How does lobbying affect free speech? Index on Censorship’s Head of Advocacy Michael Harris explains
Robert McCrum considers Index’s role in the history of the fight for free speech, from the oppression of the Cold War to censorship onlineThe Bahraini government spends thousands and thousands of dollars on PR companies every month. Their purpose of using such companies is simple: to project a positive image of Bahrain while also tempering any negative press coverage.
One such company is Qorvis, a Washington D.C. Based PR firm that receives a monthly stipend from the Bahraini government of 40,000 USD. They operate by attempting to influence journalists or opinion makers through the strategic placement of favourable reports defending the actions of the Bahrain government. Their methods range from circulating articles on outlets such as PR Newsire, to emailing journalists directly in order to defend the actions of the regime.
Some PR companies are also suspected of engaging in more clandestine activities, such as creating sock puppet accounts on Twitter to spread pro-regime propaganda. The revelation that BGR Gabara, yet another British PR firm reportedly working for Bahrain, planned to organise a Twitter campaign on behalf of Kazakh children exacerbated such concerns. Given that the US government are also involved in such sock puppetry, there is no reason the private sector won’t seek to profit from it.
Another dimension of PR work is minimising negative publicity. For example, the Guardian recently took down an article from its Comment is Free section after a British PR firm representing the Bahrain International Circuit made a complaint. The article, which Dragon Associates argued contained “considerable inaccuracies”, threatened to derail Bahrain’s plans to host the F1 Grand Prix this year. It has yet to be put back up, either in its original or altered form.
Perhaps the most worrying players in the murky world of PR are the likes of Olton, a British intelligence firm who officially have a contract with the Economic Development Board, but who also appear to work for Ministry of the Interior. As well as providing “reputation management”, their software is reported to be able to identify “ringleaders” through using social media such as Twitter and Facebook. Given that dozens of students were dismissed from university based on evidence garnered from their Facebook profiles, many are demanding to know who is doing the watching.
The threat posed by unscrupulous PR companies to freedom of speech should not be underestimated. It is bad enough that they distort the public sphere in exchange for money, yet it is the rise of companies like Olton that is the most alarming, for when does intelligence gathering become ‘evidence’ gathering? Furthermore, when does “reputation management” involve facilitating the silencing of those narratives that oppose the desired rhetoric of the paying client?
Marc Owen Jones is a blogger and PhD candidate at Durham University. He tweets at @marcowenjones
Index on Censorship’s event with the Hacked Off campaign and English PEN at Labour party conference was a useful exercise in ruling out possibilities. The phone hacking scandal is just one in a series that has rocked Britons’ faith in their institutions: a theme picked up by Labour leader Ed Miliband in his speech yesterday. Yet some of the solutions proposed for rebuilding faith in the fourth estate would have a disproportionate effect on freedom of expression. That’s why these events across party conference season have proved useful. Whilst there is no clear consensus on what should be done, the debate is ruling out options that would clearly be unpalatable, and slowly a middle-ground is emerging.
At our events at both Labour and Liberal Democrat conference it was evident there is a strong anti-Murdoch feeling amongst delegates. But alongside this, the consensus is that a free press is essential in holding politicians to account.
As for ruling out the unpalatable, Ivan Lewis MP, Labour’s Shadow Culture Secretary in his keynote speech to the party’s conference argued:
We need a new system of independent regulation including proper like for like redress which means mistakes and falsehoods on the front page receive apologies and retraction on the front page. And as in other professions the industry should consider whether people guilty of gross malpractice should be struck off.
The second idea provoked an immediate response. On this blog, Padraig Reidy described it as a “bizarre distortion of the idea of a free press. Roy Greenslade pointed out countries that licensed journalists included Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, King Khalifa’s Bahrain and President Nazarbayev’s Kazakhstan. Labour MP Tom Harris also sounded caution tweeting: “If a journalist commits a serious misdemeanour, they can already be sacked.” Dan Hodges, an influential Labour activist went further: “On the day of the leader’s speech we announce the state banning of journalists. Labour is ceasing to exist as a serious political party.”
It is interesting that Lewis did not float this idea at our fringe event. Though Martin Moore of the Media Standards Trust distanced his organisation from the idea, he did point out that professional registration bears a similarity to John Lloyd’s proposals for a “Journalism Society” outlined in the Financial Times in July.
However regulation moves forward, the PCC in its current form is no longer credible. One reccurring theme is that Northern & Shell (owner of the Daily Express amongst other titles) don’t even belong to this arbitrator.
At these events, English PEN and Index on Censorship have outlined how not to do press regulation. Jonathan Heawood, the Director of English PEN, has warned against imposing regulations that could constrain investigative journalism, echoing John Kampfner’s warning that the real problem is that the press find out too little rather than too much.
Heawood told the Labour meeting:
“In my five-year-old son’s language, writers of conscience around the world are the “goodies” and the News of the World journalists hacking into Milly Dowler’s voicemail are the “baddies”. The problem is: in the real world, a lot of great journalism happens in the grey area between good and bad. Anyone who thinks that we need tougher media laws in this country should realise how desperately constrained investigative journalists are already.”
Through the Libel Reform Campaign alongside Sense About Science, we have campaigned effectively for a stronger public interest defence as the existing defence in libel has not been of practical use for authors, scientists, NGOs, and citizen journalists. It’s also been pointed out that internationally, states will be watching how Britain approaches press regulation. Any impediments to free expression imposed here will make it easier for despots abroad to justify their actions, as China did when David Cameron floated the idea of banning social media during disturbances.
Public confidence in the press has been shaken. It won’t be restored by ill-considered proposals from politicians. As the Leveson inquiry begins, the focus for reform must be clearer.
You can sign the Libel Reform Campaign’s petition here (http://libelreform.org/sign)