The Price of a Free Press

What surprises me is that anyone still believes that we have a 'free press' in the first place.  Yet that's the rallying call the newspaper moguls and editors are using in the wake of the Leveson report, raising the spectre of a state-regulated press.  Even if that's not what Leveson is recommending.  Indeed, his proposals are modest indeed, recommending legislation only in order to give a new press regulatory body teeth, and balancing that with a proposal for 'freedom of the press' to be enshrined in the constitution and thereby guaranteed by government.  None of which would threaten the 'freedom of the press'.  Rather it would strengthen it.  But, as I noted at the beginning, this presupposes that we actually have a 'free press' here in the UK.  Which is questionable.  Let's face it, most of the UK's national newspapers are owned by a small number of individuals.  More to the point, its largest selling titles are effectively owned by one person: Murdoch.

Whilst I'm not saying that the likes of Murdoch use their titles to pursue their personal interests, there can be no doubt that his titles (and many other non-Murdoch paper) have a clear political agenda.  A clear right-wing establishment agenda which involves demonising immigrants, branding the poor and benefit claimants 'scroungers' and ridiculing anything that isn't white and middle class.  To be honest, with the outrageous bias shown by the overwhelming majority of our print press, I'm amazed that anyone other than the Tories ever win elections in the UK.  Quite how this constitutes a 'free press' I don't know.  Free from what?  Compassion?  Intelligence?  Imagination?  Radical thought?  Courage?  I would question why anyone would think our so-called 'free press' - in reality one of the most reactionary institutions in this country, apparently on a mission to stifle progress, free thought and innovation - worth preserving in its present form?