Mixed messages on the media and journalism from UK government

The sound, fury and partisan debate over the UK budget, American elections, Ukraine and the Middle East – just for starters – has drowned out some important comments about media freedom, journalism and artificial intelligence from the UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer.

Writing in The Guardian at the end of October, he managed to convey the right sentiments without actually making any firm commitments, a hallmark of his political style. Some of his comments seem to jar against what his government is doing – or not doing in some cases.

His comments on SLAPPs – Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation – epitomise this problem.

In his article, Starmer condemned the use of this legal strategy to “intimidate journalists away from their pursuit of the public interest”, adding that “Such behaviour is intolerable and we will tackle the use of SLAPPs to protect investigative journalism, alongside access to justice”.

Sounds all very fine until you put those remarks against those of his government’s justice minister in the House of Lords, Lord Ponsonby. He recently said the government could not commit to bringing standalone legislation on SLAPPs. Instead he promised a review.

You have to ask: why is a review necessary?

In the last Parliament the Labour MP for Caerphilly, Wayne David, put forward a Private Members Bill to deal with the outstanding issues surrounding SLAPPs. His bill was supported by the front benches of all parties but failed to make progress because of the unexpectedly early General Election. Mr David stood down at the election and no-one has picked up his well-crafted Bill.

There is no need for a review when there is already a Bill that Labour supported in opposition. It would extend the limited action against SLAPPs already contained in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act last year which only covered economic crime and was passed a year ago. It created a robust legal framework for removing this tactic from the arsenal of the rich, powerful and corrupt. Its scope just needs to be extended. 

The pieces are already in place. In just needs the political will to pick them up and fashion them into legislative action.

No clarity on AI
There is a similar problem with the Prime Minister’s comments on artificial intelligence, especially the way big tech is stealing copyright material to train its AI platforms. In his desperation to make the UK welcoming to big tech, he has suggested that the owners of copyright material should have to opt out of allowing their content to be used, rather than retain full control over their work, putting them in a position to deal with big tech on a more equal footing and ensure fair payment for the use of original material.

This is one of many aspects of AI that will have a profound impact on how people source and access news. The established media has much to offer the AI world and many opportunities to use it positively but not if they are denied revenue that should be legitimately theirs.

Those of us in the media in the UK can take comfort from Prime Minister’s strong statements in favour of press freedom and the acknowledgment of the crucial role of independent journalism as one of the cornerstones of democratic society. That is worth having in a world where so many governments are turning against the media, seeking to supress and control it, often violently.