Sad Reading There are admirable people on the Press Council,
but I wonder if they could not employ their time more fruitfully. The annual report issued this week makes sad reading as one ploughs through the accounts of the cases of complaint referred to this august body. The main impression left on this reader at least is that of the sheer futility of the exercise. My sympathies are with the editors who have to waste their time in explanations. Only three com- plaints out of some 300 received in the year are of real interest, and two of them affected the Royal Family—although any other family or individual could equally have been the com- plainant. One concerned an invasion of privacy, and the other the interesting point as to whether it is 'fair' to comment on words that were not used: in this case, words deleted from the handout before delivery of a speech' by Princess Margaret. The Press Council held that the action of half a dozen_ newspapers in drawing attention to the omission was wrong. I think the Press Council was wrong.
One can at least agree with the Council's chairman, Lord Devlin, when he urges in his foreword reform of the libel laws with regard to the press. The introduction of a statutory defence of qualified privilege based on good faith and an adequate basis of evidence would help and not hinder responsible journalism.
Previous page
