Says we need a legal framework to regulate the press.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20543936
I think we have the right to demand a press that is independent, honest, responsible, and factual.
we wont however get it.
|
>>we wont however get it.
No, we will get the press we are willing to pay for.
And we've already got it.
|
|
A few journalists, editors, CEOs, etc going down for 5 years will do more than legislation
|
No it won't, its all deck chairs on the Titanic.
Now, if people stopped buying an offending newspaper.....
|
>> I think we have the right to demand a press that is independent, honest, responsible,
>> and factual.
>>
>>
>> we wont however get it.
>>
Did we ever? For a start, papers have owners who are not likely to offer complete freedom to editors. Even The Independent, owned I believe by its staff, is left-wing and the rest are subject to political bias.
|
Even The Independent, owned I believe by its staff, is left-wing
No it's owned by a Russian billionaire, Alexander Lebedev.
|
|
I haven't got a clue how the newspaper industrie works but this enquiry cost over 5 million pound.Was it worth it ?
|
Lord L tells us at great expense something that's bleeding obvious...
|
>> Lord L tells us at great expense something that's bleeding obvious...
>>
That is what he was employed to do.
That is what the British obsession with "full public enquiries" always produces.
All such inquiries are but a means to delay a decision, con the public that a "full" consultation was carried out, and then either do nothing or do what the politician intended to do if the inquiry agrees with him/her, or if the inquiry does not come up with the wished for verdict then just do what the politician intended to do anyway.
|
Ah! Official Inquiries. As ever, "Yes Minister" has a guide to dealing with them.
"How to discredit an unwelcome report:
Stage One: Refuse to publish in the public interest saying
1. There are security considerations.
2. The findings could be misinterpreted.
3. You are waiting for the results of a wider and more detailed report which is still in preparation. (If there isn't one, commission it; this gives you even more time).
Stage Two: Discredit the evidence you are not publishing, saying
1. It leaves important questions unanswered.
2. Much of the evidence is inconclusive.
3. The figures are open to other interpretations.
4. Certain findings are contradictory.
5. Some of the main conclusions have been questioned. (If they haven't, question them yourself; then they have).
Stage Three: Undermine the recommendations. Suggested phrases:
1. 'Not really a basis for long term decisions'.
2. 'Not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment'.
3. 'No reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy'.
4. 'Broadly speaking, it endorses current practice'.
Stage Four: Discredit the person who produced the report. Explain (off the record) that
1. He is harbouring a grudge against the Department.
2. He is a publicity seeker.
3. He is trying to get a Knighthood/Chair/Vice Chancellorship.
4. He used to be a consultant to a multinational.
5. He wants to be a consultant to a multinational."
"To suppress an internal government report, rewrite it as official advice to the Minister. Then it is against the rules to publish it, so you can leak the bits you want to friendly journalists."
|
|
Isn't Leveson correctly pronounced Loosen?
|
|
Fanshaw I think. Or possibly Chumley.
|
It isn't unusual for a government to ignore the recommendations of an official report or enquiry. It has happened at least three times with reports on recreational drug use, which tend to recommend decriminalisation of some drugs and a proper state rationing system for heroin, like the one we used to have, along with a radical overhaul of the ludicrous, unenforceable, harmful and malevolent laws on possession and so on. They reject the findings every time, almost certainly to suck up to the US.
The Leveson report is worthy of course and its recommendations are moderate. But even if the government were to impose North Korean-style state control, I don't see tabloid hacks refraining from distasteful or illegal information gathering techniques, or editors refraining from using any tasty material so gathered. Not without a long struggle anyway. The report cites a number of high-profile examples of good and bad practice, but many others are bruised by their contacts with the media without coming to public attention. It's just the way things are and have always been.
I have now corrected the spelling of the judge's name three times. It's rude to misspell the names of individuals. I have to say that misspelling a proper name everyone has read three or four times every day for the last month strikes me as intellectually sluttish even by our standards.
|
The Leveson report is the classic case of :
1. shutting the stable door after the horse and cart with footmen and riders have bolted.
2. Ignoring the elephant in the room which can NOT be censored until after the event - t'internet
3. Ignoring the impact of various Injunctions which allow the rich to prevent publication of Court cases etc.. See Andrew Marr and his attempt to conceal his sex life.
4.Ignoring the fact the internet means that information published abroad can now be read in the UK via the internet.
In otherwords, it's a complete waste of time and space and doomed to failure..
As far as the gross abuses by the press like the McCann affair , bring in the US fashion of punitive damages. and apply them to editors as well as publications... So teh McCanns woild say win £1m in damages made £10 and applied to Editor as well.
If the UK does bring in formal Press Rgulation, A few will move offshore and stick tehir thumbs up..
And it serves the politiiains right..
Better a new law of personal privacy rather than teh half cocked shambles offered by a judge who ignored the 21st century,.
I see Ed Milliband is rowing back from support. for regulation
Leveson was clearly out of his depth..
Apologies for typos.. blame the red wine and gin.
Last edited by: madf on Fri 30 Nov 12 at 19:17
|
>>Ignoring the fact the internet means that information published abroad can now be read in the UK via the internet.
