By John McLellan, Director of Scottish Newspaper Society
NOW that Sir Cliff has won his case for a “serious invasion” of privacy against the BBC, the corporation is claiming the ruling marks a significant shift against Press freedom and the public right to know.
They may well be right, but in the BBC’s haste to restore its reputation following the Jimmy Savile disgrace, they and South Yorkshire Police have been the architects of this situation.
There is now a huge question mark over all news/police joint efforts, such as fly-on the wall documentaries and on-patrol reporting involving anyone who is not found guilty. It won’t just be “Police, Camera, Action” but in future “Police, Camera, Action, Lawyer.”
It layers another privacy protection on top of existing safeguards and for the rich and powerful it could be an easy way to prevent any reporting of investigations, and not just sensational cases involving celebrities. Any media identification of people or companies alleged to have been involved with wrong-doing could now claim their privacy is being breached and it could kill investigative journalism stone dead.
The bar of a privacy breach is far lower than that of defamation, as proved in the Naomi Campbell case when she successfully sued the Daily Mirror for breach of privacy in revealing her treatment for drug addiction despite making anti drug statements. Or Max Mosley, the motor racing chief who won his case against the News Of The World, despite the story of his involvement in an orgy with five prostitutes being true bar one fact.
For claimants, the privacy bar is already low but the over-zealous BBC has helped lower it further.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel