82 replies to this topic

[gingerjon]

Yes, I know. But so many things begin with good intentions.

Take another current topic: adoption. What began as a good intention to try and create stable, integrated adoption (and also fostering) placements by taking into consideration the ethnic and cultural needs of the child has become a millstone around everyone's necks who attempts to adopt or foster a child (or place the child). So the law is being changed to release the whole system from the stranglehold of cultural/ethnic consideration and bring the focus back on to the more important needs of the child (love, care, stability, safety, etc).

Leveson can have all the good intentions in the world but that does not mean to say that 20, 30 years down the line the government of the day will share those good intentions, especially if there is a scandal or two along the way. Once the path has been set to regulate the press by statute, it will be that much easier for that same statute to be tweaked either by Parliament or the courts or by precedent over time. It is looking into the future and where this could end up that is the wisdom here.

So you're outraged that the broadcast media is subject to far, far stricter controls than anything being hinted at by Leveson?

[Bedford Roughyed]

The legislation is for the make up and formation of a regulator. It doesn't cover the actions of the press.

Legislation for the actual press isn't mentioned and would require a completely diferent law.

[tonyXIII]

Yes, I know. But so many things begin with good intentions.

But that's just an excuse for doing nothing. If we don't start an endeavour, any endeavour, with good intentions, what do we start it with? Bad intentions?

[tonyXIII]

What gets my goat is the press now bleating about how important freedom of the press is. If it is so important, why did they abuse it so much and so often?

I remember the oft-repeated mantra from the 80s, "Self-regulation means no regulation." (I think it was to do with deregulating the financial industries). It applies today just the same. The press cannot be trusted to be their own policeman. No other area of society is. Not the police themselves (now!), not medical practitioners, not education, not the legal profession. Why should the press be any different? An independent regulator with real teeth is needed.

[JohnM]

So you're outraged that the broadcast media is subject to far, far stricter controls than anything being hinted at by Leveson?

Maybe if they had been enforced, Patten would not have picked our pockets to the tune of over £1.5 million to give to his fellow-trougher Entwistle. Those controls have signally failed to ensure balance in teh BBC Current Affairs coverage..unless of course without those controls it would be worse.

The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 has hardly been a model, either

How about if the press had actually obeyed the existing laws? How about if the police had enforced those laws for once?

Had they been doing their job, would we have known about MPs expenses?

To me it is clear that the "ordinary man" - Dowlers etc , who don't have the clout or the money to take on the media should have access to redress when things go wrong but the ideal would be for things not to go wrong in the first place...hows that to happen? Clearly not through self regulation which in my view never works...and I don't even believe the IPCC is "independent". They all ###### in the same pot.

[Futtocks]

If Cameron wants the print media on his side for the next election, he should make sure that any draft bill is sufficiently carefully worded so as to make what Leveson recommends look unworkable.

[Futtocks]

I haven't had a chance to see Leveson's speech.

But Dan Hodges has, and I think his article sums up the issue quite nicely.

http://blogs.telegra...icked-his-side/

Let's be careful what we wish for.

A paranoid, self-serving emotive rant from Hodges, there.

[Johnoco]

I appreciate how this might sound but I am uncomfortable with someone like the McCanns having any influence on what the press can or can't do. I'll leave it at that.

[Futtocks]

I appreciate how this might sound but I am uncomfortable with someone like the McCanns having any influence on what the press can or can't do. I'll leave it at that.

I think I know what you mean.

[JohnM]

Certainly, hacking into someone's mobile phone voice messages , whether PIN protected or not, should be illegal if it is not already, so that sanctions can be taken against anyone caught doing it.

Bribing the police etc, is already illegal, I think, too.

Having said that, the whining by Grant, Coogan etc who have benefited hugely from their own manipulation of the media for their own purposes, I find hypocritical.

Maybe there is now an opportunity for the NUJ to step in with their own code of conduct, their own proposals.

Edited by JohnM, 30 November 2012 - 10:41 AM.

[RidingPie]

The problem remains that previously the press has been either unable, or unwilling to reign in the less desirable elements. Self regulation has failed badly, somehow we've got to find a way to move forward. Personally I think Leveson has found a decent path forward, getting the media to sign up to anything other than another attempt at self regulation (which will probably fail again) will probably fail though.

[Steve May]

I haven't had a chance to see Leveson's speech.

But Dan Hodges has, and I think his article sums up the issue quite nicely.

http://blogs.telegra...icked-his-side/

Let's be careful what we wish for.

Well, there's an extraordinary thing. A Dan Hodges article that doesn't twist the situation into an attack on Ed Miliband. I didn't think I'd ever see such a thing.

[Trojan]

I think that the press should be obliged to be members of a body like the PCC, but with real teeth. Currently they are not obliged to be members of the toothless PCC - the Desmond papers are not members of the PCC and they are known to have printed lies.
I don't think any newspaper should be able to knowlingly print lies about anyone or anything. If they do I believe the organisation or person should have an automatic right to redress. As things stand at the moment they can say what they like about most of us and we have no comeback simply because we couldn't afford the legal fees.
The big example is Kelvin McKenzie and Hillsborough. OK he's apologised. But what sanction has been applied to him?
On a less important scale Stephen Jones prints easily disprovable lies about RL almost weekly in the the ST perhaps with more controls he'd be obliged to stop.
I'm ambivalent about statutory controls on the press. As a knee jerk reaction if Cameron is agin then I'm for. After all which of the parties has most to lose by a controlled press? But a free press is a sign of a free society. Would we want what we post on here to be controlled say?

