The story, the whole story and nothing but the story...?

It's interesting how the press interprets things.  They can't cover everything because no one has time for that, so they're forced to simplify, abbreviate, inform and simultaneously avoid distorting the truth.  The trouble is these requirements can be incompatible.  A small example arises out of the reports on the Mosley defeat at the European Court of Human Rights.  The Guardian says:

"The court ruling noted that Mosley had not managed to cite a "single jurisdiction in which a pre-notification requirement as such is imposed".
"In so far as any common consensus can be identified, it therefore appears that such consensus is against a pre-notification requirement rather than in favour of it," the court said."

The Court did indeed says those things (at paragraph 124 for the legal geeks to check) but it followed up immediately, in the same paragraph, by saying:

"The Court recognises that a number of member States require the consent of the subject before private material is disclosed."

Then:

"However, it is not persuaded that the need for consent in some States can be taken to constitute evidence of a European consensus as far as a pre-notification requirement is concerned."

Or in full the paragraph says:

"124.  Third, the Court highlights the diversity of practice among member States as to how to balance the competing interests of respect for private life and freedom of expression (see paragraphs 62-63 above). Indeed the applicant has not cited a single jurisdiction in which a pre-notification requirement as such is imposed. In so far as any common consensus can be identified, it therefore appears that such consensus is against a pre-notification requirement rather than in favour of it. The Court recognises that a number of member States require the consent of the subject before private material is disclosed. However, it is not persuaded that the need for consent in some States can be taken to constitute evidence of a European consensus as far as a pre-notification requirement is concerned. Nor has the applicant pointed to any international instruments which require States to put in place a pre-notification requirement. Indeed, as the Court has noted above (see paragraph 119), the current system in the United Kingdom fully reflects the resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (see paragraphs 56-59 above). The Court therefore concludes that the respondent State’s margin of appreciation in the present case is a wide one."

The Guardian story, through selective quotation - and note that I'm not saying this is deliberate distortion, rather a function of the need to abbreviate - gives the impression that there is no pre-notification regime anywhere, since Mosley's legal team didn't cite one; and that the general consensus, therefore, is that no one wanted it.

Yet the paragraph in full tells a much more complicated story:

• Mosley didn't cite any examples of pre-notification
• This suggests such schemes are not in favour
• However there are some jurisdictions where prior consent is required before publication of private material
• The fact that such schemes do exist is not evidence of consensus that they should be implemented everywhere
• UK protections comply with the the resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, (implicity implying that this is the closest thing to an international consensus on the broad principles governing conflicts between privacy and free speech)
• The UK's "margin of appreciation" (ie freedom to regulate as it sees fit) should be wide and by implication not constrained by the specific facts of the Mosley case or his wish to have a prior notification regime

Now I recognise that the press has a limited amount of time and space (and readers' attention spans) to tell stories like the outcome of the Mosley case.  And actually the Guardian report I've cited does a reasonably good job of telling the story in a fair and balanced way, as does the BBC and others.  They have neither the time, resources or economic incentives to dissect each and every one of the 132 paragraphs of the decision in this kind of way. 

But the details are important and though journalists can't necessarily tell the story, the whole story and nothing but the story they do need to be careful not to distort it.  Unfortunately distorting di story (sorry!), by accident or design, is all too common.