Right of reply
Sir: 'Is there any editor in Fleet Street prepared to operate such a system?' asks Alexander Chancellor in the Notebook of 28 May in an article attacking my Right of Reply in the Media Bill. Then, for full measure, he adds: 'Is there any reader in the land who would put up with it?' The reac- tion to my Parliamentary Bill tells me that, whilst it is not liked by the newspaper pro- prietors, it is otherwise widely popular.
Mr Chancellor ought to know that such a measure has been in operation, successful- ly, for many years in Canada, West Ger- many, France, Denmark and most Western countries. Indeed I was phoned up recently by a representative of Der Spiegel to say in his country people were amazed to learn that there was no similar right in Britain. It was a normal occurrence, he said, to see such replies published in their newspapers. Nor could it be said there had been any in- terference with the press in these countries. On the contrary it has led to more
democracy, not less.
The libel laws, writes Mr Chancellor, already look more than adequately after those 'who had been lied about or calum- niated in a newspaper'. Unfortunately only wealthy people can afford to sue a newspaper. It is an extremely expensive business, and legal aid is not available to those involved in legal cases.
The Right of Reply Bill is no panacea. So long as the British press remains in the hands of the Murdochs, the Matthews and the Rothermeres, so long as it is overwhelm- ingly opposed to the Labour, trade union and peace movements, so long will the bias remain. The Bill is a limited reform aimed to give some protection to those unfairly misrepresented in the press. Whilst I do not expect a government headed by Mrs That- cher to pass such a law, I am confident it will come.
Frank A llaun
I South Drive, Manchester
Previous page
