Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RidingPie

Press Ethics /Regulation... what should happen

83 posts in this topic

How has such an archaic and soon to be extinct medium have so much control and influence?

What's going to be extinct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superb speech by Leveson. Clear, logical, assertive etc. but they are still only recommendations, We'll find out what the politicians will do at about 3 pm. Across the spectrum, I don't think people will settle for "no action"

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.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100192113/this-is-not-about-milly-dowler-its-a-battle-for-power-and-leveson-has-picked-his-side/

Let's be careful what we wish for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How has such an archaic and soon to be extinct medium have so much control and influence?

People will always want to read (and believe) bad things about those who are more successful than them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superb speech by Leveson. Clear, logical, assertive etc. but they are still only recommendations, We'll find out what the politicians will do at about 3 pm. Across the spectrum, I don't think people will settle for "no action"

Basically, b*gger all as far as I can tell. If self-regulation continues, Levenson was just a massive waste of time and cash.

Cameron should grow a pair and go for a proper regulator, that can stand up for the little guy and punish the press when they go out of line, rather than let Dacre, Murdoch, Rubbisher etc have their way (i.e self regulation)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the highlight reel on the BBC website. Leveson's recommendations sound clear, well thought out (obviously) and most importantly puts in place legal measures to protect the freedom of the press. The Lib Dems and Labour agree with them and surprise surprise the Tories do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From hearing Leveson's speech I thought he'd struck the right balance particularly by enshrining the freedom of the press, but obviously the press are going to hate this.

I think it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. I think in the end the PM and the press are going to win. Personally I hope I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

That's comfortably one of the worst articles I've ever read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100192113/this-is-not-about-milly-dowler-its-a-battle-for-power-and-leveson-has-picked-his-side/

Let's be careful what we wish for.

Martyn I'm wondering, since a government run body is off the table and the freedom of the press, according to Leveson should be enshrined in law, what in particular are you worried about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's comfortably one of the worst articles I've ever read.

It is poor, and I suspect that the author wrote almost all of the article before Leveson announced his conclusions. This isn't a victory for the politicians but an attempt to improve behaviour and standards in what has become a very sleazy industry.

The important thing to keep in mind is that Leveson has recommended an independent regulatory body, not political interference. The statutory part, let's not forget, is to ensure that the independent body is and remains independent (and robustly independent, hopefully), and not to put into law what the press should and should not do. I trust that Cameron realises this, and that his opposition is just a knee-jerk response based upon his instinctive dislike of regulation backed by law.

And when you consider that Dan Hodges' main attack is the style in which Leveson presented his findings, I think he is just playing to his audience.

These are worthwhile proposals and should initially be considered on a non-partisan basis, with a view to eventual implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the highlight reel on the BBC website. Leveson's recommendations sound clear, well thought out (obviously) and most importantly puts in place legal measures to protect the freedom of the press. The Lib Dems and Labour agree with them and surprise surprise the Tories do not.

I think Cameron has a point. Once you start legislating the press (any further than they are subject to all the relevant laws of the land already in place obviously) then there is the threat of creep. Is it worth risking creep because of one scandal (ie phone hacking)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The important thing to keep in mind is that Leveson has recommended an independent regulatory body, not political interference. The statutory part, let's not forget, is to ensure that the independent body is and remains independent (and robustly independent, hopefully), and not to put into law what the press should and should not do. I trust that Cameron realises this, and that his opposition is just a knee-jerk response based upon his instinctive dislike of regulation backed by law.

What Cameron is saying, though, is that it is ok for us to have an independent regulatory body now but what about in 20 years time? Will it still be independent then? Once the law has changed to curb press behaviour, any further changes by any future Parliaments is much easier. Before we know it we could find ourselves with a press that is actually firmly under the thumb of the politicians.

Far from having a knee-jerk reaction I think Cameron's is the most considered response. The other two parties are reflecting the knee-jerk reaction (albeit highly understandable) of many in the population who have been scandalised by the families who have suffered trauma and then had their phones hacked as well. But the people who sanctioned this are being brought to justice. We already have the laws to deal with bad behaviour, and now the laws have been rigorously applied, the press will already be on notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Cameron has a point. Once you start legislating the press (any further than they are subject to all the relevant laws of the land already in place obviously) then there is the threat of creep. Is it worth risking creep because of one scandal (ie phone hacking)?

Leveson doesn't suggest "legislating the press". He proposes legislation to ensure that the independent regulatory body is independent and remains so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leveson doesn't suggest "legislating the press". He proposes legislation to ensure that the independent regulatory body is independent and remains so.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Cameron is saying, though, is that it is ok for us to have an independent regulatory body now but what about in 20 years time? Will it still be independent then? Once the law has changed to curb press behaviour, any further changes by any future Parliaments is much easier. Before we know it we could find ourselves with a press that is actually firmly under the thumb of the politicians.

Far from having a knee-jerk reaction I think Cameron's is the most considered response. The other two parties are reflecting the knee-jerk reaction (albeit highly understandable) of many in the population who have been scandalised by the families who have suffered trauma and then had their phones hacked as well. But the people who sanctioned this are being brought to justice. We already have the laws to deal with bad behaviour, and now the laws have been rigorously applied, the press will already be on notice.

That would be a completely different and distinct step. One does not lead to the other; a definite decision has to be made and it is up to the democratic and accountable parliament to ensure that political regulation of the press does not happen.

Far from Cameron giving the most considered response (I think Leveson himself deserves that acclaim) I think he could be accused of muddled thinking; either that or he is using the statutory link as a bogeyman. Either way, I don't think he is reacting out of any high-minded principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

[section not really relevant]

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 by precedent over time. It is looking into the future and where this could end up that is the wisdom here.

Yes, but implementation of his measured and limited proposals at this time would have no bearing on a government so minded in 20 or 30 years time. This is all scaremongering and it does Cameron no credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017