Leveson enquiry

[Deloodid]

did we really think anything was going to change??

and at what cost??? Nearly £6m

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/21/leveson-inquiry-cost-almost-6m

 

[roydo]

I fail to see where liberty is at risk from proper regulation, no-one is suggesting that legislation or the regulator will determine the copy of newspapers in the role of some form of super-editor. However it will provide the legislative framework to regulate the behaviour of the press and put in law the penalties for failing to meet the regulator's requirements.

But that is the nub of the issue, IMO. Who sets the regulators requirements? Government, or rather, Parliament. Once the genie is out of the bottle, tough putting it back. I am no great fan of the tabloid media, (which is where this is in general aimed at), but neither do I have any faith in any Government setting those parameters. Their track record in these cases is lamentable, (see FSA dealing with banks/equitable life/ etc etc etc), so, IMO, I would be happy for the regulations to stay as they were, but massively increase the penalties for breaking existing laws & guidelines.

One example could be, if a paper was guilty of a serious breach, such as the Newsnight cock up recently, then they are banned from taking Ads for 2 weeks, but still have to go to print. Draconian, but it would make sure they kept within the rules. Anything is better that politicians getting involved.

 

[Mrk]

I fail to see where liberty is at risk from proper regulation, no-one is suggesting that legislation or the regulator will determine the copy of newspapers in the role of some form of super-editor. However it will provide the legislative framework to regulate the behaviour of the press and put in law the penalties for failing to meet the regulator's requirements.

'Proper regulation' and 'independent regulation' are not mutually exclusive - it is perfectly possible to have proper regulation without any kind of statutory underpinning. The best way to stop the disgusting behaviour we have seen is to make sure that bad journalistic practices are illigal, that is the biggest deterrent possible.

One of the key problems I've seen in the Leveson report is he suggests that Ofcom oversee the new 'independent' regulator - who appoints the head of Ofcom? The bloody government! As soon as you let politicians have some influence on the regulation of the press, you're on a slippery slope, because as with everything else, governments always want a little more control.

 

[mrs the esk]

'Proper regulation' and 'independent regulation' are not mutually exclusive - it is perfectly possible to have proper regulation without any kind of statutory underpinning. The best way to stop the disgusting behaviour we have seen is to make sure that bad journalistic practices are illigal, that is the biggest deterrent possible.

One of the key problems I've seen in the Leveson report is he suggests that Ofcom oversee the new 'independent' regulator - who appoints the head of Ofcom? The bloody government! As soon as you let politicians have some influence on the regulation of the press, you're on a slippery slope, because as with everything else, governments always want a little more control.

Well at least the Government are accountable every 5 years for their actions (and their appointments) unlike the press barons and the current self regulation.

 

[roydo]

Well at least the Government are accountable every 5 years for their actions (and their appointments) unlike the press barons and the current self regulation.

Thats debatable. 70% odd of the population are effectively disenfranchised due to their MP being in a mega safe seat, so once they are in, almost impossible to be dislodged. I reckon the staff of NOTW feel pretty accountable for the actions of a few journos, as would the various editors & the DG of the BBC who have stepped down. Didnt the owner of the Telegraph, (Black?), spend 5 years in jail? Dont most people in Liverpool still refuse to buy The Sun? Arent the ex editors of NOTW facing criminal charges? All pretty accountable to me.

 

[Mrk]

Well at least the Government are accountable every 5 years for their actions (and their appointments) unlike the press barons and the current self regulation.

They operate in a free market which means they are accountable to their readers - if they do something which their readers find unacceptable, their readers stop buying the paper, advertisers stop advertising with them and they go out of business. The NotW closed because advertisers pulled out - as a result News International lost their most successful newspaper.

 

[blaggerblue]

Lackadaisical Oppressive Ludite.

You kiss your your mother with that mouth?

 

[Allezfan]

They operate in a free market which means they are accountable to their readers - if they do something which their readers find unacceptable, their readers stop buying the paper, advertisers stop advertising with them and they go out of business. The NotW closed because advertisers pulled out - as a result News International lost their most successful newspaper.

Well yes but the newspapers behaved incredibly unethically for years with no repercussions because they took the amazingly cunning step of not telling people what they were doing.

