I know of two substantive books about press regulation in Britain. One of them is priced out of my reach. The other was published in 2000, twenty five years ago, before the great press scandals of our time. But it is the one I have access to, and it provides useful context, background, and terminology. Regulating the Press, by Tom O'Malley and Clive Soley. The former an academic, the latter an MP.

I was surprised by the absence of more books on this topic, given the significance of news media malfeasance to public discourse. I'm still in the process of puzzling over explanations. Could it be that legacy media is now seen as irrelevant, given the rise of manipulative social media? Is it that people just don't see the relation between the media that gets in our faces every day and the decline in our ability to discuss, assess and act accordingly?

I reckon it's worth saying something on the topic, while also attempting to elevate my own underestanding and ability to contribute. Am tempted to take excerpts from this book and indulge in an un-asked-for serialisation, here.

So, from p 32,something that might be said today, of today's prominent men, and today's leading newpapers

'as the 1930s progressed, the question of the British government's relationship with fascist regimes in Italy and Germany became a subject of controversy; sections of the Labour movement and the Conservative party pushed for a more aggressive anti-fascist stance in opposition to the government's policy of appeasement. Journalists were concerned about the apparent failure of some newspapers to take a more robust line. In 1938 the ex-editor of The Times, Henry Wickham Steed, asked, with reference to Italy and Germany: "why have we seen prominent British public men, including owners of influential newspapers, bow before the Leaders of those systems and, overlooking the foul crimes for which those leaders have been responsible, hearken to their words and extol their deeds?"'

This resonates. It seems we've been here before, within a lifetime. It is worth repeating, and asking the same questions now.

That said, the context of this excerpt is a brief history of debates around the meaning of press freedom. Does it mean freedom from pre-publication taxes and censorship, as in the 18th Century? Does it mean freedom to publish libel without consequence? Does it mean the responsibility to be truthful in reporting and editorials? The chapter containing this excerpt sets out those debates - and shows there's been no definitive answer to some of the key questions.