The press are right to tread more warily when deciding whether to publish stories approximately the private life of public figuresJohn Whittingdale is one of the lowest-profile members of David Cameron’s cabinet. Many outside Westminster will echo the ageing Duke of Wellington’s question long ago and examine “Who? Who?” when the name comes up. But the culture,media and sport secretary has essential statutory responsibilities, and news organisations hold to be keenly aware of them. He presides over the flawed but fledgling system of press self-regulation that emerged in the aftermath of the Leveson inquiry. And he is in charge of the charter renewal process for the BBC, or which,in a exact Thatcherite way, he is threatening both to weaken and control. In the media world, and Mr Whittingdale is therefore closely watched.
This explains why a storm has long been brewing and has now erupted over the decisions of several newspapers not to publish a story approximately Mr Whittingdale’s former relationship with a sex worker. Critics hold advance up with a range of machiavellian theories to explain the press’s decision to hold off on the story. Some hold charged that the press feared the culture secretary might seek revenge for having his name on the front pages. He might trigger a post-Leveson legal costs regime that was designed to force publishers into the post-inquiry royal charter system which they are boycotting. Or he could determine to reverse his decision not to go ahead with the moment part of the Leveson process,a detailed inquiry into phone hacking, which tabloid editors wish to see dead and buried.
Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com