 

[TheBlueGibbon]

'Proper regulation' and 'independent regulation' are not mutually exclusive - it is perfectly possible to have proper regulation without any kind of statutory underpinning. The best way to stop the disgusting behaviour we have seen is to make sure that bad journalistic practices are illigal, that is the biggest deterrent possible.

One of the key problems I've seen in the Leveson report is he suggests that Ofcom oversee the new 'independent' regulator - who appoints the head of Ofcom? The bloody government! As soon as you let politicians have some influence on the regulation of the press, you're on a slippery slope, because as with everything else, governments always want a little more control.

Phonehacking was and is illegal, that didn't prevent journalists at the News of the World and other papers allegedly from hiring someone to do it. Most of the bad practices are already illegal, they aren't enforced though and we need to think why that is.
Also individuals generally find it difficult to take the papers to court due to the risk of being asked to pay their costs if they lose the case.

 

[mrs the esk]

They operate in a free market which means they are accountable to their readers - if they do something which their readers find unacceptable, their readers stop buying the paper, advertisers stop advertising with them and they go out of business. The NotW closed because advertisers pulled out - as a result News International lost their most successful newspaper.

That's an entirely different argument - all businesses are accountable to their customers, you don't need legislation to stop buying a product you don't like. The fact is that the press climbed over each other constantly, each time their behaviour worsening in the pursuit of market share. The worst they behaved the more sensational their stories, the more the general public bought their papers - there is no correlation between the quality of journalism and the number of newspapers sold.

 

[Mrk]

Well yes but the newspapers behaved incredibly unethically for years with no repercussions because they took the amazingly cunning step of not telling people what they were doing.

Funny that people tend not to tell people when they break laws eh

A new regulator wouldn't be able to stop that though, it is thanks to excellent investigative journalism that we know about what went on.

 

[Mrk]

Phonehacking was and is illegal, that didn't prevent journalists at the News of the World and other papers allegedly from hiring someone to do it. Most of the bad practices are already illegal, they aren't enforced though and we need to think why that is.
Also individuals generally find it difficult to take the papers to court due to the risk of being asked to pay their costs if they lose the case.

It's a very good point and I'm in no way saying that the fear of going to jail is going to stop all illegal practices, but if that disincentive isn't going to stop it, can we really expect a state underpinned regulator to be a bigger disincentive? I just can't see it.

That's an entirely different argument - all businesses are accountable to their customers, you don't need legislation to stop buying a product you don't like. The fact is that the press climbed over each other constantly, each time their behaviour worsening in the pursuit of market share. The worst they behaved the more sensational their stories, the more the general public bought their papers - there is no correlation between the quality of journalism and the number of newspapers sold.

Absolutely true, but if a newspaper is exposed as committing illegal acts that the public find grotesque (like the Milly Dowler scandal) their marketshare will decrease, as will their revenue from advertising - it's a huge disincentive for wrongdoing, because you're not talking about a £1m fine imposed by a regulator, you're talking about losing a multi-million pound business overnight.

 

[mrs the esk]

It's a very good point and I'm in no way saying that the fear of going to jail is going to stop all illegal practices, but if that disincentive isn't going to stop it, can we really expect a state underpinned regulator to be a bigger disincentive? I just can't see it.

Absolutely true, but if a newspaper is exposed as committing illegal acts that the public find grotesque (like the Milly Dowler scandal) their marketshare will decrease, as will their revenue from advertising - it's a huge disincentive for wrongdoing, because you're not talking about a £1m fine imposed by a regulator, you're talking about losing a multi-million pound business overnight.

I actually think you are making the point for more legislation with your argument - it is when papers and their owners, managers and journalist are seen to break the law that their circulation falls, not because the PCC have found them guilty.

I suspect we want the same thing, a better press, more protection for victims and greater accountability for perpetrators, we differ in how to achieve that

 

[Mrk]

I actually think you are making the point for more legislation with your argument - it is when papers and their owners, managers and journalist are seen to break the law that their circulation falls, not because the PCC have found them guilty.

I suspect we want the same thing, a better press, more protection for victims and greater accountability for perpetrators, we differ in how to achieve that

I am 100% in agreement that more regulation is needed, I just don't agree that the state has a role in the regulatory process.

 

[Deleted member 28206]

Brooks recieved a £10.8m payoff.


http://bbc.in/U8kDoR