Ken Jones, Contributor

Ken Jones

This is the second and final instalment of 'Press freedom in Parliament.' The first section yesterday traced the historical development in the British system

A newspaperman, John Wilkes, who chose to ignore the 1738 resolution was charged with seditious libel. Nevertheless, he continued campaigning for press freedom and by the turn of the 19th century such hostility was softening.

Journalists, who were forced to memorise speeches or make surreptitious notes, were allowed to take notebooks into the House, so long as they sat in the back row where they could not be seen by the Speaker. Even then, members of the House would pack the back row with their friends, so that the reporters would have to get in early or have no space in which to work.

As I write, the Press Association of Jamaica has not threatened any reprisal for what has happened on account of Michael Gordon's extremely good photographic work. However, away back in 1833, when an MP described a newspaper's report as "designedly false," parliamentary reporters resolved not to report any more of his speeches until he agreed to publicly withdraw the remark. Those gutsy journalists declared in the language of the day, "We are ready and willing to take upon ourselves personally all the consequences with which the House of Commons may think fit to visit this our determination."

More than a hundred years later, Winston Churchill may have been thinking of this when he said, "The long fight which the House had against being reported is succeeded by the long fight which it is having and going to have over being reported at all."

Note well

In 1963, the freedom of House reporters took a turn for the better when Sir Barnett Cocks, the Clerk of the House, noted that, "The rights of the journalists seem to be grudgingly given on pain of cancellation should the press once step out of line." He then added words that should be noted by the rulers of Gordon House, "At present you are tolerated but not respected which I think you ought to be as members of a great profession. You ought not to be treated as slightly suspect characters sitting up in the gallery."

Despite the advances, there are other places with incidents such as that being enacted in Jamaica. Just over two years ago the Australian Press Council challenged the action of the Speaker of the House after he had suspended the accreditation of some press photographers who had published pictures of an intruder causing some disorder in the House. Even in this case, the official justification was that the occurrence concerned a person from the gallery and was not part of the proceedings of the House.

Since then the guidelines are well understood. Photographers may not use images for advertising, for elections or for commercial purposes. Nor should their pictures be intended for ridicule or satire, which I suppose might be the lame excuse being used to push Jamaican parliamentary reporters to the wall. The Michael Gordon shot may not be good news for some, but it is definitely good news photography. It has helped provide the public with a better understanding of what actually happens in the House.

Throw-back

I believe, as might the Australian Press Council, that the overreaction caused by the Prime Minister's doodling is a throw-back to the 18th century. It fails to recognise that we the people have a right to know how our representatives conduct our business and that they should curtail their tendency to indulge in all sorts of in-camera operations. As the Australian Press Council affirms: "Democracy can only function where citizens are fully informed. It is surely the right of the public to have access, via newspapers' words and pictures, to matters of public interest and concern. Particularly those that inform them on matters related to the legislature, the activities of government and other matters essential to an informed exercise of the franchise."

alllerdyce@hotmail.com