Leveson - say NO to state regulation of the Press

9:40am Thursday 29th November 2012 in News

Leveson - say NO to state regulation of the Press Leveson - say NO to state regulation of the Press

The recommendations of the long-awaited Leveson inquiry will be made public today. Do you care?

Should you care?

We think so. Because the recommendations have potentially profound implications for a free Press and free speech in this country – and therefore, your right to know.

At the heart of the issue is whether, as some people suggest, there needs to be state regulation of the Press.

We at the Worcester News think such regulation is wrong, both in principle and in practice.

We believe there is a more practical alternative. In our downloadable .pdf files below we report what some of our colleagues have said as they challenge the party leaders on where they stand on this issue.

We ask you to consider the arguments and, if we can convince you, we ask you to support us in our fight against statutory legislation.

To ensure we can carry on doing the job that the local Press in this country has been doing for decade after decade – fighting for local communities, acting as a watchdog on behalf of local communities, fighting for your right to know.

Comments(60)

imustbeoldiwearacap says...
11:45am Wed 28 Nov 12

The trouble is, whilst the gutter press was playing fast and loose with the concept of "press freedom" the rest of the press sat on their hands and did nothing. Once the phone hacking and corrupt payments hit the headlines and there was talk of regulation, it was only then that the press woke up. If regulation is introduced (and I for one think that it would be a bad decision - but Cameron will as usual vacillate and go the populist way - regulation) then press themselves have only themselves to blame!

Report this post »

Hack says...
1:22pm Wed 28 Nov 12

It is important to reflect on what regulation will do and who it will affect. If regulation shackles media from investigating corruption, child abuse etc., this would hit not only the printed national media - the red tops for the most part. It would also hit other national media, like the Sunday Times, who have a long history of quality investigation, as do other broadsheets. But, regulation would stop your Worcester newspaper from investigating local corruption and other crime related issues. The BBC, notwithstanding their other problems, would be controlled in investigative journalism, as would ITV.
The issue, for me, is one of media breaking the criminal law. It may be the law needs tightening rather than specific media control. So, if editors go outside the law, they should be subject to the full weight of the criminal justice system. It is, I feel, too easy to be caught up in the emotional aspects of the media failures; self regulation has not been a great success, but neither have the bodies put in place to monitor the media. So, I say again, the law would be where I would start.
Cameron needs to see the much wider picture here; this is not just about the tabloids. It is about the WN, B'ham Mail, E&S, regional daily papers of note and quality not digging into an issue to expose that issue.
I await his comments.

Report this post »

Andy_R says...
2:15pm Wed 28 Nov 12

While it's tempting to say that we should all just wait for Leveson to actually publish his report before complaining about what we think might be in it, I think it's important to remember that we already have laws against hacking and corrupt payments. The problem isn't a lack of laws, it's that some media organisations were getting away with breaking the laws we already have.

The question of he PCC having enough teeth or not seems a bit of a distraction when the issue here is that the threat of fines and jail sentences didn't put certain media organisations off breaking the law. The PCC can't be expected to have more claws that the police and courts, or to do their job for them.

Tough sentencing for breaking existing laws is what's needed to prevent this happening again.

Report this post »

brooksider says...
2:18pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Reminds me of a Roy Orbison song
'Running Scared'

Report this post »

fightforfort says...
2:50pm Wed 28 Nov 12

We are all for Mum and apple pie and against letting politicians and criminals away with murder. But... if someone who is innocent and not very well off is taken apart by the media they presently have no chance of holding those responsible to account. An apology on page 49 two years later is not justice. Libel and slander laws are for the rich and the media has very good lawyers. The press complaints commission has been shown to be a joke and the editors regulating themselves is like MPs organising their own expenses. So of course say no to clumsy regulation but say yes to swift enforcements of retractions, apologies and, in some cases recompense, when the media gets it wrong.

Report this post »

Maggie Would says...
3:06pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Well, with respect WN, we don't expect turkeys to vote for Christmas.
I don't fully know where I stand on this as I haven't decided yet, not having read the arguments on both sides. However, I was somewhat annoyed and a little amused this morning to hear a pro-regulation guy state that 79% of the public agree with regulation. That's 79% of a public who have had a question posed to them that may or may not be a leading question, and 79% of a public that don't know enough about the subject to be able to form an informed opinion.

