Given how roughly he was treated by the press it’s not a surprise that Neil Kinnock still thirsts for revenge against tormentors. On the other hand, his appearance on the Today programme this morning when he called for the free press to be suppressed or otherwise outlawed demonstrated that, actually, the press was right to monster him all thos eyears ago.
Bagehot says all that needs to be said about Kinnock’s ideas which can best be categorised as looopy when they’re not sinister and vice versa. This, however, was a truly remarkable statement:
What [the rules] require is balance and I think that is all that anyone would possibly ask for in terms of freedom of expression… if we could have a balanced press without any form of public responsibility, that would be wonderful. What we have seen develop over the decades is a system of concentration of ownership, which has thrown into the real independence of the press…I would be the last to argue for any tightness of regulation…I would be very happy if we could ensure that there wasn’t a political predetermination to the extent of prejudice, that newspaper proprietors seek to infect others with, and secure deference to, we would live in a much freer country, of course we would.
Britain’s best politics newsletters
You get two free articles each week when you sign up to The Spectator’s emails.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in