To the general reader, especially one with a legal education, a very interesting practical guide to the legal constraints on the freedom of the press. If a journalist is told something 'newsworthy' but 'scandalous' by someone about someone else, can the journalist report what he has been told and, if so, in what way?
Reading this book I could understand, for example, why we used to hear nothing at all about a crime once someone had been arrested and charged with it (and had to wait until the trial started to find out what it was all about) but, after the Norwich 'sex worker' murders recently, the TV and the press where able to continue giving us quite a lot of information about the crimes, the victims and the suspect even after he had been charged but they have now gone quiet.
This book also enables me to understand why the Daily Telegraph felt legally able to safely publish allegations against George Galloway MP based on documents said to have been found in a Baghdad ministry but then found that they had miscalculated and lost the case when he sued the paper for libel.
And it enabled me to understand why the press is happy to talk about government 'sleaze' but not about 'corruption'.
Read this book and you will have a much better understanding of what the limits are on what the press can tell us and an enhanced ability to 'read between the lines' of what does get reported.