[Update] The News Corp scandal

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Never going to happen...

Well, if we're all agreed on that, subject closed!

The culture secretary, Matt Hancock, confirmed on Thursday that the government would drop plans for the second phase of the Leveson inquiry into press standards launched in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal.

Labour immediately attacked the decision as a breach of trust, and the inquiry chair, Lord Leveson, published a letter to Hancock and the home secretary, Amber Rudd,in which he accused the government of breaking promises made to phone-hacking victims.

“I have no doubt that there is still a legitimate expectation on behalf of the public and, in particular, the alleged victims of phone hacking and other unlawful conduct, that there will be a full public examination of the circumstances that allowed that behaviour to develop,” he wrote. “That is what they were promised.”

They kicked it right out of the park never mind the long grass.

[Mr K]

Utterly toothless, just like the Iraq enquiry . Just a fob off to the public at the time when the issue is 'hot'. Until the next scandal happens.....

[heero_yuy]

Leveson partII and forcing membership of Impress upon pain of the media having to pay all the costs of a court case, win or lose, would have so hampered investigative journalism so as to make it impossible to tell us about the misdemeaners or hypocracy of the rich and powerful like the current £1/2m scandal involving Max Mosely and Tom Watson.

A newtered press would do nobody any favours.

Be reminded that AFAIK NO successful convictions of journalists were secured in the wake of the hacking scandal and closure of News of the World. (Ref This post:)

Phone hacking, wire taps etc. are already covered by other legislation which could of course be tightened up.

The likes of Hacked off would love to be able to contunue their sordid little liaisons without the public being aware of it, whilst preaching morality.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Leveson partII and forcing membership of Impress upon pain of the media having to pay all the costs of a court case, win or lose, would have so hampered investigative journalism so as to make it impossible to tell us about the misdemeaners or hypocracy of the rich and powerful like the current £1/2m scandal involving Max Mosely and Tom Watson.

A newtered press would do nobody any favours.

Be reminded that AFAIK NO successful convictions of journalists were secured in the wake of the hacking scandal and closure of News of the World. (Ref This post:)

Phone hacking, wire taps etc. are already covered by other legislation which could of course be tightened up.

The likes of Hacked off would love to be able to contunue their sordid little liaisons without the public being aware of it, whilst preaching morality.

So you think the tabloids are our moral guardians ?

[heero_yuy]

Quote from Mr K:


So you think the tabloids are our moral guardians ?

No, I never said that.

But they do us a service in exposing those with the morals of an alley cat whilst exihibiting a veneer of probity. Chicanery and corruption in high places by those who would prefer you didn't know. PL footballers whoring round the town whilst little wifie looks after the children, unknowing.

Or maybe you just want to be ignorant?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mr K

So you think the tabloids are our moral guardians ?

We are in deep trouble if they have become our moral guardians.

I don't like the idea of a government imposed regulation of the press either. Even if it has the best of intentions you don't give those in power the means to oppress you if you can help it. A free press is a vital check on those who have power.

I would rather have laws of media plurality. It can be a problem if one person controls multiple outlets of news, i.e Murdoch, and uses that for their own political ends. That also means the close relationship between owners of the newspapers and governments is a problem too.

But remember these regulators wouldn't tackle the 'problem' online where people increasingly get their news. It's all very well going after The Sun and The Daily Mail but you gain nothing when people are instead gravating to hyper-partisan news sites like Swarkbox or BreitBart or circulating memes on social media from Another Angry Voice and the like.

Originally Posted by denphone

We are in deep trouble if they have become our moral guardians.

Too right..and they certainly are. Frankly what I'd like is something which insists on even handedness in journalism and reporting. All I want are the facts not supposition,gossip and innuendo..I can provide all those on my own.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Too right..and they certainly are. Frankly what I'd like is something which insists on even handedness in journalism and reporting. All I want are the facts not supposition,gossip and innuendo..I can provide all those on my own.

Who judges what is even handed though?

Originally Posted by Damien

Who judges what is even handed though?

A press organisation that isn't owned completely by one side only? A council that's got all interested parties involved not just press barons?Where all factions of political hue are represented?

Doesn't seem that hard to me.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

A press organisation that isn't owned completely by one side only? A council that's got all interested parties involved not just press barons?Where all factions of political hue are represented?

Doesn't seem that hard to me.

I've toyed with that idea too, Maggy, but I think this is just adding another layer of bureaucracy, which will either go one way (ineffective and toothless) or the other (oppressive and overbearing). Just think of the potential for complaints with thousands of reports and articles every day. If you want to shackle the press and keep them tied up in knots to justify keeping perpetually aggrieved snowflakes from being offended, then that's the way to do it.

We already have laws of defamation, and hacking into voicemails, etc is unlawful. All I really want to see above that is a high standard of reporting. That is, report the facts, and where opinion comes into it, make it clear that is the opinion. Views expressed that are subjective rather than factual should be set out in articles, not in the news section. Those complying would have the right to be called a newspaper.

I don't care what you'd call those that did not reach that standard. Rag seems appropriate.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I've toyed with that idea too, Maggy, but I think this is just adding another layer of bureaucracy, which will either go one way (ineffective and toothless) or the other (oppressive and overbearing). Just think of the potential for complaints with thousands of reports and articles every day. If you want to shackle the press and keep them tied up in knots to justify keeping perpetually aggrieved snowflakes from being offended, then that's the way to do it.

We already have laws of defamation, and hacking into voicemails, etc is unlawful. All I really want to see above that is a high standard of reporting. That is, report the facts, and where opinion comes into it, make it clear that is the opinion. Views expressed that are subjective rather than factual should be set out in articles, not in the news section. Those complying would have the right to be called a newspaper.

I don't care what you'd call those that did not reach that standard. Rag seems appropriate.

How about a Loopaper?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I've toyed with that idea too, Maggy, but I think this is just adding another layer of bureaucracy, which will either go one way (ineffective and toothless) or the other (oppressive and overbearing). Just think of the potential for complaints with thousands of reports and articles every day. If you want to shackle the press and keep them tied up in knots to justify keeping perpetually aggrieved snowflakes from being offended, then that's the way to do it.

We already have laws of defamation, and hacking into voicemails, etc is unlawful. All I really want to see above that is a high standard of reporting. That is, report the facts, and where opinion comes into it, make it clear that is the opinion. Views expressed that are subjective rather than factual should be set out in articles, not in the news section. Those complying would have the right to be called a newspaper.

I don't care what you'd call those that did not reach that standard. Rag seems appropriate.

I'm not worried about snowflakes or celebs..I'm worried about those who have no access to legal resources who get picked on and libelled and can't fight back. I'm even more concerned about how tight the police and politicians are with the media..and that was what Leveson part 2 was to address. Frankly I am not surprised it's been abandoned by our politicians. Too much self interest and fear of the power of the current press.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I'm not worried about snowflakes or celebs..I'm worried about those who have no access to legal resources who get picked on and libelled and can't fight back. I'm even more concerned about how tight the police and politicians are with the media..and that was what Leveson part 2 was to address. Frankly I am not surprised it's been abandoned by our politicians. Too much self interest and fear of the power of the current press.

Spot on.