Report this post »

EconoXL says...
3:36pm Wed 28 Nov 12

It amuses me greatly that the press are now playing the victim in this situation.

They have, on the whole, behaved disgracefully for years now. They're obviously not to be trusted with self regulation.

Whilst I don't agree with measures that limit freedom of information, or freedom of the press, but I do believe that they need be held accountable for their actions and where appropriate, brought to task over them.

I hope Brookes, Coulson and anyone else involved in the reprehensible actions of the gutter press have the book thrown at them. These are the people who presided over a news group that hacked a missing (dead) girl's mobile telephone. I'm struggling to think of an action more perverse and abhorrent.

The press should have their freedom, but not without responsibility and consequence.

Report this post »

Flagman says...
6:47pm Wed 28 Nov 12

The "press." The only people that could "sort the wheat from the chaff" and throw the wheat away.

Report this post »

Bravo, San Juan says...
8:12pm Wed 28 Nov 12

There is no need for regulation! The problems are when the newspapers break the law! Get the police to actually chase criminal acts and there's no problem.

Report this post »

Keith B says...
9:38pm Wed 28 Nov 12

My first view is to regulate the press good and hard.

Put Rebekah Brooks in prison for a long time if she's found guilty of the offences she's been charged with along with any other jurno involved in illegal activity.

But which is the best publication for exposing corrruption - Private Eye and the brilliant Ian Hislop. No doubt he will be the first target for any law officer in a government regulated press.

And yet .... police enquiries don't seem to uncovered ANY policemen who took money for passing on information. Isn't that strange when the basis of many many many press stories could only stem from info coming out of the police stations.

So maybe we DO need laws if only to police the police.

Hugh Grant and Hacked Off have been brilliant and I agree with just about everything they have said to the extent that I'd vote for Hugh Grant if he stood for Parliament.

So it's a quandry - you know full well that the press does need regulating which needs some kind of legal back up. Yet you also know that if Government get a foothold in regulation of the Press a future government will use the law to cover up things it doesn't want to come out.

I don't know the answer .....

Hugh Grant for Prime Minister.

Report this post »

Keith B says...
11:10pm Wed 28 Nov 12

errr .... (Love) actually, he already has been.

Report this post »

mayall8808 says...
7:08am Thu 29 Nov 12

Just shows self regulation does not work, who's watching the self regulators?

Report this post »

worcswolf says...
8:08am Thu 29 Nov 12

All this arose because the gutter press went that one bit further to get the story. We have courts that are tied up with celebs suing the press. We lost a national institution in the NOTW when it was the journalists trying to get the scoop to feed the readers. We have to have a free press otherwise we are China. Editors have to set the standards and accept responsibility even the BBC get it wrong.

Report this post »

mayall8808 says...
9:47am Thu 29 Nov 12

I find the BBC quite bias nowadays, we need free press to expose the criminals etc etc but they need to know where the line is drawn when persuing people.

Report this post »

dulon says...
10:32am Thu 29 Nov 12

You will all no doubt have seen the documentary last night by Hugh Grant . It made me think that perhaps the media really does have too much influence. The advent of the internet has allowed us to access to different views and opinions ,but , I would venture to guess that the populist press and tv , still have the greatest influence on public opinion .
This paper has allowed us access to the voice our opinion ,thats good, but as most contributors do not agree with the view of the WN then I dont think that the subject will be viewable for long. Or indeed these posts!
The banks and press have enjoyed too much influence and access for too long they should now suffer the consequences of their behaviour .

Report this post »

Keith B says...
10:59am Thu 29 Nov 12

The question is will WE be targeted for negative stories in the future for wanting controls as will any MP's who vote for controls. That, I think, is the dangerous power the press currently have and why, on balance, I come down in favour of some kind of control.

On Mayalls point, I must admit for the past year or two I've thought the BBC had it's own politically correct agenda and I trust it less than I did. In particular they spent a huge amount of time pushing the Labour Government line to digitalise our radio services and stop broadcasting 5 live on Medium wave.

Nowadays I watch Channel 4 News for a more trusted broadcast - and more trusted documentaries such as the Hugh Grant programme last night.

