The Press: French and American Revolution: John Wilkes

John Wilkes was born in Clerkwell, London on 17th October 1725, died 26th December 1797 and was known for his involvement in politics and radical journalism. 

Wilkes was first elected a Member of Parliament in 1757 and his most prominent political achievements included his involvement in the Middlesex election dispute where he supported the voice of the voters rather than the House of Commons when determining their representatives. In 1771 he was responsible for encouraging the government to agree to the right of printers to publish word for word accounts of parliamentary debates. In 1776 Wilkes brought forward the first Bill for British parliamentary reform. Being seen to be an English radical he was constantly seeking political transformation and in favour of change within the British government. 

During his time in Parliament Wilkes was highly influential on matters concerning the American Revolution and views inspired Dutch politician Joan van der Capellen tot den Pol (1741–1784), a supportive of the American Revolution and Wilkes’ ideals. British people living in American colonies leading up to the revolution followed Wilkes’ career. His views concerning corruption within the British constitution contributed to the initiation of the American Revolution, as colonies began to reject the authority of the British Parliament because they had no representation within it. 

It was Wilkes’ views concerning British Parliament of the time that lead to his radical journalism. In 1762, when John Stuart, Third Earl of Bute, headed the government, Wilkes began to write a weekly publication, The North Briton. In this publication he heavily criticised John Stuart. Wilkes then also progressed to defame George III’s speech concerning the Paris Peace Treaty of 1763. He was critical of the speech because Stuart had written it. Consequently Wilkes  was charged with libel and the King ordered the arrest of Wilkes and his publishers. Forty-nine people were arrested in total, as a result of Wilkes’ radical journalism. 

Another notable contribution Wilkes made to journalism was the protection of the freedom of the press. In 1774 he became Lord Mayor of London and, as before mentioned, he persuaded the government to allow the press to report verbatim accounts of debates within parliament, including the names of the speakers. He believed that parliament should not have the ability to punish those who published political debate. 

Despite Wilkes’ success regarding his political standing and his journalistic representation, his popularity began to decrease after 1780 and he withdrew from the 1790 Middlesex election due to so little support. The French Revolution in 1789 had caused great divide in Britain and Wilkes had not supported it due to the violence. This view had opposed that of other radicals of the time and was more in keeping with the current conservative figures.  

In his final working years Wilkes served as a magistrate, focussing on campaigning for less severe punishment for disobedient household servants. Wilkes retired from politics at the age of 65. He participated no further in the growth of radicalism in the 1790s.

    
* Sources: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRwilkes.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wilkes  

Media Law and Ethics. Part 2.

Apologies for my delay in writing up the second instalment of the media law lectures, I've been slightly consumed with the world of shorthand!
Tuesday's lecture was concerned with reporting the courts. We have of course all heard of free speech however, certain restrictions are applicable when it comes to court room reporting.
My main point of interest in this lecture lay with identifying when a case becomes 'active,' because this has a large impact on what can or cannot be published in relation to the case. There are somewhat mixed opinions on when a case becomes active. Is it when a suspect is arrested? Or when they are charged? Chris Horrie advised that the case be treated as active as soon as an arrest is made. I suppose it is best to be careful from the outset about what you publish, as we are all fully aware from last weeks lecture, one small mistake could lead to a jail sentence. Once a verdict has been reached on the case, it is no longer active and there is much more freedom on what can be reported and this is when you will find many biased reports working their way into the newspapers. It surprises me that there are not stricter laws regarding post verdict reporting.
Although what can be written before and during a court case must be treated in a somewhat sensitive respect, the public rely on the media and journalists to keep them informed but reporting carries a lot of risk. If a case is not reported in an accurate and fair manner then you could be sued for libel or malice if there is a certain lack of balance in the coverage of a case.
It seems that there are ever increasing restrictions on what is deemed acceptable to be published. I will focus on this in much more detail later this week after the next media law lecture on defamation.

Ongoing Fear over Mexico's Drug War

Over the summer I have been following the latest stories on the drug war in Mexico. This war is a result of six main drug cartels all in opposition to become the leader of this somewhat lucrative trade. Mexico is the main transit point for drugs, predominantly cocaine, across to Colombia and heading up to North America and despite further restrictions on border crossing drug trafficking is still one of the major issues affecting Mexico today. Drug traffickers are continually finding new ways of smuggling drugs and are thought to now be using east and west coasts of Canada to import these illegal substances.
A recent report on the BBC News website (see link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7625195.stm) states that 80% of Mexican citizens believe that President Felipe Calderon, who came to power in December of 2006, should be seeking alternative ways of tackling the problem, as many agreed that drugs were the second most prominent problem in the country after corruption and took precedence over worries about the economy and education. When the BBC's John Simpson interviewed President Calderon, Calderon seemed adamant that the problem was being dealt with and made better and he seemed keen to emphasize that Mexico is not the only country that faces such issues with drugs, although as Simpson pointed out, no country is affected by it on such a grand scale. The interview can be seen via the link below.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7971732.stm

What I find all the more concerning about this current crisis is the new law proposed by President Calderon which actually decriminalises the possession of small amounts of drugs. For example a person found carrying 5 grams (0.18 ounces) of marijuana, 500 milligrams (0.018 ounces) of cocaine and similar quantities of other drugs such as heroin and methamphetamines, will no longer be charged but instead will be recommended to a rehabilitation clinic. The logic behind this is predominantly to free up police time to focus on larger and more pressing drug related cases. A similar proposal was voiced in 2006 but never put into action for fears that it would only increase drug abuse. I must admit, I am currently in two minds about this recent law. I can understand the logic behind it and if it genuinely benefits the country by giving the police more time to focus on the larger cases concerning the drug cartels, then the President has made a good judgement on the situation, however, by legalising small amounts of fatally addictive substances, it almost seems an encouragement. Addicts now know what they are allowed to carry on their person without getting convicted for it. Surely, this will not wean people away from drugs but will instead give them a way to continue their abusive habits. I will be very interested to see how this affects the drug war over time and whether there will really be any impact, or if it will instead cause a further deterioration.
This year it is thought that there have already been around 3,000 deaths due to drug related violence. This is a shocking rise from last year, in which 2,700 people were killed in the whole of the year. There are fears that the figures will continue to rise unless something new is done to stop this increasingly violent war.
I think this will be an ongoing problem for Mexico, especially as corruption within the authorities has played a huge part, with many police and border control officers having been found to have been helping drug traffickers. President Calderon needs to make this his main focus in aiding and reassuring his country that their way of life will be improved.
I will continue to research this story and keep up to date with any recent developments.