It’s not often I get something right so allow me to point out that I was one of the first people to express outrage at the West Midlands Police/CPS assault on Channel 4 over the “Undercover Mosque” programme.
Today they are in the High Court across the road from my office to apologise and pay damages. As Olive Kamm points out today even the Muslim Council of Britain thought they had gone too far.
In a way this whole fiasco suggests that Ofcom and the other organisations that impact upon media freedom can get things right. Let’s hope that the judicial authorities have taken proper note of the right balance between avoiding offence and prosecuting legitimate journalism.
Hey Charlie,
I’m not sure Ofcom did anything that admirable … or effective.
The people who were offended remain offended. It is impossible to strike a balance with someone who has been offended. Research shows that only about 3% of people actually bother to complain, so many many people are offended constantly, but never complain.
(there is no getting rid of offence! he he)
People — including the police — remain free under Ofcom’s broadcast code adjudication system to make similar complaints in the future. Even really silly complaints (filed by one person) are adjudicated alongside the meritorious ones. Even a single complaint about a Swedish language programme about elections in Sweden will get adjudicated.
So, I’m not sure Ofcom is contributing to a rational policy environment here. I think it flatters the regulator’s sense of mission and importance to be asked: ‘Was that good journalism?’ when the regulator is really incapable of making that decision with any greater degree of objectivity than your average person.
The Ofcom adjudication consists of unelected administrators making decisions about what is or what is not good journalism. While you feel that they probably got it right in this particular case, surely the fact that a non-judicial agency of the state has the power to sanction people who express their views on matters of public controversy is not a good thing?
As it does not apply to magazine or newspaper or the internet, it is not converged.
As it offers no real remedy to even successful complainants, it is ineffective.
As it sits uncomfortably alongside existing legal concepts like libel or fraud, it can contribute to inconsistent application of law.
Maybe it’s a bit like airport security — the illusion of protection satisfies the public?
BTW: I like the new website…