Jeremy Corbyn has been urged to clarify his position on press freedom in the UK after appearing to deliver a veiled threat to the industry.
The Labour leader last week hit back at recent national newspaper coverage of alleged meetings with a former Czech spy during the 1980s.
In a video statement Mr Corbyn said: “A free press is essential for democracy and we don’t want to close it down.”
But in what was seen as an attack on the press barons he added: “We’ve got news for them, change is coming.”
Now the Society of Editors has called on Mr Corbyn to clarify what plans his party has to control the media if it wins power.
Executive Director Ian Murray said: “The Society of Editors does not align itself with any political party nor stance, however we do stand for a free press, a self-regulated press, and we are concerned that in his statement Mr Corbyn appears to be suggesting Labour have plans to change the media landscape in the UK.
“If that is the case then we would ask him to clarify what those proposed changes are and to urge him to resist any temptation to attempt to silence voices that may be opposed to his point of view through press restrictions.”
“The media in the UK is rightly held up as a beacon of freedom throughout the world, particularly in those countries where politicians and rulers close down any voices of opposition to their power.
“While we are pleased to note that Mr Corbyn recognises the role of a free press in a free society, he has also announced that Labour does have plans to change the media landscape in some way.
“The Society calls on Mr Corbyn to explain what changes his party has in mind so that these can be openly debated.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
About time someone regulated the press. It clearly can’t be trusted to regulate itself.
Report this comment
Really? The responsible local press has nothing to fear from proper regulation. Disappointing to see the SoE doing the bidding of those papers who bring our industry into disrepute.
Report this comment
We have to learn to differentiate between elements of Fleet Street and the genuine press here, as they’re all too willing to hide behind things like press freedom when it suits them.
Press Freedom should allow you to investigate a council scandal and report it, it shouldn’t allow you to hack phones and infiltrate a dead kid’s wedding so you can take pictures.
Elements of our national media are among the most depraved and immoral in the western world, and that’s coming from someone who loves the newspaper industry.
Report this comment
“The responsible local press has nothing to fear from proper regulation.”
Total and utter nonsense. This comment demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Section 40, which Labour backs, will force the ‘responsible local press’ to pay all of both sides’ legal costs, even if the lawsuit is completely frivolous and the newspaper wins.
Just one of two frivolous cases would be enough to close down many local and regional newspapers.
Report this comment
Press freedom doesn’t allow people to hack phones, Jeff, and nobody is arguing that it does. But phone-hacking is a criminal offence and therefore has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with regulation.
But you lost me completely at ‘dead kid’s wedding’.
Report this comment
Its laughable. Comrade Corbyn is so fond of the free press the week allegations surface about his ties to the Czeck Secret Service he starts making threats. As the stories are “lies and smears” we should all look forward to his commencing legal proceedings against the titles concerned.
Report this comment
TwisV – except that’s not true is it? If the local press signs up to the arbitration process, any costs will be minimal. The only outlets that would have a reason not to do this are those who seek to abuse the ‘freedom’ they enjoy.
And I do know what I’m talking about thanks – I worked in a variety of roles in the local press and would not have felt remotely threatened in my work from proper regulation but I would welcome victims of those few ‘journalists’ who give my profession a bad name having some form proper redress, rather than a long and expensive court case after which a front-page libel is retracted via a one-page correction on page 43.
Fortunately, most people can see the difference.
Report this comment