The Problem With Freedom of Speech

This is a conundrum that could well define what the British press are going to report in the future and how: A well known television presenter was accused by Britain’s leading tabloid newspaper of having paid a rather substantial amount of money to a young person for sexually explicit photos. The story was obviously immediately picked-up by all the other media in the UK, leading to what amounts to a witch-hunt, involving in the end the his employer and two police forces, while heaping no doubt an unspeakable amount of anxiety on the family of the said presenter. So much, that in the end his wife saw herself forced to make a statement revealing his identity, quite possibly pre-empting a member of Parliament revealing the name under the mantle of parliamentary privilege. Both police forces involved have since declared that there was no cause for a criminal investigation.

You may have noticed that I deliberately do not mention the presenter’s name, this is simply because this piece is not about him or what he has done (well, not mostly anyhow), but about freedom of speech in general and about the power of the media – and the havoc they can create.

The first question that needs to be asked is, whether it is in the public’s interest to be served up all the gory details of the story, based on a source which in itself is not unquestionable, and without hearing the other parties’ version of events. Now to an extent that was to be expected: tabloids are all about lurid stories and high circulation, after all that’s what sells. But shouldn’t journalists be more aware of the power the yield as far as the impact a story and its timing can have on the people and organisations involved? Or are they aware but don’t care?

The next question that needs asking is the role of the presenter’s employer: It seems they were informed of the allegations back in May already but seemingly did nothing about it (what ultimately led to the parent’s of the young person contacting the tabloid… and the young person themselves denying the version of events). Allegations of a sexual nature and against a prominent and well respected tv host should be reason enough to start an internal investigation straight away. And if it isn’t (which it clearly wasn’t), what is? Had the employer done his job, the story probably wouldn’t have broken – or at least not in the way it did. Is it too long already since the #MeToo movement? Clearly their internal processes failed miserably – if there were any in the first instance.

The next question again concerns mostly the broadcaster: Why, even after the initial story broke by the tabloid, did it take several days until they spoke with their host? Why didn’t the broadcaster’s executives not immediately address the media? In business we learn that immediate damage control – and particularly coming clean and explaining what steps are being taken to address the problem – is crucial not only to calm nerves but also to restore confidence. On the other hand the tabloid was apparently informed by the young person’s lawyer that they didn’t corroborate their parent’s story, yet the tabloid still went ahead with publication. The party that should have communicated didn’t and the one that better didn’t did: No doubt it would have been better for all parties involved if the two media companies had inversed their roles as far as communication is concerned.

The media, this case clearly demonstrates once more, are in a very powerful position insofar as their reporting shapes public opinion. This also means that a person’s reputation can be destroyed in the wink of an eye without the individual concerned having broken the law. And this should remind all of us once more to be more diligent in both the distribution and the interpretation not only of the information itself but also their potential consequences.