The Judiciary and the Media

My overwhelming belief is that the most emphatic feature of the relationship between the judiciary and the media is that the independence of the judiciary and the independence of the media are both fundamental to the continued exercise, and indeed the survival of the liberties which we sometimes take for granted. I have said before, and I do not apologise for saying it again, these are critical independences which are linked, but separate. As far as I can discover, there never has been, and there is no community in the world in which an independent press flourishes while the judiciary is subservient to the executive or government, or where an independent judiciary is allowed to perform its true constitutional function while, at the same time, the press is fettered by the executive. Try as I can, I can find no such community. And this serves to reinforce my essential feeling, that in any community which is governed by the rule of law, the independence of the media and the independence of the judiciary are both of crucial importance to the liberties of the community at large. Both must be preserved. And when I speak of preservation I do not mean preserved like a museum piece, mildly tolerated as somewhat idiosyncratic vestiges of an interesting but ancient past: rather I mean preserved in the sense that Archbishop Fénelon urged the value of moderation, but moderation not as an insipid response for beliefs not very strongly held, but rather moderation at white heat. The preservation of both independences involves white heat commitment.