Mecky Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Yes, that's what I don't understand. Why is it fine for, say, News International to be subject to official oversight for a dodgy story they run on Sky News, but it's the end of free speech if the same oversight is applied to the Sun? As far as I can see all that's been proposed is a way of swiftly dealing with the cases when the press get it wrong and providing restitution to the victims without dragging things through the courts for years. I can't see the issue with it. On the front of it perhaps, but not that much has been reported as wrong, well not that's been admitted to anyway, and even if it was the victim gets compensated. Personally I think the government is trying to curb investigative journalism for whatever reason, probably because they are afraid of it. Cameron said he wants regulation but a few days later says he doesn't. What he means is that he wants to control what the press say. The Leveson enquiry came from Cameron afterall. "The Prime Minister announced a two-part inquiry investigating the role of the press and police in the phone-hacking scandal, on 13 July 2011." http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted December 2, 2012 Author Share Posted December 2, 2012 On the front of it perhaps, but not that much has been reported as wrong, well not that's been admitted to anyway, and even if it was the victim gets compensated. Personally I think the government is trying to curb investigative journalism for whatever reason, probably because they are afraid of it. I don't get the logic there. What evidence is there that the government's aim is to curb investigative journalism? Surely if they wanted to do that the first step would be to enforce government regulation of the press. In fact they oppose government press regulation and I hope they continue to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 On the front of it perhaps, but not that much has been reported as wrong, well not that's been admitted to anyway, and even if it was the victim gets compensated. Personally I think the government is trying to curb investigative journalism for whatever reason, probably because they are afraid of it. Cameron said he wants regulation but a few days later says he doesn't. What he means is that he wants to control what the press say. The Leveson enquiry came from Cameron afterall. "The Prime Minister announced a two-part inquiry investigating the role of the press and police in the phone-hacking scandal, on 13 July 2011." http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ I've not seen anything or heard anyone refer to anything in the Leveson proposals for a new regulator that would prevent investigative journalism. The only objection seems to be that of giving the regulator some force of law, which despite Labour support for it Cameron has rejected as a bridge too far. If he's trying to destroy a free press he's going about it in a damned funny way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted December 2, 2012 Author Share Posted December 2, 2012 There's just been a clarification issued by Liberty on their position: Regrettably, confusing reports in today's media (Sunday 2 December) about Liberty's position on the Leveson Report make this statement necessary and that Report all the more important. Law and regulation is a complex area at the best of times and clarity is difficult when emotions run as high as they inevitably do on the vital issues of precious press freedom on the one hand and abuse of power and violations of privacy on the other. 1. The Leveson Report recommends a robust independent self-regulation of the press of a kind that has not been provided or suggested by the industry up to now. Liberty is in complete agreement with the Judge's view of the necessary characteristics of such a body whose board must be independent of current editors, owners and politicians. It must set and promote ethical standards, handle complaints and crucially offer a swift and cheap alternative to court action for members of the public whose rights (e.g. privacy and reputation) have been violated. No statute is needed to create such a body and editors and proprietors should take the Leveson characteristics and seek to build one without delay. 2. Whilst the general level of damages in privacy cases should go up to protect victims from unscrupulous outlets, ethical publishers who set up, join and comply with such an independent body should be rewarded in the context of costs and damages in any court action that they nonetheless face. Liberty thinks it arguable that such rewards could be achieved immediately by way of civil procedure and judicial discretion, but would be perfectly content with a simple statute offering greater certainty and protection to those publications who took the trouble to join and comply with an independent regulatory body. 3. On the issue of who decides whether a body does or does not comply with the Leveson characteristics (set out in a statute), both Leveson LJ and Liberty agree that this will ultimately be a judgment for the courts. However whilst the Judge believes that a primary expert decision should be made by a body such as OfCom, subject to Judicial Review, Liberty would rather leave the question of whether the tests are met to the courts and not involve a quango which is ultimately appointed by politicians. This is a detail that the Judge clearly and graciously footnoted in his Report in the context of Liberty's Director's role as one of his assessors. 4. Leveson does not recommend compulsory statutory regulation of the press and Liberty believes that he is right not to do so. However, he moots the very difficult question of what would happen if all or significant portions of the press failed to rise to the challenge of his Report and create and support a sufficiently robust and independent body. He reflects on (without recommending) the possibility that parliament and the public might feel the need to impose some level of compulsory statutory regulation on outlets that refused to play their part. It is this alternative that Liberty cannot support and which would in our view, breach Article 10 of the ECHR and Human Rights Act. As this last-ditch alternative is not even a recommendation of the Report, it is misleading to suggest that Liberty or its director is in any way dropping a "bombshell" on the Lord Justice's Report, not least as this position was clearly footnoted in it. 5.Liberty remains a cross-party non-party human rights organisation and has remarked on the haste with which all political party leaders have formed their positions on such a long and detailed Report (whether in appearing to rule out any legislative action or in endorsing every dot and comma without further debate). http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/2012/liberty-leveson-and-the-culture-practice-and-ethics-of-t.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 It's sounded to me like Leveson doesn't want the Government doing the regulation, and would far rather a body like the Press Complaints Commission, run by the newspapers to do the job instead, but with legal backup so when they impose a penalty, the guilty party has to abide by that punishment, as opposed to the current situation where they can just go "no". He's then gone on to say if the media don't want to play ball, he thinks the Government should look at legislating to require them to. I've not looked into the details of this, but I would be surprised if it was suggesting that the Government set up a new department to crack down on the press, as opposed to just legally requiring publications to be registered with a regulatory body (which could still be run by the press themselves). We already have similar industry bodies which can impose penalties on thier members, such as the ASA, without cries of "Government oppression". The PCC has failed because it can't hold it's members to account and they can choose to opt out of it's findings. This should be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 I've not seen anything or heard anyone refer to anything in the Leveson proposals for a new regulator that would prevent investigative journalism. The only objection seems to be that of giving the regulator some force of law, which despite Labour support for it Cameron has rejected as a bridge too far. If he's trying to destroy a free press he's going about it in a damned funny way. Maybe you should try to read between the lines. He would hardly admit to trying to control the press would he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Maybe you should try to read between the lines I've only read the 50 page executive summary of Leverson, but unless there were some draconian measures to crack down on investigative journalism in the full report not mentioned in the summary there were no real lines to read between. What evidence or indeed theory do you have that any of this is an attempt by the PM to dissuade investigative journalism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.