P ress freedom Sir: The Home Secretary in stating that freedom
of the press is more or less sYnonomous with the right of editors in the name of the public interest to resist censorship pressures from trade unions and, mark this, those emanating from 12roPrietors, is not just mistaken but uangerously so. The mistake is in not taking rpress ' the expression 'freedom of the literally: in other words, the breed°m of an individual or a group to uY a printing press; to staff it from editor down to office cleaner with individuals of the proprietor's choice; to Print as the proprietor sees fit, subject of course to libel and D-notice restraints; fikn,allY the freedom to solicit a readers"113. The Home Secretary's mistaken view is dangerous in that it unwittingly aids and abets the slide towards a corporate state; who may I ask is to decide whether editors are exercising discretion solely out of consideration for the public interest, who defines the Public interest, and who is to allocate the esmeans of production (for printing a
pr ses are always in short supply) rnongst the many would-be editors?
That The Spectator's press correspondent specifically applauded this s2ecq ti°n of Mr Jenkins's lecture (March'
is a sure sign that his dislike of trade tbuli°ns, commendable though this may .e, has overwhelmed his critical taculties. Possibly he would be more at home working for a less p oriented journal. roprietorially Y. Kovac
—° h 1rieY Road, Twickenham, Middle
Previous page
