Public rights
'Sir: Since introducing my Right of Reply in the Media Bill 1 have found that newspaper proprietors and their editors do not like it — but that the general public in fact do. Thom Robinson in a letter to the Spectator (16 July) is clearly an exception to that rule.
Dealing with my 'spurious' arguments he writes: 'Simply because Canada, West Germany, France, Denmark and most Western countries have such a law is no reason at all why Britain should adopt a similar measure'.
Mr Robinson must realise that 1 introduced this argument to answer those who say that a statutory right of reply is quite impractical. In fact it works successfully through most of Western Europe.
He admits that libel actions are expensive to complainants, but makes the excuse that all litigation is expensive. He omits to mention, as 1 have continually stressed, that legal aid is not available in actions for libel.
My real purpose, he says, is 'to give left- wing propagandists a statutory voice in free enterprise newspapers'. If newspapers tell lies or are incorrect in their facts left-wingers and right-wingers are entitled to require a correction.
I hope he will note that even editorials attacking the Bill recognise that unless press conduct greatly improves the activities of the Press Council will fail to satisfy.
Frank A llaun
1 South Drive, Manchester
Previous page
