The collective disbelief of millions of British people and right-thinking people in cyberspace was palpable during the past two weeks in which the Press, the police and the politicians have been on public trial on issues concerning the invasion of privacy of ordinary and not so ordinary citizens.
Rupert Murdoch’s publishing empire, News International, the owner of The Times, Sunday Times, News Of The World and The Sun newspapers, was in the docks as two committees of Parliament investigated the “hacking” into the emails and phones of British citizens by the News Of The World.
On top of this, there were allegations of policemen being paid money by the paper for scoops, and a more than cozy relationship between Scotland Yard and the News Of The World, but the main “attraction”, so to speak, was the cozy “in the same bed” relationship between the Press and the British politicians on both sides.
The issues at stake are grave and weighty. Edmund Burke, an 18th century political theorist and longstanding Member of Parliament, declared many years ago that the Press was the most important of the four estates in the British realm.
Out of control
One hundred years later, in 1891, Oscar Wilde, a man whose perception was pellucidly clear, declared that the Press had become the only estate and that it had “eaten up the other three”. The question at stake during recent “troubles” was whether Wilde was right on the money.
Is the Press out of control? Is it a law unto itself?
The duty of the Press as the Fourth Estate is to protect the public interest by holding the feet of the politicians to the fire, and keeping the exercise of political power under constant scrutiny.
The Press is therefore an essential part of the system of democratic governance, a key point which some journalists do not get.
In many respects, the Press is the ultimate safeguard which the voter has, because bringing wrongdoing to public attention is something which the politician fears.
That is why dictators and those who overthrow governments seize control of the Press at an early stage of the coup.
It is therefore a matter of the gravest import if the Press abandons its watchdog role and leaves the people to the mercy of the political class, or whether the Press spins out of control, for a democracy is in grave danger when either event happens.
Dangers
These clear and present dangers exist even when there are many newspapers and other communications media; for as in the present case, rogue elements of the Press may be called to account by their peers, as the British Guardian newspaper has done.
But the dangers are even more serious when there are few newspapers in a particular country because a ‘corrupt’ political system may then flourish unabated in the absence of the clear discovery and focus of the journalistic searchlight.
Overfamiliarity between politicians and the Press is something to be avoided, even though the relationship has to be a symbiotic one if the Press is to do its vital job of scrutinizing the political estates, and the politicians are to do their job of keeping the public informed. The relationship has to be very carefully balanced!
It is for this reason that the judgment of Prime Minister David Cameron has been called into question. David Coulson, who was editor of the News Of The World at the time when the “hacking” allegations were first raised years ago, was hired by Mr Cameron as his director of communications when he became prime minister.
The lesson is clear. Journalists and politicians do themselves a major injustice if they cultivate the kind of cozy relationship which seems to have been developed between some British journalists and members of the British political class.
Given the important public roles of both these “estates” in the sphere of political governance, their mutual relationships must be carefully balanced; for if this is not done, they may both find that uncomfortable truths once disclosed, will show that they have compromised their vital duties to the public.
