Harry Evans yesterday delivered a lecture in New Delhi entitled "The freedom of the press in an age of violence". In the words of the blogger sans serif, he "dropped these pearls" (which I think you would all like to read):
Newspapers and broadcasting media in complex, sensitive societies like India, in particular, would not be well served by foreign ownership that is blind to the tradition and subtleties. In fact, these foreign owners see culture only as a marketplace and inevitably become a focus of resentment.
Ownership of media by conglomerates - bundles of different businesses in which the press is but one - has yet to prove a blessing to journalism anywhere. My experience and observation is that conglomerates hate the risk, expense and discord inevitable in investigations of any kind, of which the investigation of corruption and violence are the riskiest...
The risk to loss of advertising, disfavour with the authorities or with associated businesses, and of course any businesses in which the conglomerate is itself involved. Conglomerates hate the risk, expense and discord inevitable in investigations of any kind of which the investigation of corruption and violence is the riskiest.
Most of the best newspapers in the world are not owned or managed by conglomerates but by families who regard them as public trust.
Freedom of the press is a moral concept or it is nothing. Speaking personally of challenges to human rights, I would rather be photographed by a hidden surveillance camera than travel on a train or bus with men carrying bombs in their backpacks. I would regard being blown to bits on the street as less of an intrusion on privacy than having an identity card.
The snare of token patriotism should be avoided. When emotions run high, the press is all too often "tempted" to follow the official line out of a mistaken sense of patriotism.
Harry - for younger readers, the former editor of the Sunday Times, much-published author and journalism guru - is clearly punching with as much vigour as ever.
