Private Eye nails it

[????]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/private-eye-front-page-mocks-hugh-grant-and-mps-with-press-regulation-special-8880763.html

Applaud this proper liberals....a free press is sacrosanct, I'm appalled how many so called liberals seem to think state interference is ok

[Loz]

I am so torn in this one. I agree a free press is sacrosanct, but there has been so much abuse of the privilege. If the PCC hadn't been such a toothless wonder then it wouldn't have got to this. It needs something done, but it must not lead to government controls. But what 'that' is I really don't know.

[StraferJack]

Saying the current proposals equals the death of free press isn't helping

[ratty]

What Loz said

[numbers]

I agree with ian hislop, this is madness. this means that any story about eg PE publishes story on a corrupt politician, politician sues and PE have to pay their costs. if the story about corrupt politician WAS a lie, then thats libel and you'll get stung for it. you don't get stung for being right.

I blame milibean for pushing this and ineffectual cameron railroaded into it because he didn't want to be seen siding with murdoch. actually to be fair, he's such a twat anyway he may have gone for it anyway.

[????]

There,s no halfway house here, it,s a fundamental principle. It was largely politicians fault that Murdoch got so big, they believed it Woz us that won it shite...without a commission, or a regulator, a paper has been shutdown, people are being prosecuted and the power of the press has been shown for what it is, so why the fook are we now accepting it needs more. The law and the punters should make the hold them accountable and that,s it. Interestingly another media monolith that covered up abuse for years, tried to hide stories that exposed it whilst at the same time airing absolute garbage because it was, you know, against the Tories, seems to have escaped with some mild chastising and way above contract redundancies. Trebles all round.

[????]

I agree numbers. They are both tossers, but I am not even vaguely considering Milliband

In the 80s if Labour had got elected ( and I voted for them every 80s election) they,d have taken us back to the Stone Age, but at least it would have been based on principle; now they are happy to take us back to the Stone Age on the basis of it,ll get them elected.

[El Pibe]

Apart from the usual swipe at some straw man idea of what 'liberals' are thinking, I'm pretty much all quids.

Political cowardice made this press, especially news international.

This was an open secret for many years, PE were banging on about it for ages, it took Millie Dowler for there finally to be outrage.

[maxxi]

why would new legislation be necessary when existing laws were more than adequate to prosecute those who broke EXISTING laws with regard to hacking etc? Weren't people found out? prosecuted etc? and a newspaper even shut down? ALL under existing legislation?

When the press do wrong we already have laws that protect us all. WHEN they do wrong. Not when some lying two-faced politician* DECIDES they have done wrong.

Seems the coalition have the 'New Labour' bug; legislate first - think about it later.

*i.o.w. all politicians.

[northlondoner]

I have personal knowledge of too many invented quotes and bogus stories to share the misty eyed image of the heroic , justice wielding print journalist.

They should be subjected to the same regulatory regime as broadcast journalists and stop

their unedifying caterwauling .

[Keefe]

Gotta agree with you there, Northlondoner.

The journalist as white knight protecting the rights of all against nasty politicians,ruthless Government departments and evil corporations is a lovely image...but that's all it is. And, who tells us how essential these white knights of journalism and the media are to democracy and the protection of the citizenry?...why, it's journalists/media themselves. They would say that, wouldn't they?

The bottom line for our media corporations is profit and the concept of them as watchdogs of civil liberties is laughable. It's a good marketimg concept though. The tabloids which were all over Jimmy Saville's "good works" like a rash for decades, really did a good job on protecting us from his proclivities didn't they?

I doubt very much whether those who call for an unregulated press have ever been on the receiving end of a good and proper media/tabloid kicking. Even hacks call it "monstering" among themselves. It's not an activity that pays any attention whatsoever to justice, democracy and the fair treatment of one's fellow citizens. It's straight up bullying and thuggery. Making up quote and bogus stories is the very least of it. If you are very, very rich, you can try and fight it with existing laws but for John abd Jane Citizen, forget it.

The lies told to the Leveson Inquiry about what goes on inside newsrooms, how newspapers go about their business and how they treat people that become of "interest" to them, were staggering. Especially from an industry which allegedly produces a product of "truth and accuracy".

The NoW was shut down cos Rupert made a business decision to cut his losses. And he's focussed on a future of broadcast and on-line media. Closing down one little troublesome organ from the dead tree media in his multi-faceted corporation was an easy decision and as usual, democracy and citizen's rights didn't come into it.

[????]

Depressing and one sided dismissal of a fundamental freedom there Keefe. No one is under illusions about the standard of some journalism or even whole newspapers or companies.....but that,s not the point at all. It's just a fundamental freedom that,s being eroded....by politicians and their appointees.

[Atticus]

Keefe, spot on. Also, Hislop's rant last week that the consumer would regulate the papers by simply not buying them, was misguided, can only think of one instance of this, ever.