Report this post »

Hack says...
1:08pm Thu 29 Nov 12

It made me think that perhaps the media really does have too much influence.
This paper has allowed us access to the voice our opinion ,that's good, but as most contributors do not agree with the view of the WN then I dont think that the subject will be viewable for long. Or indeed these posts!
-----
Interesting comment. The media has always had significant influence, for 50 years and more. Most print media at national level have some level of political bias. Their headlines and copy often, not always, reflect their political bent. Mirror - Labour; Guardian - Labour; Telegraph - Conservative; Mail/Express/Sun - Conservative.
So, when you buy the Mail or the Mirror, you generally know where balance will be. But for media today we need to embrace the fast advancing technology, whispers on Facebook, Tweets. No-one now has control of communication. It is open to all. You can post what you want, but Lord McAlpine would say, do so at your peril.
What some media have done to create a celebrity splash has employed dirty, illegal tactics. Would we attack police for undercover operations to expose criminality? If they compromise the 'law' would we say 'No'. End and means. Do we criticise police for 'sleeping' with criminals as part of their cover? Jury out?
I stick with my original post. We need to find a balance here. Curtail the press and risk those in power using/abusing the system, MP's being one group.
That Clegg and Cameron have separate time in the HoC today suggests Cameron wants 'freedom, Clegg, some control. An odd position for a Liberal I feel.
An old adage: don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Report this post »

dulon says...
2:17pm Thu 29 Nov 12

I am afraid that the scare mongering of the pro press lobby are influencing opinion without due showing diligence. The press are alleging that they are being gagged .... at no time have I seen that proposal . What I have seen is the the press must be held accountable for their improper actions , And,be penalised by an unbiased and unrelated body , that is not subject to undue influence.

Report this post »

uptonX says...
5:55pm Thu 29 Nov 12

If anyone thinks the view of the Worcester News is correct on this, just watch the Channel 4 documentary first shown last night and you will change your mind.
Surprisingly perhaps given his image from films Hugh Grant explained where we are and where we need to be superbly.

Report this post »

DarrenM says...
6:33pm Thu 29 Nov 12

The Evening News hasn't fought for local communities since it was, well called the Evening News, in my opinion it simply reprints press releases from state agencies and quashes negative comment against them in-case said agencies stop sending them press releases and they then have nothing to print. An independent regulator with teeth is exactly what's needed

Report this post »

uptonX says...
8:01pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Yes, as DarrenM says, the Evening News hardly ever stand up for local communities as regional media in other parts of the UK does. Sometimes the paper seems little more than the councils PR division.

Report this post »

Hack says...
8:24pm Thu 29 Nov 12

UptonX and DarrenM, do you really think thhat this paper is a simple mouthpiece for the WCC or any other agency? That it stamps on criticism? Or, are you trying to be controversial? If the latter, fine. Let's debate. Give some examples. I like debate.

Report this post »

uptonX says...
9:19pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Ok, Lets start with the "safety camera partnership" WN just print their PR yet speed camera are pretty much discredited and more sensible places like Swindon have got rid of them and spend the money on real road safety measures that save lives.
The Whittington roundabout fiasco. Over 100 coments in numerous threads but this website just buried it, why not go to the meetings, find who was responsible and hold them to account, apart from the waste of money it's still a dangerous junction and someone will get killed there as a result of the "improvements"

Report this post »

uptonX says...
9:24pm Thu 29 Nov 12

A couple more, the fiasco over the Upton banana bridge, a waste of money when a council idiot decided to paint it bright yellow and it had to be repainted at great expense, that made national news but again the story was never followed up, could not find out the department or person resonsible so they got away with it. More highways stuff, the bloke who fell off his motorbike after more of that pointless "surface dressing" the highways people do, only last week but no follow up. Newtown Road buslane, Park and ride nobody uses. What about parking charges ? How about the paper push the council to reduce them so traders benefit in time for Christmas not next year.

Report this post »

uptonX says...
9:29pm Thu 29 Nov 12

The duty of the local press is to hold the council, councillors, highways, all the people that affect our lives at a local level to account. WN seems to not want to "rock the boat" are you afraid of them and if that is why you just print the PR rather than question it ? Listen to a bit of John Humphries in the morning or Paxman at night, adopt a bit of that attitude and work and fight for the people of Worcester and surrounding area.

