The transcripts of the official inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. More…

I don't know if I can pursue that thought. I know -- I don't want to add countries into the mix, willy nilly, but I would quite like to mention New Zealand in that context.

There's recently been a Law Commission review in New Zealand, and it's looking at where what they call new media and traditional news media collide.

What the Law Commission has asked there is: what are the privileges and the benefits that we accord to traditional media which we might think about according to new media?

They've come up with a list of those, and they're the sorts of areas where, whether you call it a privilege or a right or a benefit, where you might argue, as I think you have heard from other witnesses -- they've looked at things like defamation proceedings and whether you're arguing responsible journalism there, and maybe a public interest defence. Privacy proceedings. They've looked at protection of sources. They've looked at the privileges in terms of court proceedings, you know, access to confidential briefings.

Potentially, I think you coul add into that any areas where traditional media -- where we give a privileged position to traditional media. You could start to ask: well, who should benefit from those privileges?

So, for example, I know there have been discussions about the public interest in relation to prosecutions by the CPS, or even the public interest test that applies to cross-media ownership.

I think there's a whole network of ways in which we privilege or give a special place to the media, and in New Zealand they are asking whether those -- a bundle of rights and privileges should be extended.

What they have consulted on is whether as a quid pro quo for that you would expect new media to voluntarily or on a mandatory basis be part of a regulatory body.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech