Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. 80. Ali & Aslam v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd Later in his speech, Lord Hoffmann addressed the question of photographic images and their impact for editorial purposes: “77. No doubt it would have been possible for the Mirror to have published the article without pictures. But that would in my opinion again be to ignore the realities of this kind of journalism as much as to expect precision of judgment about the amount of circumstantial detail to be included in the text. We value the freedom of the press but the press is a commercial enterprise and can flourish only by selling newspapers. From a journalistic point of view, photographs are an essential part of the story. The picture carried the message, more strongly than anything in the text alone, that the Mirror's story was true. So the decision to publish the pictures was in my opinion within the margin of editorial judgment and something for which appropriate latitude should be allowed.” 81. Lord Hope emphasised the importance of editorial discretion as follows: “108. The freedom of the press to exercise its own judgment in the presentation of journalistic material was emphasised in a further passage in Jersild's case where the court said, at p 26, para 31: "At the same time, the methods of objective and balanced reporting may vary considerably, depending among other things on the media in question. It is not for this court, nor for the national courts for that matter, to substitute their own views for those of the press as to what technique of reporting should be adopted by journalists. In this context the court recalls that article 10 protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed, but also the form in which they are conveyed." In Fressoz v France (2001) 31 EHRR 28, 60, para 54 the court said that in essence article 10 leaves it for journalists to decide whether or not it is necessary to reproduce material to ensure credibility, adding: "It protects journalists' rights to divulge information on issues of general interest provided that they are acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and provide 'reliable and precise' information in accordance with the ethics of journalism."” 82. Baroness Hale made similar observations as to the proper approach in paragraphs 143 and 156, as did Lord Carswell in paragraphs 168-170. 83. The preponderance of authority from Campbell v MGN through to the considered and careful approach taken by Mann J in Richards v BBC is to the effect that editorial discretion cannot render lawful an interference with privacy which cannot logically or