The Leveson Inquiry

[bananaistheanswer]

I know there is a thread on Hugh Grant, but wanted to start one to discuss the bits and bobs that's been happening. Might be worth having one thread to cover this? Ignore if you disagree!

Anyway, was interested in a couple of things that have happened today. Diane Watson's parents giving evidence, not directly linked to phone hacking, but as general evidence regarding the PCC's toothless, spineless dealings with complaints about the press and their intrusions. Interesting and compelling evidence. Particularly as they have been campaigning on the issue for years, long before the whole phone hacking thing blew up. This is what the BBC have said they have been doing over the years because of their experience of the press at large -

The submission added that Mr and Mrs Watson had:

direct contact with the newspaper and the magazine (publications that they felt were wrong on what they wrote about their daughter)

complained to the Press Complaints Commission

contacted their own MP and MEP

engaged in correspondence with the Scottish and Home Offices, the Scottish Parliament Committee's Justice Committees and the European Commission of Human Rights

and lodged a petition with the Scottish Parliament on 10 May, 2002, regarding wider policy issues.

Their son committed suicide, with clippings of press articles written about his sister, found in his hand.

Moving onto Gary Flitcroft - had 2 affairs, tried to get the stories snuffed out, was refused and then was hounded by the press. He blames is father's suicide some years later on the publicity given to his affairs, resulting in a man who already suffered from depression, losing interest in watching his son play football because of the publicity his affairs got in the press, and then the chanting at football grounds which were too much for him.

Then, there was Elle Macpherson's assistant, accused of speaking to journalists on her private life/crumbling relationship, who was forced to go to rehab for 'alcoholism' as Elle felt she wouldn't have betrayed her trust if it wasn't for her alcoholism. She went to rehab, but then got sacked afterwards anyway. She wrote to the police on realising that her phone could have been hacked, but wasn't answered. Bizarre story.

The various QCs or whoever, commenting on the fact the Mail on Sunday have now attacked Hugh Grant on a personal level, because of his evidence yesterday, when it was supposedly agreed no attacks would follow anyone who gave evidence.

It's mental so far, the picture being painted (granted by those on the receiving end of the press intrusion) is just awful. Watched some ex NOTW journo on sky trying to justify the Mail's reaction, with a Daily Star Journo actually backing Grant in his stance re his daughter's mother etc.

It's all pretty gripping stuff.

So far, we have had 2 people mentioned as having committed suicide, which their families believe were linked to the press coverage of the stories linked to them. I am genuinely wondering how many more stories we'll hear along those lines.

They were persons of interest. You can have multiple "arguido" - you cannot have multiple suspects.

transcript here for anyone who missed it

the definition of the phrase is irrelevant. The fact is that the Portuguese police were letting it be known that they believed the McCanns were involved in the disappearance and death of their daughter.

The definition of the phrase is absolutely not irrelevant, it's how the general public have the information presented to them. You don't buy a paper, read it, flick through your dictionary, read a bit more, flick through your dictionary.

I see where you're coming from, but I completely disagree that the definition is irrelevant. If a journalist translates a word into a specific British word, then they accept that that is the meaning the readers of the paper will accept. Personally I think saying it's irrelevant is highly irresponsible.

The Portuguese police did say that they suspected that the mccanns may have been involved in the disappearance of thier daughter. Doesnt that make them 'suspects'?

Thanks banana you're very gracious

I just want to answer a couple of other people on this thread: did you honestly not notice how almost every month Marie Claire were coming up with remote tribes where women seemed to rule the roost and not wonder how this could possibly happen in a tiny world where men overwhelmingly rule the roost?

That was just one of the nonsenses they would come up with. I used to buy it about 20 years ago for fun and for professional reasons I still read it on a regular basis, To me it has always been clearly made-up shit.

I'm not excusing them. IPC and other women's publishers don't employ competent journalists or train them up because that would be too expensive.

Publishers of NI, Associated, MGN and others do actually have people in senior and junior positions who know what they're doing. When they break the rules they know what they're doing.

