a matter of national security, and of course this is rarely the case.

The press attend many of the same meetings that I find myself at and on occasion they will be excluded, or someone will say ‘not for the public to know’, often with a wink and a nod. This occurs mostly where someone may have inadvertently expressed an opinion that they realise may be just a little too controversial for the public palate. Mostly, certainly at a regional level, the press are pretty accommodating, in large part, I would suggest, because they want to keep everyone on side or see their information sources dry up.

Increasingly, however, we have to work in partnership with others to achieve common aims. Who then handles the PR side of things? Who decides what message is sent out, in what format, at what point in the proceedings? You can be sure that unless a mutually binding agreement is reached one party will usually try to outdo the other, to be seen to be working harder or providing more value for money. This approach is usually brought about by fear and it is precisely this attempt to hide or distort messages that makes the public so wary and untrusting of their elected representatives, or their employers. A lot of angst could easily be avoided by a more open attitude towards communication, and fewer discussions behind closed doors until one or other party is prepared to show their hand. The general public does not like to feel that information is being withheld, or that they are being misled. The huge increase in freedom of information requests demonstrates that we have not got the balance right.

I frequently submit articles, but would never dream or trying to influence anyone over their publication, and as I don’t usually have the time to read a paper, more often than not I won’t even know if something has been published, until someone else tells me.

In the wake of the Levenson enquiry the media assert that the government is suppressing official advice over the legality of new rules to regulate the press. Apparently ministers are refusing to disclose the contents of a document on the new system of regulation, which critics say risks granting politicians control over the press for the first time in 300 years, which may breach European law. That must never be allowed to happen, either covertly or overtly.