Why do politicians still not grasp the difference between regulation and censorship?
Theresa May, the Home Secretary
We should be very wary of the home office’s plans to give Ofcom the power to vet programmes before they are broadcast, warns Raymond Snoddy.
Politicians rarely have a well-tuned sense of history – except perhaps for judging their place in it when it comes to writing memoirs.
You would think David Cameron would have learned something from the past. After all he studied history at university.
Apparently not.
There is such a rich vein of history to consult on the relationship between the media and television coverage in particular and portrayal of extremism, or terrorism to be more precise.
You really ought to be able to learn something from history from the rows between Margaret Thatcher and broadcasters over both the IRA and security.
The simple lesson is this: heavy-handed attempts to limit freedom of expression in a democracy, in a misguided attempt to deny terrorists “the oxygen of publicity,” is usually counter-productive and often turns to farce.
Yet Cameron is ploughing ahead in support of Home Secretary Theresa May and her plans to censor television stations as part of new planned counter-terrorism measures.
One of the silliest things Mrs Thatcher was responsible for – despite the considerable competition – was to prevent supporters of the Provisional IRA in Sein Fein, itself a legal party, from appearing on television.
Instead actors voiced the views of the likes of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, who have subsequently shaken many illustrious hands.
Apart from the inevitable element of absurdity, the outcome was of course to attract more attention to their views than if they had not been specially singled out.
Then there was the Death on the Rock row after the Thames Television documentary showed, convincingly, that three would-be IRA bombers were shot without warning, or while attempting to surrender.
You will remember that two days before transmission, the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, called the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) asking for what would be a lengthy postponement of the showing on the flimsy grounds that an inquest might be prejudiced.
The IBA, in a decision that may have helped to seal its ultimate fate, gave the go-ahead for the broadcast and, later, an independent inquiry largely vindicated Thames Television.
History shows that the outcome is always the same when politicians try to block a broadcast or a story.
Hugely disproportionate attention is attracted; usually publication or transmission goes ahead even if it’s after a delay; the world does not end and politicians end up with egg on their face. It’s surely a very simple lesson to master.
The key to the issue, is grasping the difference between regulation and censorship.
Regulation, or self-regulation depending on the medium, is the application of a set of rules and guidelines in a way that breaches can be punished after the event.
Pre-publication or pre-broadcast intervention is just censorship and that is something that Cameron, with his previous appreciation of where the Rubicon is and why it must not be crossed, should realise.
But there he goes again with his ill-thought out words – the proposals are “extremely sensible” and need to be put in place.
“Ofcom has got a role to make sure we don’t broadcast extremist messages through our media as well,” said Cameron.
Surely history is already starting to repeat itself?
Two things have changed since ancient IBA times – the nature of terrorism and the arrival of the Internet.
IRA bombers wanted to let off bombs and be in their favourite boozer for a pint or two afterwards. When they blew themselves up it was an accidental “own goal.”
The suicide bombers of Islamic State are something else and almost certainly beyond the reach of reason or rational discourse.
But where exactly is the evidence that any broadcaster is deliberately and gullibly falling for IS propaganda? If anything the debate should be more about where the line should be drawn on sanitising the barbarity of IS and the threat they ultimately pose to secular, democratic societies.
It would be shocking indeed if the May-Cameron axis were to in any way limit a proper exploration of what the IS phenomenon means for all of us and have any of such reporting censored in advance.
The Internet has of course changed everything and IS has been extremely clever in manipulating the potential, both for propaganda and recruitment.
As most of this poison originates outside the UK is there anything meaningful that UK legislation can do to staunch the flow?
Unlikely, and anyway, what has any of this to do with established broadcasters in the UK?
The interesting thing is how much the recently promoted Sajid Javid learned while Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
The out-going Culture Minister told Cameron he was unable to support the Home Secretary’s plans to vet the programmes of British broadcasters in advance of transmission.
The plan to give Ofcom the power to take pre-emptive action against programmes that included “extremist content” would, Javid wrote, turn Ofcom from a regulator “into the role of a censor.”
Such action would be a fundamental shift in the way that broadcasting is regulated in the UK and a move away from post-transmission regulation, which takes account of freedom of expression.
Wise words from Javid – although he seems to have backtracked somewhat – but he is now Business Secretary. We can only hope that his replacement, John Whittingdale, will hit the ground running and be similarly robust in his views.
Quite apart from the important principles, how on earth do you pre-vet live breaking news 24 hours a day?
How can anyone think that bungled “solutions” to the problems of terrorism from the 1980s could be in any way relevant to the current situation given the endless depth and range of the Internet.
The only way forward – and it may not be ideal – is to continue to argue the case for democracy and a secular way of life and that may involve broadcasters sometimes talking to people whose views may appear abhorrent.
It would be sad if David Cameron, having got press self-regulation right – after a wobble or two – should celebrate winning an overall majority by bringing in pre-censorship of broadcasting in this country.
If so, it’s time to engage in another battle in defence of freedom of expression.