[Burbage]

Good grief.

maxxi got nearest with:

-------------------------------------------------------

> why would new legislation be necessary when

> existing laws were more than adequate to prosecute

> those who broke EXISTING laws with regard to

> hacking etc?

The answer is because enforcing existing laws would have required stern action from the Majestic Brotherhood of Plod who quite like things as they are and, lest we forget, were up to their bung-hungry necks in it from the start, guzzling at the metaphorical dugs of the press barons with one face while ignoring the bereaved and the bullied with the other - not just ignoring them, but at least in some cases denying access to justice and even assisting in the persecution. But we've forgotten that.

We've forgotten that because the Press Regulation circus is an illusionists' trick, engineered on the same lines as Plebgate which, after a shaky start, has managed to direct all the fallout at the regulator rather than the culprits. The current debate about Press Regulation is exactly the same thing.

The Leveson Inquiry was a magnificent distraction. It looked good and went on long enough to appear rigorous, but was happily 'inevitably hampered' from looking into police corruption 'in any depth' by ongoing police operations that are likely to continue for as many happy, pensionable years as is convenient. Which means, for all the expense, it only did half a job.

And so, luckily for the villains, all the fuss and fury is about regulation rather than the police or the press. It's about whether the press barons should transparently appoint themselves as their own regulators or have political appointees appoint them instead. It will make no difference either way, and given that the government can already, up to a point, decide who owns the media in the first place, the political interference accusations seem a bit feeble.

What should matter isn't what regulation should appear to be, but why it's needed at all. But as things stand, we're headed for a situation where the media barons, with the helpful connivance of a biddable and lazy Plod, will get to decide what laws apply to them. That's why this debate is such a harmful irrelevance. It's not because fundamental principles aren't at stake, it's that both sides undermine those very principles. Instead of looking at removing barriers to justice and steamrollering the corruption out of Plod, we're arguing about who should wield a rubber stamp.

This is exactly as they hoped. And, given the influence of the press in framing the debate, inevitably so.

[northlondoner]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Depressing and one sided dismissal of a

> fundamental freedom there Keefe. No one is under

> illusions about the standard of some journalism or

> even whole newspapers or companies.....but that,s

> not the point at all. It's just a fundamental

> freedom that,s being eroded....by politicians and

> their appointees.

Why is it a breach of fundamental freedoms to hold print journalists to the same standards as broadcast journalists? We have an arrogant unaccountable clique pissing into the well of information that keeps our society informed.

If you poison the well with fake, skewed "news" or obtain it through an unconscionable means - then our democracy suffers.

The arrogance of elements within the printed media quite takes the breath away. Anyone needing an object lesson in this puffed up self importance could do no better than catch "Analaysis" on radio 4 from a couple of weeks back. The presenter was doing that most unfashionable of things. Actually daring to question the holy status of the wikileaks/ Snowden phenomenon.

He interviewed the editor of the Guardian who - without a hint of irony or self awareness patiently explained why it was better that he determine which of the haul of stolen secrets should be published - rather than the security services.

This arrogance - soon to be hubris i fear - makes the skin crawl. And demonstrates still further why sensible regulation of the press - along the lines of existing broadcast media regulation - is long overdue.

Just saying.

[Keefe]

Quids, I want to agree with you but I think I'm too depressed! And that's not what I see actually happening.

The people who have eroded fundamental freedoms for the citizenry are the media themselves. It can't be a freedom for billion pound media corporations to suddenly turn on an individual and invade every part of their life just cos an editor or proprietor feels they can or has some private vendetta to pursue.

Sadly, in an industry that is supposed to question everything, journalists don't question what they do. Understandable in that, just like the rest of us, they have mortages or rent to pay. But they mostly tend to see invasion of privacy as their right and if they were to speak out against it, they know only too well the petty vindictiveness, ruthlessness, ten-minute loyalties and long vengeful memories of their trade. And they also believe their own "white knight" PR.

NorthLondoner - there is no difference between press and broadcast. Broadcast media let the tabloids do all the dirty work and then pounce on the results to feed their own bulletins. Its an excellent way for broadcasters to deny all responsibility but still use the same information for their own gain. So the BBC maintains its dignity but still gets to discuss the tits n bums of the tabloids. They really emphasised this during the Leveson hearings. BBC presenters were always referring to "the press" as if it was some dirty, drunken old pervert that dealt in matters that were far beneath the mighty and principled broadcast media and not really related to them in any way.

The media speaks in the lofty language of noble causes and democracy when its freedom to make money is threatened but it goes about its everyday business in the same way and with the same conscience as your local street corner thug. It never requires the same standards of itself as it demands of the rest of society.

[numbers]

keefe - excellent posts and many things I agree with what you say but there's a world of difference between say, PE and News of the Screws? No?