Max Mosley: not inhibiting investigative journalism

The press reaction to the judgement in the Max Mosley case has exaggerated the judge’s sentiments, making claims that he has in effect gagged them. To many people Mosley’s actions were morally repugnant but this ruling has been about what is in the public interest not about the purity of his actions.

The Times editorial falsely claimed that ‘there is a contest between two essential points of principle: an individual’s expectation to privacy in the modern world and the importance of a free press in a civilised society. Mr Justice Eady has tipped the scales in favour of privacy over press freedom.’ The judgement, however, did not say that privacy was more important than press freedom. Instead Mr Justice Eady was drawing a view as to what is genuinely in the public interest and also making clear that when intruding into someone’s private life the press must make sure that any allegations they make are factually accurate; lets remember that there was no proof of Nazism.

Recent years have seen a decline in the amount of investigative journalism that newspapers carryout. The reason for this is not, however, because journalists have to respect the privacy of public figures. As Nick Davis illustrated in his book Flat Earth News, the reason that we are seeing less investigative journalism is due to the pressures of commercialisation in the media. As the sales of newspapers continue to fall they are being forced to operate with smaller budgets. Editors respond by streamlining their staff, meaning fewer people have to write more. The result is a less credible product which the public don’t trust and don’t buy and it’s a cycle that must be broken. More stories reporting the sex lives of public figures won’t break the cycle and the courts ruling doesn’t apply to any investigation which is in the public interest.

The key part of Justice Eady’s statement was that: “There is nothing landmark about this decision. Nor can it be suggested that the case is likely to inhibit serious investigative journalism into crime or wrongdoing, where the public interest is more genuinely engaged.”

The News of the World’s editor, Colin Myler, tried to justify the paper’s story by saying that: “Taking part in depraved and brutal S&M orgies on a regular basis does not in our opinion constitute the fit and proper behaviour to be expected of someone in his hugely influential position.” As long as Mosley’s actions were not interfering with his duties and they were not in contradiction to promises he has made then it does not matter if the News of the World believes them to ‘proper’.

Media consolidation is also having a damaging impact on the standards of investigative journalism. The Sun, also owned by News Corporation, proclaimed that ‘the result will be a less honest society in which famous people use the law to hide their misdeeds while papers are put in the dock for exposing wrongdoing.’

A more accurate leader would of read: ‘the result will be more honest, considered and vigorously researched reporting where papers will be put in the dock for lying and acting without the public interest in mind.

For too long newspapers, the tabloids especially, have been reporting what is interesting to the public and masking their motives with the principle of public interest. They must stop this of they are to regain trust and survive financially. This judgement will only help them in achieving this, although it may have no impact whatsoever.

Source: http://positivejamming.blogspot.com/2008/07/max-mosley-not-inhibiting-investigative.html