INDEX.HU ZRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT in question without verifying its truthfulness with the Office of the President prior to publication. 2. The Court’s assessment (a) General principles 23. The general principles concerning the necessity of an interference with freedom of expression and restrictions on political speech or on a debate on matters of public interest have been summarised in, among many other authorities, Morice v. France ([GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 124-25, ECHR 2015, and the cases cited therein). The general principles applicable to cases in which the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention has to be balanced against the right to respect for private life under Article 8 have been summarised in, among many other authorities, Perinçek v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 27510/08, § 198, ECHR 2015 (extracts), and the cases cited therein). 24. It is to be recalled that methods of objective and balanced reporting may vary considerably and that it is therefore not for the Court to substitute its own views for those of the press as to what particular reporting techniques should be adopted (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298). However, editorial discretion is not unbounded. The press must not overstep the bounds set for, among other things, “the protection of ... the rights of others”, including the requirements to act in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and to provide “reliable and precise” information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 78, ECHR 2004-XI). 25. The Court also reiterates that there is a distinction to be drawn between reporting facts – even controversial ones – capable of contributing to a debate of general public interest in a democratic society, and making tawdry allegations about an individual’s private life (see Armonienė v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 39, 25 November 2008). In respect of the former, the pre-eminent role of the press in a democracy and its duty to act as a “public watchdog” are important considerations in favour of a narrow construction of any limitations on freedom of expression. However, different considerations apply to press reports concentrating on sensational and, at times, lurid news intended to titillate and entertain, which are aimed at satisfying the curiosity of a particular readership regarding aspects of a person’s strictly private life. Such reporting does not attract the robust protection which Article 10 affords to the press. As a consequence, in such cases, freedom of expression requires a narrower interpretation (see Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (no. 3), no. 35283/14, § 58, 7 May 2020). 26. News reporting based on interviews or reproducing the statements of others, whether edited or not, constitutes one of the most important means whereby the press is able to play its vital role of “public watchdog”. The 6