Report this post »

dulon says...
9:21am Fri 30 Nov 12

I wish that this commentary was publicised more .... The enquiry has reported into press standards and Cameron is reversing its findings as we comment .
Of course there are no vested interests there ..... The next thing will be the setting up of another self administered body funded by the press . With no teeth or real independence . Leveson does not mention the gagging of the press only the responsibilies and accountability of the press .
I grow tired of Paxman and Humphries trying to put words into peoples mouths just as much as I am tired of politicians looking for a soundbite in the same interview .

Report this post »

pronstar says...
9:30am Fri 30 Nov 12

Stop buying newspapers is my advice

Report this post »

Keith B says...
9:38am Fri 30 Nov 12

Cameron sets up an enquiry, promises to implement it's findings, then chickens out when a bit of pressure is put on him by his friends who own newspapers.

The next thing we will find is Rebekah Brooks being given a CBE for services to freedom of information.

There was a short series on Channel 4 called Secret State which ended last week with the Prime Minister standing up in Parliament and calling for a vote of no confidence in his own Government.

Possibly Cameron should do the same.

Report this post »

dulon says...
11:00am Fri 30 Nov 12

With reference to the comment 'the duty of the press' ,I am inclined to disagree , the duty of the 'press' is to make money for their owners regardless of the quality or moral standing of the publication . There is only one news organisation that I know of that is 'non profit making ' And that is our very own BBC . The rest of them are owned by the supporters of 'press freedom' .

Report this post »

®og says...
11:13am Fri 30 Nov 12

Newspapers are to be throttled to prevent them from obtaining information by monitoring conversations, messages, emails, contents of waste bins, in the pursuit of revealing dodgy politicians and A listers playing away. However the government has a massive operation to monitor conversations, messages, emails, contents of waist bins - but that's OK because they call it 'national security'
The government already suppresses news by using 'D' notices but this does not seem to have been mentioned.
Criminal and Civil Law covers all of the poor practice by some newspapers and several past editors are slowly on their way to prison.
If your information is valuable or if you don't want to get caught doing stupid things then surely the remedy is in your own hands.

Report this post »

Hack says...
11:37am Fri 30 Nov 12

Give me a for instance of a 'D' notice you can identify and slapped on who?

Report this post »

®og says...
1:31pm Fri 30 Nov 12

Hack wrote:
Give me a for instance of a 'D' notice you can identify and slapped on who?
exactly - if I knew the 'D' notices they wouldn't be working

Report this post »

Hack says...
1:44pm Fri 30 Nov 12

Not strictly correct. You may well know of an example via personal knowledge. A blanket 'already suppresses news' is merely your belief. If this was a court case, I could say you are guilty of an offence as the prosecutor, but I would need to offer evidence to support that.

Report this post »

uptonX says...
2:22pm Fri 30 Nov 12

No response then Hack ? Although the Worcester local press did once, many years ago, campaign, question and hold to account it certainly doesn't any more. Often now you are just a press release reprint service. If there had been some evidence of fighting on behalf of local people then your noise today about "press freedom" might be treated with a bit more deference.

Report this post »

dulon says...
2:37pm Fri 30 Nov 12

uptonx you might remember that when the upton bridge banana fiasco/story ran, the WCC member for upton was exposed as being a Whittington resident and made zero contribution to the issue as far as I am aware . However when this story of his residential location was revealed the story was removed from this website !
Dont rock the boat ?

Report this post »

More Tea Vicar says...
2:39pm Fri 30 Nov 12

Hack wrote:
UptonX and DarrenM, do you really think thhat this paper is a simple mouthpiece for the WCC or any other agency? That it stamps on criticism? Or, are you trying to be controversial? If the latter, fine. Let's debate. Give some examples. I like debate.
I find the WN seems to swing both ways regarding the Council.

Sometimes it does seem to act as a mouthpiece, relaying in rather flattering terms announcements about council initiatives.

It also collaborates with the council in some council publications, if I recall correctly.

That said, the WN also publishes very unflattering articles about councillors and council waste.

The WN broke and reported extensively on the Allah Ditta story, for example. And it quite often carries stories about the council hiring in consultants at vast expense for no good reason.

Overall, I'd say the WN does a pretty good job, even if I don't always agree with its views, and find some of its language and story choices hilarious.

Terror/tragedy/horro
r sweet shop mishap as reported by YOUR Worcester News....that kind of thing.

Report this post »

Keith B says...
6:11pm Fri 30 Nov 12

Do an FOI request to find out how much the Council(s) spend with Worcester News on advertising. It will stagger you.

Report this post »

Hack says...
6:24pm Fri 30 Nov 12

What does that prove? WCC et al are obliged to publish public notices, no choice. Local media has always been the route. These carry a premium ad rate, across the country. Any local rag will tell you. It's called income. If you are saying that the WN bends to blur news as a direct result, then prove it.
So many posters here remind me of the reds under the beds period.

Report this post »

New Kid on the Block says...
12:53pm Sat 1 Dec 12

Be careful about what you ask for. A free press is always an early casualty of a dictatorship.
The press may be far from perfect but a press that sometimes goes too far may be preferable to one that is cannot enquire about anything contentious.
A lot of the unsavory actions of the press are already illegal as the likes of Rebecca Brookes are finding out.

Report this post »

Keith B says...
4:37pm Sat 1 Dec 12

It's Rebekah Brooks - the Islington/Witney set spelling!!!!

Cameron's reaction to the report he commissioned simply confirms he is in the back-pocket of Murdoch - not financially but go to war with the man that controls 40% of press sales and you might as well write off future political longevity.

Everyone is avoiding saying so but why say you will carry through the recommendations unless they are bonkers, right up until the time the report is made which is clearly not bonkers.

I've regularly defended Cameron for a long time - now he shown himself to be corrupted I can not support him or his party in the future, It's a step rightwards for me to UKIP.

Report this post »

More Tea Vicar says...
5:57pm Sat 1 Dec 12

dulon wrote:
You will all no doubt have seen the documentary last night by Hugh Grant . It made me think that perhaps the media really does have too much influence. The advent of the internet has allowed us to access to different views and opinions ,but , I would venture to guess that the populist press and tv , still have the greatest influence on public opinion .
This paper has allowed us access to the voice our opinion ,thats good, but as most contributors do not agree with the view of the WN then I dont think that the subject will be viewable for long. Or indeed these posts!
The banks and press have enjoyed too much influence and access for too long they should now suffer the consequences of their behaviour .
Actually I doubt we all will. I've heard a few people comment on the BBC over the last couple of days that the report is THE big issue in Westminster and Fleet Street, but they are starting to notice that ordinary people aren't all that interested.

Report this post »

More Tea Vicar says...
6:03pm Sat 1 Dec 12

uptonX wrote:
Ok, Lets start with the "safety camera partnership" WN just print their PR yet speed camera are pretty much discredited and more sensible places like Swindon have got rid of them and spend the money on real road safety measures that save lives.
The Whittington roundabout fiasco. Over 100 coments in numerous threads but this website just buried it, why not go to the meetings, find who was responsible and hold them to account, apart from the waste of money it's still a dangerous junction and someone will get killed there as a result of the "improvements"
The WN does sometimes seem to just act as a conduit for council PR.

I have just had a look at a rather gushing article it's done about the Hive, for example. I am in two minds about the Hive, but a lot of the comment I hear about it is negative. Yet, after a string of complaints and negative articles, the Worcester News prints a council PR story.

I do find that a little offputting.

But the Worcester News is also very effective and vociferous in printing highly negative articles about the council.

So on balance, I'd say the Worcester News gets it right, in the end.

Most importantly, I don't think the Worcester News has ever been involved in the kind of dodgy dealings the tabloids seem to have got up to.

It would be wrong to penalise the likes of the Worcester News for things it hasn't done.

Report this post »

More Tea Vicar says...
6:08pm Sat 1 Dec 12

dulon wrote:
With reference to the comment 'the duty of the press' ,I am inclined to disagree , the duty of the 'press' is to make money for their owners regardless of the quality or moral standing of the publication . There is only one news organisation that I know of that is 'non profit making ' And that is our very own BBC . The rest of them are owned by the supporters of 'press freedom' .
The BBC might be non profit making.

But that doesn't mean it's a charity, either. It is staffed by a lot of people on ridiculously high salaries, and I would love to see you try to do a job for a few weeks, **** it up, then resign and get paid a year's salary.

And the BBC is horribly biased, with its own set of agendas, which it pushes at every opportunity.

The BBC loved the whole phone hacking story, because it helped out with its commercial dispute with the Murdoch press. That's why it devoted so much airtime to it.

Unfortunately, the Savile/Newsnight/Ent
wiste affair knocked the BBC off its moral high horse.

