Privacy and Media Intrusion in a Democratic Society: Britain and the Calcutt Reports

Democratization

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 62-84

  Cloonan, Martin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0345829526     PISSN: 13510347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13510349808403559     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Carl J. Friedrich, 'Secrecy versus Privacy', in J.R. Pennock and J.W. Chapman, Privacy (New York: Atherton Press, 1971), p. 107 (added emphasis).
2. Throughout this article the term 'the press' refers to national daily and Sunday newspapers.
3. Calcutt's investigations covered England and Wales as Scotland has its own legal system and particular restrictions apply to Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, the reports have implications for the whole of Britain.
4. See conclusion.
5. See Part III.
6. David Calcutt, Review of Press Self Regulation (London: HMSO Cm.2135, 1993), 4.43.
7. David McKie, 'Self-Regulation and the Calcutt Report', Index on Censorship, No.7 (1990), p.2.
8. Raymond Snoddy, The Good, The Bad and The Unacceptable (London: Faber & Faber, 1992), p.93.
9. In addition to Calcutt, a Q.C. and Master of Magdalene College Cambridge, the members of the Committee were: Simon Jenkins, a Times journalist who became editor before the report was published; David Eady, a lawyer; John Spencer, lecturer in law at Cambridge University; John Cartwright, SDP MP; Sheila Black, a businesswoman; and Professor John Last, director of the Charities Trust and a former lay member of the Press Council.
10. Committee on Privacy, Report (London: HMSO Cm 1102. 1990), 1.3.
11. The Guardian (10 Jan. 1994).
12. Committee on Privacy, 4.8.
13. Snoddy, p.99.
14. Ibid., p. 102.
15. See Part III.
16. Committee on Privacy, recommendation 11.
17. Ibid., 6.36.
18. ABE, Media Freedom and Media Regulation (London: Association of British Editors, 1994), pp.27/28.
19. See Snoddy, pp.105 and 107.
20. Alan Doig, 'The Double Whammy: The Resignation of David Mellor, MP', Parliamentary Affairs, Vol.46. No.2 (1993), p.171.
21. Committee on Privacy, 3.18.
22. Calcutt, 3.1.
23. The Independent (11 Jan. 1993).
24. ABE, p.26.
25. Friedrich, op. cit., p.115.
26. Ferdinand D. Schoeman, Privacy and Social Freedom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p.121.
27. Alan Westin, 'The origins of the modern right to privacy', in Ferdinand D. Schoeman (ed.), Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp.56-9.
28. Cited by Michael A. Weinstein, 'The Uses of Privacy', in J.R. Pennock and J.W. Chapman (ed.), Privacy (New York: Atherton Press, 1971), p.90.
29. See ibid., pp.89-93.
30. Committee on Privacy, 3:2.
31. Judith Jarvis Thomson, 'The Right to Privacy', in Ferdinand D. Schoeman (ed.), Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p.272.
32. Committee on Privacy, 3.7.
33. Ibid., 3.8.
34. Liberty, Review of Press Self-Regulation: Submission to Sir David Calcutt QC (London: Liberty 92/13, 1992), pp.7 and 17.
35. Committee on Privacy, 3.21.
36. Ibid., 3.24.
37. Calcutt, 4.37.
38. Ibid., 4.40.
39. Committee on Privacy, 12.23.
40. Ibid., 3.23.
41. Calcutt, 4.67, emphasis Cloonan.
42. Geoffrey Robertson, People Against The Press (London: Quartet Books, 1983), p.90.
43. ABE, 4.9.
44. Liberty, p.13.
45. Committee on Privacy, 13.8.
46. Calcutt, 4.34.
47. Doig, op. cit., p.173.
48. Roy Greenslade, 'Sneaky Look in the Mirror', Guardian (8 Nov. 1993), Part II, p.15.
49. Committee on Privacy, 2.6.
50. House of Commons Debates, 17 July 1995, col.1335 (added emphasis).
51. See, for example, The Guardian editorial (8 Sept. 1997) and Snoddy, p.16.
52. See, for example, W.L. Weinstein 'The Private and the Free: A Conceptual Inquiry', in J.R. Pennock and J.W. Chapman (ed.), Privacy (New York: Atherton Press, 1971), p.40. and Schoeman, p.166.
53. At the time of writing the government was proposing to introduce Freedom of Information legislation.
54. The idea of a 'hot line' was devised by the Committee as a means by which people who believed that a forthcoming press article would invade their privacy could ring up the PCC and inform them of this prior to publication. This was the only form of 'prior restraint' that the Committee was willing to endorse.
55. Calcutt, 3.94.
56. Ibid., p.xi.
57. Ibid., 5.23.
58. ABE, 5.12.
59. Ibid., 5.3.
60. See Part IV.
61. David Mellor, 'The Diet of Worms', The Guardian (14 March 1994), Part II, p.6.
62. Liberty, p.8.
63. Committee on Standards in Public Life, Standards in Public Life Volume I (London: HMSO Cm. 2850-I, 1995), pp.15-16.
64. The Guardian (21 Jan. 1996).
65. See Department of National Heritage, Privacy and Media Intrusion: The Government's Response (London: HMSO Cm. 2918, 1995).
66. Calcutt, 3.3.
67. Robertson, p.63.
68. ABE, p.11.
69. Committee on Privacy, 1.5.
70. The Independent (22 Jan. 1993).
71. The PCC also redrafted its Code of Practice in July 1993 and April 1995. Every time the public has been assured that the new Code is the answer to press excesses. Every time those excesses have continued.
72. Calcutt, 2.7.
73. Committee on Privacy, 4.8.
74. The Guardian (8 Sept. 1997).
75. Snoddy, op. cit., p.109.
76. Roy Greenslade, 'Change the Front Page ... and Your Heart', The Guardian (8 Sept. 1997), p.7.
77. Andrew Neil, 'World Full of Hypocrisy', The Guardian (8 Sept. 1997), media section, p.4.
78. Cited by Mervyn Jones, Privacy (London: David & Charles, 1974), p.173.