We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
 
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

Leveson Latest - the Contrary View


fourm member

Likes # 0

So, there's a political deal on implementing Leveson and everybody is saying Miliband is the hero.

But, is that so?

Cameron stood out for press freedom and Miliband has pressed for legal control (apparently under pressure from Hacked Off).

Come 2015, who will the press give the easier ride to?

Miliband's stand is brave but is it also foolish to upset the British press?

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

"...is it also foolish to upset the British press?"

I believe in a free press. It's a mistake, in my opinion to use the law to control publishers in this way, and whatever David Cameron says, this is doing just that.

It's the not-so-thin end of a very big wedge, and I think we've taken a backward step with what's been done. Come election time there may be a price to pay.

Like this post
Aitchbee

Likes # 0

On a world-wide scale ... this will make no differnce to how other countries' governments control [either stifle or do not stifle] their press newspapers ... it's only a winter's tale.

Like this post
Bing.alau

Likes # 0

I don't think it will make a ha'porth worth of difference.

Like this post
sidecar sid

Likes # 0

"Come election time there may be a price to pay." I agree but where do you draw the line? A free press in my opinion is necessary but carries a great responsibility. Many truths have been exposed as a result of such freedom.

However is there any way we can justify the way the popular press have Behaved to make a profit at the expense of people in the public eye using the old chestnut "In the public interest".

How do we continue to allow freedom of press for responsible journalism while preventing the illegal activity that bought about this situation?

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

sidecar sid

"while preventing the illegal activity that bought about this situation?"

Therein lies the answer; there has always been legal redress for 'victims', but problems arise because to use the legal avenue is often too expensive for an 'ordinary' person. So only 'celebrities' generally had protection from it.

I think the PM played his hand very well (or should I say the advice from Letwin was good) and possibly will benefit as more of a friend to the Press than Miliband or Clegg at the next election.

Like this post
Joseph Kerr

Likes # 0

Gotta love those pragmatic Labour researchers.

Like this post
wiz-king

Likes # 0

A toothless press commission for those who decide not to join in. If one of the big papers decide not to play then what?

Back to square one.

Like this post
fourm member

Likes # 0

It seems to me that two separate situations are being mashed together, possibly because that suits the press.

You can't have a free press. If you do, you have no way of knowing whether anything appearing in print is true.

What you want is a responsible free press but that's where the trouble really starts. Who decides what is responsible? That's one part of the equation.

The second part is that, to date, we've allowed the press to decide what is responsible for itself and it has failed totally.

You can't go on allowing the press to say 'We'll do better tomorrow'.

We've had threads on here about proper use of the apostrophe. That has never been more important than on press regulation because it is essential to understand the difference between the public interest and the public's interest.

How do you prevent the excesses arising from the latter without damaging the former?

And, in the context of this thread, how do you do that when the main judges of whether you've got it right or wrong are the very people who have shown no sign of understanding the difference?

Like this post
oresome

Likes # 0

It seems to me that we have double standards.

We buy and read the newspapers with the latest revelations but when the method of obtaining that news is laid bare we feign shock.

Like this post
HondaMan

Likes # 0

Without taking sides in this matter, this is typical of a knee-jerk reaction to what became a very prominent news item. Were it not for the names of many involved this would probably have been a small news item on page 7.

Just look at the number of turn-arounds this government has made. It seeks to bring in legislation to deal with a specific matter then realises, probably after consultation with others who know better (civil servants), that it cannot or will not work so they backtrack.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Samsung Galaxy Note 4 release date, price and specs 2014

IDG UK Sites

What's the best smartwatch? 11 iWatch rivals compared in our wearables round-up

IDG UK Sites

App cloning: the mobile software industry’s hidden shame

IDG UK Sites

Developers get access to more Sony camera features