INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

The future of the Press (if any)

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

The future of the Press (if any)

#1 Post by Alan H » November 29th, 2012, 11:08 am

Just three hours till Leveson publishes his report...

What will it bring? It seems very likely he will call for better regulation (the PCC is utterly useless, so that model of self-regulation has to go), but would a Government-regulated press curtail necessary freedoms? What's the happy compromise? Could it be something more along the lines of the Advertising Standards Authority - independent self-regulation at arms-length - but with much greater and effective powers of enforcement and sanction?

What else will Leveson say?

Meanwhile: The problem Leveson can't solve: we want newspapers to lie to us
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#2 Post by Alan H » November 29th, 2012, 11:16 am

You might like to read the website of the Hacked Off campaign (including Ten myths about press abuse and SIX DEGREES OF REGULATION) and follow Hugh Grant (@HackedOffHugh) on Twitter.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#3 Post by Dave B » November 29th, 2012, 11:34 am

Certainly looks like it is causing a severe rift in the ConDem mis-alliance!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#4 Post by Tetenterre » November 29th, 2012, 11:40 am

+1 (Don't you just love it when someone expounds your opinion far more clearly than you could have! :D )
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#5 Post by Alan H » November 29th, 2012, 11:41 am

Dave B wrote:Certainly looks like it is causing a severe rift in the ConDem mis-alliance!
Yep! That could be some of the good news! :smile:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#6 Post by Alan H » November 29th, 2012, 11:41 am

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#7 Post by Altfish » November 29th, 2012, 3:33 pm

Cameron isn't going to implement the report's findings - he's obviously still in News International's pockets

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#8 Post by Alan H » November 29th, 2012, 3:54 pm

Altfish wrote:Cameron isn't going to implement the report's findings - he's obviously still in News International's pockets
I listened to a bit of what David 'Call me Dave' Cameron had to say. He got is weasel words in quick enough.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#9 Post by Dave B » November 29th, 2012, 4:48 pm

Alan H wrote:
Altfish wrote:Cameron isn't going to implement the report's findings - he's obviously still in News International's pockets
I listened to a bit of what David 'Call me Dave' Cameron had to say. He got is weasel words in quick enough.
Yep, I had this nasty, slimy sort of feeling all the time he talked.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#10 Post by Alan H » December 1st, 2012, 12:46 pm

There's obviously been a lot of comment on Leveson and David 'Call me Dave' Cameron's reaction to it. Including this:
We've been betrayed by David Cameron

I was one of the victims of phone hacking, and am disgusted that the PM has sided with the Fleet Street bullies

Steve Coogan
The Guardian, Thursday 29 November 2012 21.45 GMT

The report is good enough. Lord Justice Leveson has produced a fair and non-Draconian set of recommendations that simply cannot be knocked back into the middle. The acknowledgement of politicians' cosy relationship with certain sections of the press, and of the press's cosy relations with the Metropolitan police, is welcome. So, too, is his assertion that certain members of the public have been understood as "fair game, public property, with little if any entitlement to any sort of private life ...". But the key is the fair and intelligent recommendation that future self-regulation must be underpinned by law.

Let's not forget it was the prime minister who called for the inquiry in the first place, and that it was he who said that, unless the recommendations produced were "bonkers", they would be acted on. But now David Cameron is playing a despicable political game: disingenuous at best, bare-faced lying at worst. By rejecting Leveson's call for statutory regulation, Cameron has hung the victims of crime out to dry. He has passed on the opportunity to make history. He has revealed there isn't an ounce of substance in his body, that he has one eye on courting the press for elections in years to come, and doesn't know the meaning of conviction. Quite simply, if future regulation is not backed by statute, Leveson's report is nothing more than a large slap on the wrist. But this is a price Cameron is prepared to pay, because it is not the victims of crime who will get him re-elected.

This, of course, is history repeating itself. In 1990 the Calcutt report received similar treatment. Rupert Murdoch begged for one last chance before tougher regulation was bought in, and – despite the home office minister at the time, David Mellor, calling this the "last chance saloon" for the British press – the press was let off scot free.

What Cameron fails to realise is that he is making a political mistake. Recent polling (unsurprisingly unreported by most of the press) shows that 77% of the public want an independent regulator with real teeth backed by law , and that most people do not trust the press.

Cameron is mirroring the derision and disrespect shown for the inquiry by the rightwing press. Most of them did a decent enough job of covering it up, but Kelvin MacKenzie, to his credit, came clean when he told Leveson: "Basically, my view was that if it sounded right it was probably right, and therefore we should lob it in." This is the abusive behaviour that Leveson was set up to look into. This is the abusive behaviour, this "lobbing it in", that led to Liverpool fans being accused of pickpocketing dead bodies during the Hillsborough disaster. This is the abusive behaviour that regulation with bite could prevent.

Ironically, it's people like MacKenzie who are holding up the torch of "freedom of the press" to serve their cause. The truth is, this model of journalism is about selling newspapers. It is a business not a torch of freedom. I spent two weeks deciding whether to involve myself in Hacked Off, the campaign for a free and accountable press. I was reluctant: I had nothing to gain from it personally and I'm not a masochist.

