Main Menu

The Political Thread

Started by The Legendary Shark, 09 April, 2010, 03:59:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

SuperSurfer

"Laws are like cobwebs, strong enough to detain only the weak, and too weak to hold the strong."
Anacharsis

Frank

Quote from: Supermarine Troutfire on 01 December, 2012, 12:51:36 PM
As for Leveson, we in print media are unanimous in that we will accept what the Government decides. Proper regulation is what everyone wants. The only question is the role the Government will play. Bear this in mind:

Most people in the media do not work in print.
Most people in print media do not work for tabloids, or for News International.
Most people who work for tabloids do not work on stories which raise privacy issues.
Most people - almost everyone - working on such stories never hacked a phone or breached the existing - very stringent - code of practice.

Ian Hislop's been making the point that everything of which that small minority of journalists have been accused (and in some cases convicted) is already illegal. My only point in response would be that the knowledge they could be jeopardising the chances of a successful prosecution of Christopher Jefferies didn't stop almost all UK tabloid newspapers printing a succession of stories about his past and speculating on his involvement in the murder of Joanna Yeates.

All anyone is really seeking is for the print media to adhere to standards of behaviour which, as far as I can tell, they mostly did (voluntarily) until relatively recently. I don't see why a body which operates in the same way Ofcom does with regard to broadcast media is out of the question, but I'd be a lot happier if the newspaper industry would steal their critics' thunder and set up a credible independent regulator of their own volition, and agree to bind themselves to rulings made by that body.

Trout

#3032
Quote from: we are all roger godpleton on 01 December, 2012, 07:11:02 PM
Quote from: Supermarine Troutfire on 01 December, 2012, 12:51:36 PM
As for Leveson, we in print media are unanimous in that we will accept what the Government decides. Proper regulation is what everyone wants. The only question is the role the Government will play. Bear this in mind:

Most people in the media do not work in print.
Most people in print media do not work for tabloids, or for News International.
Most people who work for tabloids do not work on stories which raise privacy issues.
Most people - almost everyone - working on such stories never hacked a phone or breached the existing - very stringent - code of practice.

Ian Hislop's been making the point that everything of which that small minority of journalists have been accused (and in some cases convicted) is already illegal. My only point in response would be that the knowledge they could be jeopardising the chances of a successful prosecution of Christopher Jefferies didn't stop almost all UK tabloid newspapers printing a succession of stories about his past and speculating on his involvement in the murder of Joanna Yeates.

All anyone is really seeking is for the print media to adhere to standards of behaviour which, as far as I can tell, they mostly did (voluntarily) until relatively recently. I don't see why a body which operates in the same way Ofcom does with regard to broadcast media is out of the question, but I'd be a lot happier if the newspaper industry would steal their critics' thunder and set up a credible independent regulator of their own volition, and agree to bind themselves to rulings made by that body.

Yes, fine. Everybody's OK with that. Let me emphasise: everybody's in agreement. But it must be independent of the Government.

Even senior members of the Conservative party know: if you give a Government minister the power of censorship, then freedom of speech is fucked. They wouldn't be able to resist the temptation.

By the way: "they mostly did (voluntarily) until relatively recently". No. Almost everyone always has, and still does. That's thousands of journalists who do the right thing, set against a handful who did not.

Old Tankie

Agreed.  Shame the leader of the Labour Party doesn't agree.  Also I find it strange that victims are automatically given expert status, their views shouldn't count anymore than anybody else.

Frank

Quote from: Supermarine Troutfire on 01 December, 2012, 07:38:53 PM
Let me emphasise: everybody's in agreement. But it must be independent of the Government. Even senior members of the Conservative party know: if you give a Government minister the power of censorship, then freedom of speech is fucked. They wouldn't be able to resist the temptation.

Leveson isn't recommending any government involvement in press regulation, let alone censorship.

Trout

Yes it is. It suggests statutory regulation. That means an Act of Parliament. The Government has a majority in Parliament. They're right to be reluctant to get involved.

Modern Panther

Most people who work in banking aren't corrupt.  Most businesses don't empty toxic waste into rivers. Most people don't get drunk and beat their kids. 

But some do.  A small minority of individuals will do anything that they think they can get away with.  They will fill their own pockets and stamp all over the powerless.  Regulation needs to be put in place to stop these individuals from destroying everything that most decent people work hard for.

Is statutory regulation the same as government control?  I work for an organization which supervises people who are appointed to look after the vulnerable.  We regulate and control and were created by new legislation.  We are also a non-ministerial agency. We don't have to do whatever the politician who happens to be in charge at any given moment tell us to.

Regulation which isn't enforced by law is essentially just asking the press nicely to behave themselves. The moral individuals will behave, the immoral ones won't.  The immoral ones will sell more newspapers.

Trout

Quote from: Temponaut on 03 December, 2012, 03:15:39 PM
Is statutory regulation the same as government control?

