Archived

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

RidingPie

Press Ethics /Regulation... what should happen

83 posts in this topic

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

No government is bound by the actions of its predecessor.

Murdoch got away with murder for years because Thatcher/Blair/Cameron were in hock to him. That's what's got to stop. Newspaper editors/proprietors thinking it's they who run the country. "Freedom of the press" sounds good, but after what they've done with that freedom I think a few small restrictions are called for. People like Paul Dacre thinking they can stalk people 24/7 whose views they disagree with in order to try and get some dirt on them and discredit them has to stop. Dacre is known to be a bully in journalistic circles. Whatever you say about Grant and Coogan, the same certainly doesn't apply to J K Rowling's children!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J K Rowling

Looks like her generous contributions to your party have been wasted. It seems that the more intelligent members of Miliband's entourage have pointed out the flaws in his unequivocal support for the Leveson proposals. That is not to say that some sort of legislative framework isn't sorely needed. if there is one, it is to be hopedthat it is more effective thsn Gordon Browns light -touch but failed FSA. Anywsy , since that paragon of all that is ethical, theGuardian, owned by the tax avoiding Guardian Media, is against statutory regulation, there must be real issues.

It may also be that some see a Leveson-like solution as a way of limiting the expression of certain views held by certain people. It is to avoif such a situation that it is important that time istaken to arrive at a solution acceptable to Miliband, Clegg and cCameron yet gives protection and redress to yhe innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like her generous contributions to your party have been wasted. It seems that the more intelligent members of Miliband's entourage have pointed out the flaws in his unequivocal support for the Leveson proposals. That is not to say that some sort of legislative framework isn't sorely needed. if there is one, it is to be hopedthat it is more effective thsn Gordon Browns light -touch but failed FSA. Anywsy , since that paragon of all that is ethical, theGuardian, owned by the tax avoiding Guardian Media, is against statutory regulation, there must be real issues.

It may also be that some see a Leveson-like solution as a way of limiting the expression of certain views held by certain people. It is to avoif such a situation that it is important that time istaken to arrive at a solution acceptable to Miliband, Clegg and cCameron yet gives protection and redress to yhe innocent.

Can't you leave party politics out of it? Journalists going through kids school satchels is bordering on Jimmy Savile territory. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong regardless of party and going through kids' satchels is wrong. For me the rest of it was wrong too, but surely even you can see this was wrong or are your blue tinted spectacles too strong John?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and now the admirable Chami Chakribati is against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and now the admirable Chami Chakribati is against it.

No she isn't, but you don't have the respect to spell her name correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may also be that some see a Leveson-like solution as a way of limiting the expression of certain views held by certain people.

In all seriousness what 'views' would a Leveson-like solution surpress?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Potentially, those that the operators of a legislative framework might like to suppress. That is why it is wise to take some time to determine on an all-parties basis what the best solution might be. Ideally, something is needed that stops the excesses of the press yet does not stifle investigative reporting and provides effective redress for innocent victims who ar einnocent themselves of any self-serving media manipulation.

As I said before, whatever id decided, it had better be better at its job than the FSA!!

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty and one of the six advisers to Lord Justice Leveson, continued to argue this weekend that the monitor of the regulator should not be Ofcom or any state-linked body but instead judges. She wrote at the weekend: "The prime minister is right to be concerned about any government-appointed body 'supervising' the independent regulator. That would bring about the danger of political control by the back door. It is unnecessary and must be resisted." She suggested judges instead might supervise the regulator.

Maybe that's a job for...Lord Leveson. No, that can't be what he has in mind, can it? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a PM set up an enquiry into finance, medicine, the law, politics, defence, in fact anything and proceeded to ignore or try to bury that enquiry's report he get crucified by the press. Because this enquiry is into the press they are supporting the spineless git. Even the Mirror! I wonder why? Could it be because they want to carry on exactly as they have done before with no interference in their dubious practices? Surely Milliband and Clegg can muster enough votes in the Commons to bring Dave to heel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Guardian is against it too. and the Independent...and Private Eye, too. Private Eye editor Ian Hislop today rejected calls for statutory regulation of the press, saying laws were already in place to tackle abuses such as phone hacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Guardian is against it too. and the Independent...and Private Eye, too. Private Eye editor Ian Hislop today rejected calls for statutory regulation of the press, saying laws were already in place to tackle abuses such as phone hacking.

Turkeys in voting against Christmas shocker. I'm sure all industries would rather not have a statutory regulator.

Now here's an interesting question. Which is more important, that the press don't want it, or that most of the public do?

As I said the other day I think it's going to end up yet another last chance saloon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Guardian is against it too. and the Independent...and Private Eye, too. Private Eye editor Ian Hislop today rejected calls for statutory regulation of the press, saying laws were already in place to tackle abuses such as phone hacking.

i heard Hislop defending Cameron's stance, he sounded less than convincing. Although he said that laws were in place to deal with these things, the decision makers on whether or not to prosecute are political appointees, So if you go for self regulation and rely on the current laws politicos will still block criminal proceedings against the transgressors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leveson is also against statutory regulation of the press? So everyone agrees the press should be free and only subject to 'normal' laws.

Leveson does think that the independent press regulator should have a statutory basis that rules by law that it is independent.

Liberty and the good judge disagree on who would decide whether the body has abided by that law to be independent or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My money is on Leveson being asked to head up whatever replaces the PCC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now here's an interesting question. Which is more important, that the press don't want it, or that most of the public do?

with respect, m'lud, that is the wrong question. The right question is," when have the public ever got what they wanted."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with respect, m'lud, that is the wrong question. The right question is," when have the public ever got what they wanted."

Tell you what I'll answer that if you answer my first point. :)

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