But it was two images that changed my mind. The first was of Andy Coulson sitting in Downing Street dressed in a dinner jacket trying to look like the picture of respectability. The second was that of Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre. He is the embodiment of Fleet Street bullying, using his newspaper to peddle his Little-England, curtain-twitching Alan Partridgesque view of the world, which manages to combine sanctimonious, pompous moralising and prurient, voyeuristic, judgmental obsession, like a Victorian father masturbating secretly in his bedroom. This is the side of the press Cameron has sided with.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#11 Post by Altfish » December 1st, 2012, 1:47 pm

The Pro Leveson Petition is here...

http://hackinginquiry.org/news/sign-the ... e-victims/

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#12 Post by Nick » December 4th, 2012, 3:22 pm

Maybe because I haven't been directly affected by it, I'm afraid I find most of the discussion pretty dull. But to my mind several things emerge. The previous arrangement didn't work, so some reform is necessary. But laws against all the things which were done already existed. A free press is very much integral to a free society. ISTM that Cameron is looking to see established an effective regulator, separate from government. I understand their anger, but we must not let the victims desire for retribution lead to statutory regulation of the press. Just look at Russia.....

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#13 Post by Alan H » December 4th, 2012, 4:32 pm

Leveson's proposals are emphatically not state regulation of the press - he said that clearly. What it is, is legislative underpinning to an independent regulatory system.

It's been pointed out that Finland, which has one of the most free media in the world has the kind of regulatory system envisaged by Leveson.

It also has sod all to do with retribution by any victims.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#14 Post by Dave B » December 4th, 2012, 5:43 pm

It also has sod all to do with retribution by any victims.
I agree, Alan, just so long as the potential punishments are sufficient to severely reduce the chance of any future victims!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#15 Post by Alan H » December 4th, 2012, 5:59 pm

Dave B wrote:
It also has sod all to do with retribution by any victims.
I agree, Alan, just so long as the potential punishments are sufficient to severely reduce the chance of any future victims!
Indeed.

There are several different and separate facets to this: giving fair and accessible redress to those wronged by the press; encouraging a culture of responsibility; backing this up with sanctions that are meaningful so that the press are 'enticed' to comply. It needs both carrot and stick. But that redress must have some kind of statutory backing that can be enforced. If not, we end up with PCC 2.0 and just as useless. We tried that; it blatantly hasn't worked. And Leveson hit the nail on the head right at the start of his announcement: there have now been seven attempts at getting the press to behave in the past 70 years - he doesn't want to see an eighth.

But it is this change in culture that is most important: without that, journalists will carry on feeling they can intrude and break the law with impunity, even if they truly think what they are doing is 'in the public interest'.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#16 Post by Alan H » December 5th, 2012, 12:48 am

For pity's sake. Surely there must be some help we can get these newspaper editors and owners to cure them of their affliction?

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#17 Post by Dave B » December 5th, 2012, 9:24 am

Oh, those poor people, so forgetful and confused, let's hope they find a cure for the dementia.

And then hang them out to dry!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#18 Post by Alan H » March 18th, 2013, 2:19 pm

As an aside to this topic, it looks like the Leveson press regulation clauses have just been removed from the libel reform Bill. Assuming that gets back to the House of Commons, there is every chance it will be passed. It's far from perfect with some notable changes missing, but at least it's an improvement.

However, back to Leveson and press regulation. David 'call me Dave' Cameron and his cronies don't really want proper, effective regulation of what his friends say in their newspapers, but he has proposed a Royal Charter. I'm still hazy on what this is supposed to do and how it will work, but one analysis of the scope of it seems to have the regulatory body covering everything from national newspapers to Facebook and Twitter. I kid you not: UK Bloggers & Tweeters: Be aware that the Royal Charter re: #Leveson is also aimed at regulating *you*
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#19 Post by Dave B » March 18th, 2013, 2:45 pm

Blimey - big wide scoop there then!

But does this affect the stating of personal opinion - providing, of course, no fabrications, lies, private information, stuff illegally obtained by other people etc. etc. etc. is used?

It might make news reporting blander but I will be happy to put up with that if it also it accurate and honest and not illegally obtained. I do think it will spell the end of old fashioned investigative journalism though and, in some areas, that is a shame.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of the Press (if any)

#20 Post by Nick » March 18th, 2013, 4:48 pm

Alan H wrote:As an aside to this topic, it looks like the Leveson press regulation clauses have just been removed from the libel reform Bill.
I could (easily!) be wrong, but weren't they inserted by the Millipede, just to garm up the works...?
Assuming that gets back to the House of Commons, there is every chance it will be passed. It's far from perfect with some notable changes missing, but at least it's an improvement.
Indeed.
However, back to Leveson and press regulation. David 'call me Dave' Cameron and his cronies don't really want proper, effective regulation of what his friends say in their newspapers, but he has proposed a Royal Charter. I'm still hazy on what this is supposed to do and how it will work, but one analysis of the scope of it seems to have the regulatory body covering everything from national newspapers to Facebook and Twitter. I kid you not: UK Bloggers & Tweeters: Be aware that the Royal Charter re: #Leveson is also aimed at regulating *you*
I don't know quite what a Royal Cahrter is either, but I understand that it means that government ministers won't be able to alter regulations, which they would do under Millipede's original peoposal.

Be that as it may, does it strike anyone else that, for once, there has been some sort of reasonable co-operation betweent the three leading parties? (Ed Balls wasn't involved, for a start!)

It also strikes me as inconsistent to be concerned that the bastards in the press be "properly, effectively regulated", but that the internet should somehow be exempt..... What's the difference?

Be careful what you wish for....

Post Reply