Yes, when the press has a role in holding the Government to account. Let me stress again: everybody's fine with a tougher regulatory regime. There will be enforceable sanctions, such as forcing editors to print very embarrassing things when they get it wrong. It also looks like there will be a system of arbitration, which will save everyone involved a huge amount of money. The entire culture in newspapers is changing - for example, how many kiss and tell stories have you seen lately? It's just not worth the risk.

Meanwhile, online media generate the most appalling, actionable, damaging content and nobody bats an eyelid, because it's new and exciting - and hard to control. It's easier to attack the newspapers that people have built up an ill-defined resentment of, despite the fact they support many thousands of jobs and have a vital role in our society.

With statutory regulation of newspapers there is a very real risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sooner or later, a minister is going to use it stop a legitimate piece of journalism. It cannot be allowed.

Anyway, I knew this thread carried a risk of me getting into an argument I didn't want. With respect to you all, I think I'll leave the debate to others.  :)

Old Tankie

Statutory regulation is set up by Parliament and can, therefore, be changed by Parliament, thus you have political involvement.  What would you do to the publications that refused to be controlled by this statutory regulation?  Ban them?  Throw the editors in jail?  No political interference in a free press there then!

Modern Panther

You're assuming that parliament would become directly involved in regulating the press, then complaining about their involvement.

Yes, statutory regulation would mean parliament's involvement.  The courts would have no power without laws made by parliament - but that doesn't mean that judges have to do what politicians tell them.  They are empowered to act and then go ahead and act.  A regulatory body for the press would be empowered to act by legislation, but that doesn't mean that politicians control it.

Political parties could, in theory, re-write the law to do whatever they want and assume complete control. They could take control by regulating the press.  They could also, in theory, force through legislation to make being a member of an opposition party illegal, and having death squads patrol the streets.  But we're a parliamentary democracy, and it's incredibly unlikely.

So what about those who refuse to be regulated?  What about banks who refuse to be supervised by the banking ombudsman?  What about anyone else who refuses to accept the law?  When an organization or individual refuses to accept the law, they are punished. 

Unless the punishing is done for political reasons, it's not political interference. Regulatory bodies are created to ensure that politicians are not directly involved and there is no political interference.

Trout

I think I've made my opinion clear and we're going round in circles now.

Best wishes

- Trout

Frank

Quote from: Old Tankie on 03 December, 2012, 03:47:25 PM
What would you do to the publications that refused to be controlled by this statutory regulation?  Ban them?  Throw the editors in jail?  No political interference in a free press there then!

If you want to set up in business as a dentist you have to join a professional body and agree to submit to its discipline. Failure to do so is against the law.

The Leveson report suggests a new regulating body should be created, which would enforce existing standards of professional conduct in a way the current regulating body (the PCC) has repeatedly failed to do. Failure to sign up to independent arbitration by this body is the only offence Leveson recommends creating; any legislation which limited the freedom of the press would have to make it through both houses of Parliament, just like any other law.

Jim_Campbell

Ian Hislop has observed that pretty much all the objectionable behaviour highlighted by Leveson is already illegal under UK law, and that the real failure is of the police to investigate and prosecute appropriately under existing legislation.

But, then, they were being given brown paper bags stuffed with twenties by the tabloid hacks.

Cheers

Jim
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Old Tankie

Quote from: we are all roger godpleton on 03 December, 2012, 06:58:59 PM
Quote from: Old Tankie on 03 December, 2012, 03:47:25 PM
What would you do to the publications that refused to be controlled by this statutory regulation?  Ban them?  Throw the editors in jail?  No political interference in a free press there then!

If you want to set up in business as a dentist you have to join a professional body and agree to submit to its discipline. Failure to do so is against the law.

The Leveson report suggests a new regulating body should be created, which would enforce existing standards of professional conduct in a way the current regulating body (the PCC) has repeatedly failed to do. Failure to sign up to independent arbitration by this body is the only offence Leveson recommends creating; any legislation which limited the freedom of the press would have to make it through both houses of Parliament, just like any other law.

Statutory regulation of the press is limiting the freedom of the press.  I shall leave my last words on the subject to Franklin D. Roosevelt - "If in other lands the press and books and literature of all kinds are censored, we must redouble our efforts here to keep them free."



judgefloyd

I'm not really involved because I live in idyllic Australia where the press would never do rotten things like that and haven't been caught yet.  However I'm an anglophile where reading is involved and have a sister and her family living there, so can't resist observing that:
- what you have now didn't work, so something needs to change.  Of course that doesn't in itself mean that statutory regulation is the change you need or is without problems
- the 'slippery slope to totalitarianism' argument is a bit suss. While it's true that nasty governments around the world use press regulation for censorship and other forms of evil, you have a better system than that.  Just as the extra powers given to your police, while not good, haven't meant you've turned into post-Soviet Russia, a bit of statutory regulation of the press won't necessarily turn you into Zimbabwe with far worse weather.  Also there's every sign that the report recommending statutory back up to an independent regulator (what I think they're after) is alert to possible problems and has anticipated them.