So why has it lasted so long? It has two equally important sides with long supporting arguments. Sir Robert Fellows, the Queen’s private secretary, believes in the right to privacy and has been fighting to create a privacy law to protect the Royal Family. The government has decided to incorporate the European Convention of Human Rights into British law, which provides royal lawyers with a new method to fight for the prevention of newspapers invading the Royal Family’s privacy. Europe is ahead of Britain when it comes to human rights and the French in particular are very strict when it comes to privacy the maximum penalty being a year in jail and/or a £30 000 fine.
One of the features of Britain is a free press and this is regarded very highly by some. It is not nearly as free in many other countries such as Burma. A privacy law may provide something to hide behind for people like Neil Hamilton who, in 1996, took bribes from businessmen to ask questions about their business in the House of Commons. He was exposed by the Guardian but had there been a privacy law that may not have happened. It is also believed that the public has a right to know about the private lives of politicians and people who run the country so they can decide for themselves whether or not they are suitable for the job.
There is also controversy surrounding whether or not the press can self-regulate, although it appears that the government does want to rush in and make an unnecessary law. Following Calcutt’s first report in 1990 the newspaper industry published a Code of Conduct and replaced the Press Council with the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) which would investigate any complaints made. Criticisms were made that there were too many newspaper employees on the Commission. They also didn’t stick to the Code of Conduct. Clause seven stated that no unconsented photographs may be taken on private property unless in the public interest but this was broken almost immediately. They could also claim that just about anything was in the public interest. The Daily Mirror published photographs of Princess Diana in the gym. An invasion of privacy that is not in the public interest? Apparently not. The photos were printed to show how easy it was to endanger the Princess and the public have a right to know if their Princess is at risk, claimed the Mirror.
After the death of Diana the Code of Conduct was revised and although the Princes William and Harry were left pretty much alone, other celebrities were not so lucky. In February 1998 Nicole Kidman was photographed leaving hospital after an operation even though a hospital is a supposed “private place”. In the summer of 1998 there was eleven shots of Kate Moss and Anna Friel, mostly topless, at an Italian villa. Even this summer topless shots of Zoe Ball and Liz Hurley were printed, not to mention the uproar about the photographs of a topless Sophie Ryhs-Jones printed by the Sun. Long lens shots were banned by the PCC. They do appear to be helping in the case of the Princes, though. In October 1999 the Daily Mirror received photographs of Prince Williams bedroom at Eton taken by a student there. He had befriended William and then gone into his room and taken photographs from every angle in the hope of earning money from them. He contacted the Mirror and arranged a meeting. The Mirror “with no intention of printing them” went along with it but called the police and the man was arrested. It appeared on the front page with a large headline making it seem like a paper who would not do anything to harm the Princes. The Palace even sent a thank you note but this could be seen as cashing in on a serious problem.
The PCC is reactive rather than proactive which means it only responds to complaints and doesn’t take the initiative to investigate a problem unprompted. This isn’t very effective, as if a person’s privacy has been invaded they don’t want to attract more media attention by launching a complaint.
Louis Blom-Cooper is the ex-chairman of the Press Council and has made some very controversial remarks about the PCC saying that it does not serve the public interest and that a new commission called the Press Commission should replace it. He said that the Press Council was much better that the PCC as it did serve the public interest. But given that his Council was closed down he might be biased and bitter.
Even though editors insist that they are only thinking about the public all they really care about is sales and they will do anything to get them. If the opportunity to boost sales, in the form of an intrusive but juicy story, is available then the possibility of a complaint to the PCC isn’t going to make much difference. The newspapers have unstable sales figures, which along with the price war means that editors really have to try to keep the circulation up.
The newspapers are also a very powerful medium and can make or break a person’s career especially if they have a dodgy past like John Profumo, who was exposed by a newspaper and never worked in politics again. Because of this politicians are reluctant to speak up, as they don’t want to risk making enemies.
We are now left waiting to see what effects the Human Rights Act will have and if this problem can ever be solved. But if the public continue to buy newspapers with these intrusive stories in them then they will keep being printed. If something is in demand someone will always be there to provide no matter what it is. One thing is for sure, that it will never become any less controversial because whenever one side comes up with a new argument the other has an equally good defending one.