One wonders how this will pan out. As a global entity the internet is uncontrollable. For example the last round of injunctions.
Of course, people not wanting to read it would stop it, but that sadly is not the case.
In these times of trying to control everything with regulation, uncontrolled information sharing on the internet is either going to have to be accepted and ignored or become the subject of some of the most draconian witch hunts ever.
|
Source, its all about source. Everything said on the net has a source that is - relatively - easy to track down. Now where that source resides, and the statutes therein are those that apply.
In short if someone defames, vilifies, slanders or is libellous about you from Azerbaijan, thats where you seek redress. If I, in the uk, pass it on, without embellishing it in any way, I am not the source, merely a carrier.
|
>> Source, its all about source.
which will take us straight to...
>> become the subject of some of the most draconian witch hunts ever.
|
|
Not really a witch hunt, merely normal evidential gathering and subsequent (or not depending on local laws) resolution.
|
>> if someone defames, vilifies, slanders or is libellous about you, I am not the source
Yes you are, you snivelling lying yobbish little hypocrite. But at least you're intelligent and amusing sometimes unlike your pathetic catamite, the chap with the earnest, conceitedly verbose talent for stating the bleeding obvious, who can't even spell the name of a country he says he lived in.
You do come across real nasty pathetic rubbish on the internet. Even I am shocked.
|
@madf,
The report was concerned with the culture, practice and ethics of the press. Like any lawyer Leveson has stuck to his brief.
It wasn't 'the internet' that committed the abuses against McCann family, Chris Jefferies, the Dowlers and others. It was the still largely paper/mass circulation organs formerly quartered in Fleet St.
Neither was he concerned with privacy injunctions as exemplified by Marr and others. Another initiative under the Lord Chief and Master of the Rolls has codified some rules around that area.
But why is it your or my concern where Marr's willy goes? Understand Jackie Ashley's being bebothered, but the rest of us - WTF??
|
>>But why is it your or my concern where Marr's willy goes?
Sadly because the people who buy some newspapers do care and are interested.
I think the mistake is to misunderstand the motivation of the press;
The business itself is there to make money and keep the shareholders happy. To do that it has developed a strategy, approach and personality that it and they believe will attract readers and drive that success. And that includes a definition of the type and style of material they will publish. They employ the journalists most likely to generate that material, and that employed journalist would like to be successful at work
Any form of regulation will interfere with that process. Consequently they will always be trying to work out a way around it.
Clearly illegal behaviour should be punished according to the law.
But bad taste, immorality etc. etc. I really don't think there is much that can be done about that for as long as there is a demand for the material it produces.
Clearly if they felt that writing endless stories about the finer things in life would work, they'd do that. An some to attend that market. But the other markets will always be addressed one way or another.
At no time in human history has any situation been resolved by attempting to control supply. Not with drugs, prostitution, prohibition of alcohol, porn, or anything else.
I would have been impressed and believed if Leveson had brought that out in his report.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 30 Nov 12 at 21:44
|
Bromps
I agree..
But taken as a whole the Leveson Report I think will be looked back at as micturating into the wind.
As for the sexual exploits of celebs, I care not.
I do care about Trafigura allegedly spreading cancer causing chemicals in Africa and lying about. Or Politicos saying one thing and doing another.. eg expenses..
Lord L did his best but I suspect his brief was impossible..
|
>>
>> I have now corrected the spelling of the judge's name three times. It's rude to
>> misspell the names of individuals. I have to say that misspelling a proper name everyone
>> has read three or four times every day for the last month strikes me as
>> intellectually sluttish even by our standards.
>>
As is mispronouncing it.
The old English family of Leveson was originally spelled and pronounced Luson, its most notable members being the Leveson-Gowers, pronounced Luson-Gore, who produced countless peers and a famous cricketer.
Misspelling the name as Levison might seem to be an attempt to make it appear of Jewish origin, for unknown reasons, or perhaps simple accidental carelessness.
|
|
FWIW the profiles say Brian Leveson is (Orthodox) Jewish. One assumes that if he wanted it pronounced other than phonetically then the judicial office would have put that message inot press releases etc.
|
|
I assumed he was Jewish from his name as well.
|
Don't know whether to laugh or cry at today's revelation that Hugh Grant's barrister David Sherborne and junior counsel to the inquiry Carine Patry-Hoskins are now in a relationship.
Report below from Guardian and, for balance, Mail:
www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/apr/21/scandal-leveson-lawyers-romance
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312310/Opposing-Leveson-lawyers-come-declaring-romance-inquiry.html
Raking over a private matter for financial and political gain or a free press doing it's job?
Love the Sun's snappy comment though as replicated in sub thread title.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 21 Apr 13 at 11:56
|
|
Any suggestion that Barristers are improperly regulated is of course libellous.
|
Now that the government has announced that blogs will be exempt from the new system of press regulation and there would also be an exemption for blogs with fewer than 10 employees under the amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill, the whole matter of press regulation has become a farce.
For example, Rolf Harris had been identified as the Berkshire 83-y-o man months ago by bloggers, but the newspapers have only revealed it this week. Given that the "press" is a rapidly-diminishing source of news, Leveson seems to be very much a wasted effort.
|
The Levison Report - No FM2R
