Product details

This is the last of a series of a three case series, (797-010-1 to 797-012-1) that can be used with the other cases in the series or on its own. The common concern of the series is the competing rights of the press (and the public''s "right to know") and those of private individuals. It was successfully used by Dr Maggie Scammell of the Department of Politics and Communications at the University of Liverpool in February 1995. It formed part of a course on various aspects of the British media for second and third year students and was used in one hour seminars. The cases would be of interest to students of British Politics and Applied Political Philosophy, as well as Media and Communication Studies students. This case culminates the series on the press, but can be used in its own right. The central issues at stake here are whether the British press should be subject to statutory control or whether it should continue to be self-regulated. Drawing upon a number of examples of press intrusion into privacy, the case describes how the system of self-regulation emerged. The two Calcutt reports of 1990 and 1993 form the backdrop to asking the students how the press should be regulated and whether attempts to restrict the excesses of the press would inevitably impinge on freedom of expression in other areas of the media. This case is probably best used in a single seminar session, provided background issues and context are clear.