Edited by Trojan, 30 November 2012 - 07:01 PM.

[Padge]

Every part of the media other than the print press version is regulated, especially television and radio, the two media outlets which could have the most influence on peoples views.

The print media have for far to long been allowed to get away with reporting that would never be allowed on TV or over the radio waves, they were given a last chance last time, the blew it.

The argument that well if you have them under statutory control then in the future a government could change the law to increase control is rubbish, a future government could bring in a law too close the whole lot down if they so wished regardless of previous status of the law. Many laws have been brought in in the past history of this country that were never in political manifesto, So the argument that people would never vote for a party that proposed it would never work is rubbish.

Its time the press reported and stopped trying to influence, its time they realised we, the voters, do not want them to wield power, we want them to inform and entertain in a civilised manner.

[Trojan]

Every part of the media other than the print press version is regulated, especially television and radio, the two media outlets which could have the most influence on peoples views.

The print media have for far to long been allowed to get away with reporting that would never be allowed on TV or over the radio waves, they were given a last chance last time, the blew it.

The argument that well if you have them under statutory control then in the future a government could change the law to increase control is rubbish, a future government could bring in a law too close the whole lot down if they so wished regardless of previous status of the law. Many laws have been brought in in the past history of this country that were never in political manifesto, So the argument that people would never vote for a party that proposed it would never work is rubbish.

Its time the press reported and stopped trying to influence, its time they realised we, the voters, do not want them to wield power, we want them to inform and entertain in a civilised manner.

spot on

[Padge]

I think that the press should be obliged to be members of a body like the PCC, but with real teeth. Currently they are not obliged to be members of the toothless PCC - the Desmond papers are not members of the PCC and they are known to have printed lies.
I don't think any newspaper should be able to knowlingly print lies about anyone or anything. If they do I believe the organisation or person should have an automatic right to redress. As things stand at the moment they can say what they like about most of us and we have no comeback simply because we couldn't afford the legal fees.
The big example is Kelvin McKenzie and Hillsborough. OK he's apologised. But what sanction has been applied to him?
On a less important scale Stephen Jones prints easily disprovable lies about RL almost weekly in the the ST perhaps with more controls he'd be obliged to stop.
I'm ambivalent about statutory controls on the press. As a knee jerk reaction if Cameron is agin then I'm for. After all which of the parties has most to lose by a controlled press? But a free press is a sign of a free society. Would we want what we post on here to be controlled say?

What we post on here is controlled, first by John Drake and other moderators, secondly by Martyn Sadler and LPL and thirdly by libel laws.

Free speech does not exist for Joe Public but it exists for billionaire owners of newspapers.

If I post a lie about Murdoch on here he can sue me, and LPL for a lot of money, he can afford it.

If he posts a lie about me I would never win because I would be bankrupt before the case had done a day in court.

If that's freedom then fekum I'll do without.

[JohnM]

true enough...but I'd also like to see the existing laws applied, too. The fact that no papers, incl Guardian and Independent, want only self regulation, makes me sure we need a proper legislative framework that guarantees swift and redress to the ordinary person. Plus, the few cheating journalists should start obeying the law..they drag the rest down.

Edited by JohnM, 30 November 2012 - 10:13 PM.

[Padge]

true enough...but I'd also like to see the existing laws applied, too. The fact that no papers, incl Guardian and Independent, want only self regulation, makes me sure we need a proper legislative framework that guarantees swift and redress to the ordinary person. Plus, the few cheating journalists should start obeying the law..they drag the rest down.

Applying the existing laws is part of the problem, the whole chain is politically connected so when a decision to prosecute or not the politicians cast a shadow.

The whole lot of connections is utterly corrupt by default.

Every single meeting between any politician and any person connected to the media should be recorded in full (its not difficult these days), if any politician and journalist is found to be in breach of this, the politician should have removed parliamentary voting rights immediately and pending investigation removed from the house and fined, the journalist should be banned thereafter from all privileged access to Parliament and MPs.

Once we have severed the connection between politicians and their 'fleet street' chums, then we can apply the laws which can jail the corrupters and the corrupted.

[Just Browny]

true enough...but I'd also like to see the existing laws applied, too. The fact that no papers, incl Guardian and Independent, want only self regulation, makes me sure we need a proper legislative framework that guarantees swift and redress to the ordinary person. Plus, the few cheating journalists should start obeying the law..they drag the rest down.

I don't buy the stuff about 'applying the existing laws' as a sufficient counter-argument. Even in the cases where a paper is successfully brought to court and made to pay up for libel etc, they've comfortably traded off the amount they are sued for in the increased circulation revenue.

Padge and Gingerjon are spot on as far as this is concerned. The 'article' Martyn linked to was laughable.

[JohnM]

Just re-read what I wrote....Applying the law is not proposed as a counter argument, but as something that should be done (and should have been done) anyway. I do think that a little time should be taken for some sort of Lab/Con consensus to be developed so that any solution survives any change in government. I'd also look for safeguards to ensure genuine press freedom/public interest defence. In my view also, any regulation will bear heavily on those who would not offend anyway, so discouraging possible investigative journalism. In addition, those determined to lie, cheat , threaten will still find ways.

Also , on here,lawyers come in for a certain amount of criticism but suddenly, one of them , Leveson, is the hero of the moment.