30 May 12 | Middle East and North Africa
The Manouba-based headquarters of privately Tunisian owned TV network, Elhiwar Ettounsi (Tunisian Dialogue), were attacked early Sunday morning.
Taher Ben Hassine, the channel’s chief, told Radio Mosaïque FM that the attackers “vandalised everything”. He said:
History is repeating itself; Ben Ali thugs attacked our headquarters, and burned computers. We elected a national constituent assembly, to protect people, draft a new constitution, and improve the country’s situation, but the situation now is even worse…
Elhiwar Ettounsi was launched in 2003, and succeeded in broadcasting for a few hours per week despite the Ben Ali regime’s tight control over the media sector. Like any other independent media during that era, the channel faced censorship and financial restrictions.
According to a report released by the station, the attackers also stole video recording equipment and laptops. The station condemned the attack as “a subjugation attempt” — but did not make any specific accusations — opting instead to await the results of police investigations.
“We, Elhiwar Ettounsi channel team, do not accuse any party, and we believe that law which is above all, will take the course of justice” the channel said in a statement made on their official Facebook page.
Some have speculated that members of Tunisia’s hardline Islamist Salafis might be responsible for the attacks. National Syndicate for Tunisian Journalists (SNJT) board member Zied Heni pointed out to Radio Mosaïque FM that the attacks “took place following the channel’s broadcast of reports illustrating Salafi groups committing crimes. Elhwiar Ettounsi was among few media outlets to report on such crimes”.
29 May 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Education secretary Michael Gove gave a staunch defence of press freedom at the Leveson Inquiry today.
“By definition, free speech doesn’t mean anything unless some people are going to be offended some of the time,” Gove said, saying he was “unashamedly” allied with “those who say we should think very carefully about regulation.”
“The case for regulation needs to be made strongly before we curtail liberty,” Gove said, adding that he felt the existing laws of the land were sufficient to deal with miscreant reporters.
“The experience we have of regulation is that sometimes good intentions result in the curtailment of individual freedom and an unrealistic expectation of how individuals behave,” he said, noting that on occasion regulation had been sought to “deal with failures of character or morality”.
In a tense exchange with Lord Justice Leveson, Gove attacked what he saw as a “tendency to meet a particular crisis, scandal or horror with an inquiry”, and expressed his “fear for liberty” if principles of free speech were to be eroded with tougher regulation.
Leveson went head-to-head with Gove, a former Times leader writer, responding: “Mr Gove, I don’t need to be told about the importance of free speech. I really don’t.”
Gove has previously spoken of his fear that the Inquiry, launched last summer to examine press standards in the wake of the phone hacking scandal, had created a “chilling atmosphere towards freedom of expression”.
However he did not deny the judge’s suggestion of substantial public concern over questionable press behaviour, arguing that it had “pre-dated the last 50 years”.
Elsewhere in his evidence, which he peppered with references to the Roman republic and quotations in Latin, Gove was unapologetic about his contacts with other media figures, stressing he tried to exercise “appropriate judgment on all occasions”. He referred to Rupert Murdoch as “one of the most impressive and significant figures” of the last half-century, and said it was “fascinating” to meet media proprietors Viscount Rothermere and Richard Desmond.
Discussing a 19 May 2010 dinner with Murdoch, ex-News International CEO Rebekah Brooks and others at Murdoch’s flat shortly after the formation of the coalition government, Gove said the group discussed education. He added that he had no recollection of discussing Murdoch-owned News Corp’s bid for full control of satellite broadcaster BSkyB at a June 2010 lunch with NI executives, adding that no-one had told him of the bid before its launch later that month.
Asked by counsel Robert Jay QC why the public held politicians and journalists in low esteem, Gove chirped: “‘Twas ever thus.”
Also speaking today was home secretary Theresa May MP, who discussed interim guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) on media-police relations, which were based on “a shift to a blanket non-acceptability” of anything other than “light refreshments and trivial and inexpensive gifts”.
May said the guidance, which ACPO says aim to provide “common sense” principles for officers to follow, would provide greater clarity and consistency about press-police relations, rather than having a “chilling effect”.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow with evidence from justice secretary Ken Clarke and business secretary Vince Cable.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
28 May 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Tony Blair defended his infamous courting of the press at the Leveson Inquiry today, describing it as a “strategic decision” to avoid the wrath of British media groups.
Blair, prime minister from 1997 to 2007, said he was not afraid of taking on the media, but was aware that if he did so he would be mired in a “long protracted battle that will shove everything else to the side.”
During his day-long evidence, which was interrupted by a protester breaking into the courtroom and branding him a “war criminal”, Blair said as a political leader he decided he would “manage that relationship [with the press] and not confront it.”
