<<
>>

CONCLUSION

Where has this exploration taken us? The ‘fourth estate’ is, at worst, a piece of linguistic trickery or, at best, a faςon de parler expressing imperfectly a cultural asset in our society.

Freedom of expression (alias press freedom) is a legal concept distinct from the right to open justice. Both rights belong separately to the citizenry. And, finally, the scope and flow of information is ours to be controlled insofar as it is necessary to protect other cultural values. Self­regulation of the press - aka the media - cannot begin to act as a protector or enhancer of these other cultural values. Something much more is needed to instil an attitude of responsibility on the part of newspaper owners, editors, journalists and all disseminators of information, whatever the medium. Regulation of the media is entirely compatible with, indeed required by, society’s commitment to the values of freedom of speech. There is a need for a new watch­dog which barks authoritatively, and, where appropriate, in stento­rian terms, but does not bite, except indirectly and influentially. Until we have thought through (or rather, re-thought) the freedom of the press in the twenty-first century (including the core issue of regulation), the status of the media will remain unclear and contro­versial. For the time being I think I have merely answered the ques­tion posed in the title to the 22nd Harry Street Lecture: press freedom is a cultural assumption, and not a constitutional right. And it certainly is not a human right, as some academic writing would seem to suggest.[234] It is a human necessity. The utterance, The Fourth Estate, is no more than journalistic rhetoric; it is at best the freedom of expression exercised invariably by the public.

<< | >>
Source: Blom-Cooper Louis. Power of Persuasion: Essays by a Very Public Lawyer. Hart Publishing,2015. — 374 p.. 2015
More legal literature on Laws.Studio

More on the topic CONCLUSION: