This document discusses several topics related to freedom of the press and privacy: 1) It describes a story from The Sun newspaper about a Conservative chairman who improperly used expenses for a nanny, demonstrating the press's role in safeguarding freedom by reporting on misuse of public funds. 2) It discusses a Daily Mail story and photo about Peter Andre buying a home after his divorce, showing how this intrudes on his privacy by reporting details about his personal life and children. 3) It debates whether the press abuses its freedom by publishing stories just to humiliate people or make money, even if the stories invade people's private lives, like involving children. However, others argue the press is just doing

1. Freedom of the Press

2. Safeguarding Freedom This story was taken from The Sun newspaper on the 7th June 2008. It is about a Conservative chairman who used her expenses to pay for a nanny for her children. This story demonstrates the role of newspapers in safeguarding freedom because although the story is true, we have a right to know that she has been spending the money that people have been paying as taxes, and using it in her personal life for unnecessary things.

3. Intrusion of Privacy This picture was taken from ‘The Daily Mail’ on the 10th June 2009. It is about Peter Andre buying his first home after his divorce to Katie Price. This story shows the intrusion of privacy because it does not matter to anybody that he has bought a new house and people do not have to know. The picture used alongside it also intrudes into his privacy because it shows him with his two children.

4. Debate of Press Freedom It is a known fact that the press use their power of press freedom. Some people may argue that they abuse this freedom in order to make more money for themselves. I feel that they do abuse this freedom of printing any story that they wish (as long as it is true) because some of the stories that are published do not have any reason to be published and that they are just trying to humiliate somebody (usually a politician). I think that some of the institutions of the popular press kind invade into people’s personal lives. An example of this is using their children for a story in order to make money for themselves. On the other hand, people should understand that they are just doing their jobs and giving their target audience what they want. So, if they do not want a particular story coming out into the press, they should not do it as they know that the media is always around us!

5. Gagging Orders A gagging is an order by a court or government, restricting information or comment from being made public. I think that people should be able to put gagging orders on particular stories if they feel that they do not want it leaking in the press. Nevertheless, I believe that if they want to take out a gagging order because it is going to save them the embarrassment, it should not be allowed. This is because they should not have done whatever it is in the first place. There is also a chance that the order can be rejected, meaning more embarrassment for them when it does eventually come out. For example, the story of John Terry having an affair with his team mates girlfriend. I think that if the story is invading somebody’s personal lives, for example involving children or a topic that there is a possibility that it could upset the reader, then they should be allowed to put a gagging order on it.