He repeatedly cited the Daily Mail as attacking him and his family “very effectively”, and slammed the “full-frontal” attacks launched on senior politicians by some sections of the press as “an abuse of power”
“If you fail to manage major forces in the media, the consequences are harsh,” Blair said, adding later that his sole piece of advice to any political leader would be to have a “solid media operation”.
“With any of these media groups, you fall out with them and you watch out,” he said, “because it is literally relentless and unremitting once that happens.”
Blair outlined to the Inquiry, which is currently examining relations between politicians and the press, that ties between the two would inevitably involve “closeness”. These would become unhealthy, he said, “when you were so acutely aware of the power exercised that you got into a situation where it became essential and crucial to have that interaction.”
He said the “imbalance of power” in the relationship was more problematic than the closeness.
However, he defended himself and his party as having “responded” to a phenomenon of media-political closeness than having created it, conceding later that they were “sometimes guilty of ascribing to them [the press] a power that they do not really have.”
His close ties with media mogul Rupert Murdoch are well-documented, with the Murdoch-owned Sun famously backing the Labour party ahead of its landslide win in the 1997 general election. Blair famously flew out to Hayman Island, Australia in 1995 to address Murdoch and News Corp executives, and in 2010 became godfather of Murdoch’s daughter.
When Lord Justice Leveson put it to Blair that the 1995 trip was a “charm offensive”, Blair defended it as a “deliberate” attempt to elicit the support of the Murdoch titles.
“My minimum objective was to stop them tearing us to pieces. My maximum objective was to try and get their support,” he said.
Quizzed about whether the prospect of needing to meet Murdoch in January 1997 had “angered” him, as suggested in Alastair Campbell’s diaries, Blair agreed this was his view and was how he would define the “unhealthy” part of the press-politicians relationship. Such meetings mattered, Blair said, “because the consequence of not getting it right was so severe.”
Yet he stressed he did not “feel under pressure from commercial interests from the Murdoch press or from anybody else”, and denied there were any express or implied deals with him or any other media group.
Blair added that policy was never changed during his time in government as a result of Murdoch, and that his decision not to launch an inquiry into cross-media ownership was not a means of appeasing the News Corp boss. Their relationship until he left office in 2007 was a “working” one, Blair emphasised.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow, with evidence from education secretary Michael Gove and home secretary Theresa May.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
25 May 12 | Leveson Inquiry
A senior civil servant said today that culture secretary Jeremy Hunt’s former aide was drawn into a “web of manipulation and exaggeration” in the circumstances surrounding News Corp’s bid for a full takeover of BSkyB.
Jonathan Stephens, Permanent Secretary at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) told the Leveson Inquiry this afternoon that special adviser Adam Smith, who resigned after a series of emails between the department and News Corp revealed that the company was being given advance feedback of the government’s scrutiny of the bid, was “inadvertently drawn beyond what he intended to do”.
Stephens, who confirmed he had told Hunt he felt Smith should resign due to the level of “clearly inappropriate” level of contact between the department and News Corp, said it was “matter of intense regret” that the episode occurred. Lord Justice Leveson suggested it was a “calamity” for the DCMS.
“I thought the nature, context, extent and depth of the emails meant this was far beyond what could be considered appropriate,” Stephens told the Inquiry.
He added that he was aware Smith had been in touch with the corporation, but did not know News Corp lobbyist Frederic Michel was his individual point of contact.
Events over the past month have left Jeremy Hunt fighting for his political life. Yesterday a crucial memo came to light that Hunt had sent to David Cameron in support of News Corp’s £8bn bid for control of the satellite broadcaster, sent one month before he was handed the task of adjudicating the bid in December 2010.
In the memo Hunt emphasised to Cameron that it would be “totally wrong to cave in” to the bid’s opponents, and that business secretary Vince Cable’s decision to refer the bid to regulator Ofcom could leave the government “on the wrong side of media policy”.
It was also revealed that his department and News Corp had exchanged 1,000 text messages, 191 phone calls and 158 emails as the bid was under scrutiny from June 2010 to July 2011.
Over the past two days, Smith has been scrutinised about his contact with Michel, and expressed regret for the “perception of collusion” the contact created.
He revealed today that once the emails between him and News Corp were released at the end of April, Hunt had reassured him he would not need to resign, only to be told by him the next day, “everyone here thinks you need to go”.
He resigned from his post last month following the emails’ release, conceding that his contact with News Corp “went too far”.
Hunt, who is scheduled to face questioning over the matter at the Inquiry next Thursday, has contended he acted impartially and within the ministerial code. Today David Cameron said he does not regret handing the bid to Hunt, stressing he acted “impartially”.
The Inquiry continues on Monday.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