I would never say that is better but the level of cynicism with the likes of them and IPC are the same.

But I do think readers have a responsiblity, albeit lesser, to look at clearly suspect stuff and think: 'this doesn't add up.' That isn't the same as sayng 'everything in the tabloids isn't true.' Sometimes it is. Oftentimes the standard of reporting in your favourite glossy or the Sunday Times, say, is appalling and all readers should be on the lookout for that.

News groups get away with using substandard employees because it's cheap and readers don't question it.

Thing is if you buy a product and it does not perform as it should we have recourse to trade law/trading standards (though personally I think all washing powder is pretty useless for my kids many stains). So why is it acceptable/legal for this sub standard reporting? On one of the evening news programmes someone suggested that they reckoned MP's didn't have the appetite to change the situation. Why on heavens name not? Is it because they are still frightened of the Citizen Kanes? I have become so disillusioned but the danger is you just become detached from politics, they all seem so useless. The only thing the dreadful nuns really did for me was to make me realise what the suffragettes did for us and how no matter how we felt we should always vote.
Limitedperiodonly is totally right, from here on in I will complain when I see unacceptable reporting,I as a reader have a responsibility.

I have been sickened and disgusted at what I have heard and seen of the Leveson Enquiry. It has laid bare a bullying and corruption in an industry that is supposed to be playing a vital role in our democracy. All those involved should be ashamed of themselves. The PCC should disband as it is clearly not fit for purpose.

However, there is an upside. It was proper, persistant, fearless, investigative journalism that exposed these wrong doings. So there is hope. We as consumers must choose our media as ethically as we do other products.

"However, there is an upside. It was proper, persistant, fearless, investigative journalism that exposed these wrong doings. So there is hope. We as consumers must choose our media as ethically as we do other products."

Definitely, The Guardian and Private Eye have been brilliant.

With the vast amount of information that is available on the internet we are, I hope less dependent know on the selective/skewed view often presented by the media.

I'm still shocked that any newspaper would think it was acceptable to delete the messages on the phone of a missing girl, with the obvious likliehood of hugely distressing that girls family and also of misleading the police investigation. What were they thinking?

How can the definition of the word be irrelevant?

In the McCann case, it was obvious at the time that there was the possibility of bias from the police - they looked like a bunch of incompetents, they looked like they were out of their depth etc. The system is foreign to us, the language is foreign to us...ALL people had to go on was the reporting in the media. And it turns out the media just could not be ARSED to stick to a proper translation (although some journalists did, which makes Nancy's assertion even worse tbh) and went with 'oh but the police fink they done it, don't blame US'. How very shit.

Just watched Sienna Miller - I thought she came across very well, very dignified and clearly determined to get to the bottom of what went on re who did what and when in terms of hacking her phones etc. Interesting that she was able to get across that her motivation for suing was not financial but to get answers on what went on, and who knew what and did the various hacking she was subjected to. And the fact that to date, she still hasn't had full disclosure from NI. NI's response to now agree to give her full disclosure on what went on - why the hell did it take her appearing at the inquiry for them to finally give her what she wanted? And frankly what she was entitled to see? I think the hiding behind the legal process is what has frustrated a lot of those who were targeted by NI. By actually, finally, admitting what went on was wrong, but to still not come clean on the minute details. No doubt because there is so much more they are trying to hide.

Oh dear, I'm going to be hog-roasted for pointing this out:

1. The McCanns have used the world's media from the day after their child went missing. Does some inaccurate reporting early on outweigh the benefits they've had from the media exposure?

1. The McCanns admit themselves the newspapers were fed nasty rumours by the Portuguese police. I'd be blaming the police, myself.

1. Rupert Murdoch may be foul but neither he, nor any journalist, actually nicked Madeleine. Don't blame the nearest person for the suffering of the parents because they are close to hand.

