As the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition considers sweeping legislative changes which could have a huge impact on the way our media works, they could do worse than look around the rest of Europe to learn some lessons – good and bad. It’s no surprise that many of the worst lessons can be learned in Italy, where last week journalists staged a “Day of Silence”. Journalists across Italy refused to work in a massive protest against Silvio Berlusconi’s “Wiretapping Bill” that would ban journalists from reporting on judicial investigations.
The good lessons may be more surprising. Iceland hasn’t had a great press recently. First, the Icelanders lost our savings (at least according to sections of the tabloid press). Then they grounded our flights thanks to that unpronounceable volcano (I’m certainly not going to try and spell it, lest some pedant corrects my dodgy Icelandic).
Last month, the Icelandic parliament passed a groundbreaking resolution – creating the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative. In essence, the IMMI brings together the best bits of legislation that protect journalists and investigative journalism from across Europe. In one fell swoop, Iceland, which already always scored highly in press freedom league tables – yes, there are even league tables for that and, before you go hunting them down, Britain lies 20th with Eritrea, thus staring relegation in the face – is remarketing itself as a safe haven for journalists. Freedom of expression is not just to be a concept talked up in speeches by politicians while they clamp down on it in law, but is to be enhanced by legal protection.
The initiative is not the brainchild of some well-meaning politicians, but began as a grassroots campaign for reform as Icelanders reacted angrily to the failure of the media to properly investigate and hold to account those responsible for the country’s financial collapse. In August 2009, the RUV television station was prevented from broadcasting a story about Kaupthing Bank, which was immersed in a financial crisis. The story was based on information from Wikileaks, which specialises in getting confidential information from whistleblowers in return for guarantees of anonymity. An injunction obtained by Kaupthing Bank prevented RUV from broadcasting the item. That was the spark which lit the fire for media reform.
The IMMI draws together the most favourable media laws from across Europe and beyond – the Swedish law on the protection of sources, which makes it an offence for a journalist to reveal their source; freedom of information laws from Norway, based on the notion that all government information should be accessible unless an overwhelming case is made for it to be protected; new laws in the United States to protect media against the concept of libel tourism, where complainants choose the jurisdiction they will sue in based on the lowest threshold of proof and the highest expected windfall. Inevitably, that means England.
And the protections on offer are not just available to Icelandic journalists but to any media based in Iceland. The country hopes to attract investigative journalists like offshore havens attract tax dodgers. There is even speculation that some media companies may move servers there to keep them out of the grasping hands of those corporations and governments who want to silence media and harass journalists. Perhaps the whole Italian media could relocate.
Sponsors of the initiative say it is concern about the state of media across Europe which was at least in part a driving force for their proposals. And they cite our media– and, in particular, our libel laws – as a real concern. So they should. Britain has dozens of pieces of outdated legislation that restrict freedom of information. Last month, we celebrated the court ruling which declared the stop and search powers contained in Section 44 of the Terrorism Act – which has been used to harass photographers covering protests – to be unlawful.
The Government has announced a review of libel laws. It’s long overdue. English libel law restricts freedom of speech, because it is so costly to defend an action that the rich and famous flock to the courts in London to silence media and campaigners. So far, the resolution passed by the Icelandic parliament is not law. Legislators are grappling with how to turn the fine words into action. Iceland’s media is far from perfect. Like much of the rest of Europe, its media is owned by too few and they wield an axe – often cutting expensive investigative journalism – to protect their profits. But the Icelandic parliament has given a lead. Will Con-Dem ministers follow suit? They may talk a good line in liberty and I’d love to be proved wrong, but I just don’t believe they really mean it.
Jeremy Dear is general secretary of the National Union of Journalists