Report this post »

Keith B says...
6:19pm Sat 1 Dec 12

More tea Vicar wrote ..."but they are starting to notice that ordinary people aren't all that interested."

That is the propaganda the press is putting out .... if nobody's interested why is this string running 5 days after publication .... why is it still leading broadcast news items.

This is the key issue in how Britain is ruled over the next decade. Will Murdoch run it from the USA to a Fox News type agenda, or will the British people grab back the initiative and get ourselves a Press with ethics. If it takes legal backing then so be it.

Report this post »

Hack says...
6:41pm Sat 1 Dec 12

The BBC is profit making. Check their on-line site and enjoy the ads. Does that make them corrupt? Doubt it. Are they biased, in part, yes, they defend their position; they are, after all in competition for listeners/viewers/re
aders.
Dulon has a view that can't be substantiated; 'make money regardless of quality or morality'. What they print they want to sell papers on and attract advertising, 'regardless', no, you are so wrong.
Yet to check story ref. The Hive, which I am not acquainted with; maybe come back on that one.

Report this post »

Hack says...
7:04pm Sat 1 Dec 12

Looked at the Hive story MTV; yes it is more PR than news reporting. Two things, it's posted at the weekend; dead time. Second, the content is reasonably positive, so why not run it? Councils do get it right, perhaps this is one of those occasions.

Report this post »

New Kid on the Block says...
11:57am Sun 2 Dec 12

Why is Lord Justice Leveson unwilling to discuss his own report.
Is it not more than a little unusual to present your findings then leave saying that you are never going to mention the report again?
People are calling for it to be implemented wholesale yet the writer will not even discuss it!
How on earth can he expect a 2,000 page report to be accepted and implemented without discussion and clarification?

Report this post »

Hack says...
1:56pm Sun 2 Dec 12

Shami Chakrabarti suggests legislation would breach human rights.

Report this post »

uptonX says...
2:56pm Sun 2 Dec 12

Something has to be done about the press, although much less important in people's lives than it once was it still has some influence. At a local level I find it offensive when local press describes itself as "working for you" and then prints the PR of it's advertisers and paymasters and crushes any dissent or even a counterview. Maybe over time an alternative model will emerge, probably online, that really does work for the good of the local community rather than just it's own pockets and politics.

Report this post »

Hack says...
3:00pm Sun 2 Dec 12

uptonX wrote:
Something has to be done about the press, although much less important in people's lives than it once was it still has some influence. At a local level I find it offensive when local press describes itself as "working for you" and then prints the PR of it's advertisers and paymasters and crushes any dissent or even a counterview. Maybe over time an alternative model will emerge, probably online, that really does work for the good of the local community rather than just it's own pockets and politics.
Strong comment. Can you provide precise example - 'paymasters', 'crushes any dissent' or 'counterview'?

Report this post »

uptonX says...
4:11pm Sun 2 Dec 12

Paymaster - those that pay the Worcester News advertising and fill the pages - basically the content stream from County Hall. Sometimes even the typos in the original press releases are reproduced. The links are closer than is healthy.
Crushes dissent - Threads about the dangerous roundabout on this website that you pulled.
Counterview - As above and the examples earlier in this thread. You even print the PR from the discredited "safety camera partnership", that really is a dis-service to local people, that quango has hoovered up funds that could have been spent doing things that save lives - as has happened in our UK cities.

Report this post »

New Kid on the Block says...
6:28pm Sun 2 Dec 12

Hack wrote:
Shami Chakrabarti suggests legislation would breach human rights.
And she was one of the six people who advised Lord Leveson.
Makes you wonder what the lawyers are going to make of his report once they have had time to dig. But Leveson is so sure he is right that he won't discuss matters.

How many of the people who are urging us to adopt the findings of this report have actually read it?
2000 pages much of it legal speak takes a lot of reading and even more understanding.

In reply to the earlier comment from KeithB, Rebekah is the biblical spelling which rather predates any so called Islington/Witney set.

