Leveson - the outcome(139 Posts)
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
sorry, "Liitle England, curtain-twitching", not Middle England.
Our press is not free enough. They didn't publish photos that were shown in other papers in the world. They suppress stories that are printed in other papers in the world. There is no such thing as a truly free press, but let's not make it any less free than it already is.
Why not change libel laws and make a no win no fees legal system so that clever lawyers can challenge the press on behalf of the public who don't have the money to take the press on. Why not move to a freer system like in the USA.
Let's be careful not to let powerful, rich, possibly political backers use press illegality to further curtail freedom of teh public to know certain things. Let's not let some prominent celebrity luvvies who dsilike curtain-twitching Middle England views to create an atmosphere which might lead to stifling of a free press.
Point of info - wasn't it the DM that messed up the prosecution of the Stephen Lawrence 5 by publicising their details, photographs and some of the evidence against them, pretty much at the start?
having said this, I'll cease this line - the DM shouldn't necessarily be singularly on trial here.
' The Daily Mail reported on the leaked swine flu memo'
Have you forgotten that historic Sunday when the Mail released that story? Have you forgotten how it had to be mentioned on the Andrew Marr Show that Sunday? They couldn't ignore it, it was in the people's paper, sold to millions, it was only in the Mail on Sunday.
Long live freedom, long live Middle England, long live a free press, long live the Daily Mail!
'But buying a newspaper by the million doesn't make it a 'good thing' or beyond criticism'
Of course it is not beyond criticism; it could do lot more to expose the climate catastrophe con.
'not-guilty of peddling racists'
This was the paper awarded Newspaper of the Year 2012 by the distinguished Society of Editors, in part due to its outstanding coverage of the Stephen Lawrence case.
'middle-England scare-mongering rubbish'
that is a matter of opinion. The Daily Mail reported on the leaked swine flu memo - some politicianns, pharmacological corporations and plutocrats may think that was middle England scaremongering, but millions of Mail readers were interested to read a story that had not been publicised.
'In fact it lots of ways it's too easy a target.'
It ia a target by a luvvie in the Guardian which is the wrong target, which insults the people, and which undermines the case of serious illegality perpetrated by the press.
But buying a newspaper by the million doesn't make it a 'good thing' or beyond criticism or not-guilty of peddling racists, middle-England scare-mongering rubbish. In fact it lots of ways it;s too easy a target.
I hope the Guardian, which some say is a serious paper, interviewed Tom Watson about this.
Guardian interviews with sanctimonious sleb luvvies who dislike the people's paper that outsells the Guardian by a wide margin may please progressives, but will not play well the people.
I would like to hear more from Tom Watson MP who was a hero and made great points about abuse of power, illegality and inappropriate influence on representatives of the people.
But luvvies who dislike a "Little England" view of the world will only make the public support the press.
'peddle his Little-England, curtain-twitching Alan Partridgesque view of the world'
What pomposity Coogan has, to compare in any way the editor of the Daily Mail, a paper read by millions, to his own minor comic character, Alan Partridge, who was funny for all of 5 minutes, and thankfiully no longer often appears on our TV screens.
Thank God we have a free press in the UK, where millions can choose to read the paper that Coogan dislikes. Long live freedom, long live the Daily Mail!
'which manages to combine sanctimonious, pompous moralising'
I don't remember many green, environmental articles on biodiversity, global warming and climate catastrophe. Has he got the Daily Mail mixed up with a certain left-leaning paper?
'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.'
Oh dear, oh dear. It sounds like unfunny Coogan is out of touch with the British public who buy the Daily Mail in their millions.
When no one any longer watches Coogan's comedies and movies and when no one any longer asks for his opinion, the public will still be buying the Daily Mail in their millions, and its online version will still probably be the most visited internet newspaper site in the world.
Perhaps the problem is that Cameron comes from a PR background, so is likely to have friends in all the 'wrong' places. He was only able to become leader of the Tory party as they were looking for a candidate to stand up against slippery slimy Tone.
Otherwise, the Tories would have probably had David Davies as leader, and as a result a lot of things would probably have been very different.
No, not as clearly as that. But he is proposing legislation to establish a regulator, and once you have legislation in place it can be amended, often without further debate in Parliament. The rich and powerful can put pressure on a regulator - look at the way the Press Complaints Commission* backed Murdoch and attacked the journalists exposing phone hacking.
*Not actually a regulator but the same principle applies.
There are already a host of laws that control what the media can and cannot report - they just need to be applied. The attorney general has already made progress wrt contempt of court after the Joanna Yeates case where Christopher Jeffries was traduced by the tabs. He woke up and started pursuing actions, and brought the tabs back into line.
Edam-"Once there's a law specifically to control what can be published and what can't...."
Is that what Leveson is proposing?
The risk is that legislation can have unintended consequences. Once there's a law specifically to control what can be published and what can't, on top of a multiplicity of existing laws (confidentiality, defamation, contempt of court, Official Secrets, being a party to misconduct in a public office and many, many more) then it may well be used by those who fear being exposed or embarrassed to choke off perfectly legitimate investigations. If it's dangerous legally to pursue an investigation, hence extremely expensive, proprietors will want them to be dropped, and journalists won't be allowed to even look for them, let alone report them.
Investigative journalism is expensive and time-consuming. Publishers are wary about spending money on stuff that could get them into trouble.
There is also the argument that celeb tittle tattle subsidises investigative journalism. Gossip sells newspapers and magazines which can then put money into serious journalism. Take the gossip away and the newspaper or magazine folds.
I used to edit an investigative magazine. We had every page read by a libel lawyer before going to press - something that cost a huge amount of money and is a luxury most publications could not afford. We'd still get shysters sending us threatening letters and trying it on (and politicians using PR spin - paid for by the taxpayer to try to shout us down). I was in the fortunate position of having the time and the legal backing to be sure that we'd conducted our investigations properly and ethically and that we could justify what we'd written. There's not many publications that can do that and indeed, that magazine eventually closed down partly because the finances didn't stack up (the publisher decided to invest their money in the main title and close the smaller ones).
I like to think we did some good work, certainly exposed quite a lot of wrongdoing, but the number of publications that are able to do that securely, knowing they are able to defend their work, is shrinking all the time.
The MPs expenses row would have been printed because it passes the 'public interest' test - that is, it's okay to act a bit underhandedly if you can show that it's in the public interest e.g. exposing corruption in high office.
Public interest is just not what the public is interested in, however, and gossip about celebs doesn't count.
I think the press are in the wrong at times when they print untrue stories about people. But on the other hand if there was legislation I bet the MP's expenses row would never have been printed. And I don't like it when people lap up publicity and court press attention but the minute the press print something they don't like they are up in arms.
I apologise Original, I'm dyslexic so often make mistakes.
as you can see
TheOrigionalPlan- that's a very good piece. I particularly enjoyed his description of Paul Dacre, editor of The Daily Mail
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.
I don't think he likes him.
interesting that the press haven't made much mention of the GBP's preference for a legal framework.
Why have the police not been taken to task for a) not prosecuting criminals (which is what they are) and b) why isnt there a Jimmy Saville style investigation in to bribery and corruption in the police force around these issues,
Leveson had to be very careful, in case what he said prejudiced ongoing criminal investigations. A list of those arrested in connection with hacking, bribery and corruption is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_persons_arrested,_charged_and_convicted_in_conjunction_with_the_news_media_phone_hacking_scandal
- several police officers on the list
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.