1. The real screw-up in the McCann case has been the "detective" the McCanns hired, paid £1m to, and then watched do nothing for months and vanish - he was a famous fraudster. The fraudster was exposed and largely trapped by the Sunday Times, funnily enough.

1. Some media - cinemas, for instance - stopped giving the McCann search publicity after children were freaked out by the graphic tale. The newspapers, loyally, haven't.

Max Mosley now, just having his credentials listed. Interesting...

Cory I think your first point is really interesting - would you say that by accepting media coverage, they gave the papers a licence to print whatever they wanted? Would you extend that to all celebrities/people of public interest? By having a role in the public eye you wave all rights to privacy? Because we could pretty much stop the inquiry now if that's the case. I've been covering it in depth in my media law classes, and where the line is drawn is a really contentious point.

The newspapers may have been fed rumours, or even been given a copy of Kate's diary, but there the standard that journalists are held to is that of "responsible journalism" - I don't think printing someone's diary, without direct permission and without even warning them, counts as responsible.

I agree with what I think your underlying point is - that the papers didn't put the McCanns in the position they were originally in - but I don't think their role in the search gives them the right to do what they did. Although I also agree that the Portugese police come across exceedingly badly.

Watching Mosley's testimony is really interesting. He's addressing the issue of the explosion all over the world wide web of the story NI printed about him. He has successfully managed to shut down 193 websites which repeated the slurs against him, and he is still engaged in litigation in countless countries trying to deal with the internet stuff that follows on from the tabloid stories printed. It's cost him a fortune and there is no end in sight in his efforts to get the story shut down. He's also discussed the advice he got from counsel when 1st considering taking his case to court - if he lost it would cost him £1million +, if he wins, it will still cost him tens of thousands, and by taking the matter to court, he gives more focus on the story which goes against the reasons he wants to take the matter to court. The fact that this story goes back a few years just goes to show the whole 'todays news, tomorrow's chip shop paper' analogy is way of the mark nowadays.

Banana I thought the cost aspect was really interesting - and I think he said that he felt that if he didn't do it, nobody would? It just highlights how inaccessible the system is. Although I think he is coming across a little defensive? I'm not warming to him particularly.

I'm not warming to him as such, but beginning to appreciate the scale of the effect this story had on him. His private life, being splashed all over the world, with the added untrue slur (which I won't repeat, don't want to be sued), proven in court to be untrue - yet even now, years later, he is still actively working to get this slur removed from the likes of google for searches on his name, and the 23 countries he is also litigating in, to get the video removed from websites.

I think his testimony is illustrating the far reached consequences printing a story in a sunday tabloid can have.

far reaching consequences

corygal, re your statement 'newspapers, loyally, haven't (stopped giving the search publicity)'.

This is not done out of 'loyalty', but because this story & all the exaggeration and fabrications based around it sell newspapers. No other reason.

As much as I have little interest in Max Mosley and what he gets up to, I have a wry smile at this comment -

'In Rebekah Brooks case she could deny for England'

Mosley is being quite amusing at times. Loved this one

'What Dacre said in his speech to the Society of Editors was that I was guilty of 'unimaginable depravity'.

First of all I would say it reflects badly on his imagination'

He's arguing his position quite passionately, and with some humour at times. He's not entirely convincing with all his arguments, but none the less, he's a very interesting witness...

Another comparison to the mafia, this time from Mosley. Seems to be a common theme...

Past grace - where does it say journalists have to be responsible? I thought they just had to avoid legal action (ex journalist)

Also I think the point that using the media to promote yourself or your cause means you have a pact with the devil. So many celebs make money out of media coverage good and bad - Katie price, kerry katona etc etc

But where do you draw the line when joe public is thrust into the spotlight under the most horrific circumstances imaginable? People expect emotional incontinence these days - they want the tears, the drama, the soap opera. And the tabs and weeklies provide it because it sells - I think as a society we have the media we deserve.

I don't agree that people demand emotional incontinence - they will buy it if it is available but most people don't demand it. The market for the emotional incontinence is created by the papers that peddle the rubbish.