Report this post »

DarrenM says...
6:46pm Sun 2 Dec 12

i almost had to worry if UptonX was me ala "flight club" for a minute! - Don't let the ditta story fool you, they had hard evidence in the case of recordings , it would have been picked up somewhere else as it was in the nationals if they hadn't had run with it they would have looked ridiculous. In any case they aren't in league with freemasons or Illuminati or any other conspiracy theorys, in my opinion they simply have a vested interest for commercial reasons in maintaining relationships with wider agency's as a whole instead of holding them to account, done because its a weekly paper masquerading as a daily paper, and because local print media is effectively dead, but if you can keep the corpse twitching you can still make something from the advertising. Nothing to print = no advertising, reporters are expensive, so easier to reprint press releases as maximize income. Annoy the people who issue you the releases and grant the interviews = nothing to print = no advertising = no paper.

Report this post »

bmoc55 says...
8:52pm Sun 2 Dec 12

I haven't read the report and I doubt if any of your correspondents have either.

What concerns me are the immediate knee jerk calls for Parliament to pass regulations to "control" the press. If Parliament becomes invloved and a law is establised it will be easy for future governments to tinker with the wording or make changes, and this could lead to restictions on press freedom.

Hacked off is getting undue publicity, but this can be countered by going onto
www.freespeechnetwor
k.org.uk and sending an e-mail to your MP

Report this post »

DarrenM says...
9:44pm Sun 2 Dec 12

The proposed law is to establish a recognized independent press standards body with teeth like OFCOM for example, independent from the press and the state unlike the PCC - Not as the press would have you believe a government body to control what they report, the press fear this hence all the scaremongering as they fear any form of regulation.

Report this post »

New Kid on the Block says...
8:36am Mon 3 Dec 12

If the body is set up by the Government you can be sure that they will choose who sits on it. Meaning that it will reflect Government opinion not public opinion.
Do you really believe that MPs will be able to resist a chance to reduce the scrutiny they operate under. The farce surrounding their expense payments makes me think otherwise.

Report this post »

dulon says...
10:51am Mon 3 Dec 12

before we go off piste with expenses etc. I think that we need to get back to the original subject and the reasons for the leveson report , We have learnt of incredibly bad behaviour from the the prime ministers office down . What the report set out to do was to expose the bad behaviour and come up with a system that was independent of all and had the teeth to do the job. Vested interests have shown their hand and it now a question of honesty from the government as to whether they adopt the report in full.
My theory is that, like the report on WMD, the government doesnt like what it hears and will come up with a fudge covered in spin .
As for the Rebeka Brooks association we now know of the criminal charges and there will undoubtedly some uncomfortable moments to come for our PM when that case starts .

Report this post »

Hack says...
11:11am Mon 3 Dec 12

UptonX, don't confuse my nom de plume with my being undercover for the WN.
Local media need income, the sales price doesn't cover the overheads.
Local media will also publish PR from many sources. If not apparently controversial, they may see what it sparks. If it is a sensitive topic, then I would expect media to take a closer look and perhaps dig into the topic before publishing.
If threads are being deleted, then that is sad, unless those threads counter site rules, patently offensive for example.
I originally posted about the knock-on effect of any legislation created would have on local/regional media. Fleet Street, as was, can look after itself. WN is part of a larger UK group owned by an American corporation, but I doubt they have the political clout to lobby No`10. I may be wrong. However, if regional newsgroups banned together, they could stump the cash to lobby.
As others I have not read the full report; just filtered the coverage to get an overall feel for what may come about. I argued that laws exist to cover criminal media activity now. To me that is where you begin.

Report this post »

New Kid on the Block says...
7:05pm Tue 4 Dec 12

I agree with Hack. We already have laws to cover criminal activity by the media, why do we need more?
I am always very wary of Lawyers telling us we need more laws.
One proposal we certainly don't need is for journalists sources to lose their anonymity. Whistleblowers need to be protected, otherwise many scandals could go unreported.

Report this post »

Hack says...
7:53pm Tue 4 Dec 12

Cheers New Kid - widening the debate about how media might respond to a situation. New civil top cops. Longmore wants a No2, his pal. Other top cops are bidding for a No 2 also; Northampton being one.
Did we know this expansion possibility when the jobs were first put to the public; can't recall I saw anything.
WN has put up a Comment column questioning this. Rightly so. Now I want an interview with Longmore: 'What are you doing?' Why do you need a deputy?' How many more staff do you need?' What total costs do you forsee? Who will pay those costs? Critics says you are taking cops off the street, what do you say to that?
You see where I am going with this ... I expect WN to respond to the story they are running. Lots of questions. As yet, no answers.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree