Leveson’s report has recommended self-regulation of the press, with its effectiveness and independence from industry and politicians guaranteed by law. This has been supported by Nick Clegg and Ed Milliband. David Cameron does not agree. The Prime Minister has announced that he would not support Leveson’s recommendation to give self-regulation any legally-backed guarantee, meaning it will lack the independence and teeth that are the hallmark of the current system that has failed repeatedly.
We need to show the government that the public disagree; by writing to your MP you can show parliamentarians that as their constituents you want to see Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations implemented and not ignored.
To write to your MP simply follow this link, type in your home post code and then either use the suggested text or write your own message and send.
Please note that this tool is provided by 38 Degrees and will take you to their website.
The current sysem of press self regulation has clearly failed, which is why we need full implementation of the Leveson report/
Where professional ethics can be (and have been) compromised by cynical commercial interests there has to be independent regulation. A free press has to have the trust of the public and this has been lost because the press is unwilling to regulate itself with any degree of robustness or even handedness. The press seem to be able to poison the lives of ordinary individuals with impunity and there is no redress unless you can risk tens of thousands of pounds by going to law.
Any regulator must come to a clear undertanding with the press and the public as to the meaning of ‘public interest’. This is the only justifiable reason for press intrusion, so it is important that there is an acceptable consensus about what the term means.
something goes wrong. spend lots of money to seek impartial solution. solution provided. don’t like the solution. back to square one. poll tax = thathcer demise, leverson = cameron demise. people will lose trust in the system = disaster.
I am 89, unable to twitter’, but ask all my friends to e-mail, wish I could
Do more, best wishes, but dissipointed more people were not doing more
Active things, in curbing THOSE NEWS HOUNDS ! Jim Hannigan
There has to be some controll over the press. Or the press should get their facts straight inthe first place. Or actually investigate their sources before releasing headlines. The truth is the truth. Not made up stories to sell papers.
I find that the press have had far too much power in society in the past 20-30 years.
One example, hillsborough.
Jointly with yorkshire police they twisted the facts to the nation and the world, and dragged the families, friends, and the city of
Liverpool through hell and back just to get a story.
More powers are needed for these people to be more
accountable for there actions.
As long as those to be held accountable includes, WHERE APPROPRIATE the fans
I agree absolutely, we have seen in the last few days that the press in any form, cant be left to there own devices, a nurse has died over a prank, this can t be right.
Lord Justice Leveson’s thorough and extensive report has recommended self-regulation of the press, with its effectiveness and independence from industry and politicians guaranteed by law. I DEMAND that these recommendations be implemented and NOT ignored.
Why is an unelected Australian Press Baron running our country?
Democracy, free from vested-interest bullying, can only survive in an environment where the voices of individual members of society are heard. We are very fortunate in having the opportunity to voice our opinions openly and should never take this for granted. Hacked Off are to be congratulated for taking up this challenge. It was not until the Leveson hearings that one saw how oppressive and determined certain parts of the press had become.
We need the newspapers to report the news not make the news.
Tell us the truth not lies
The public will only accept total implementation of the Loveson report. It is a fact that they, the public, see the press controlling politics more and more with their inaccurate/biased political reporting for self interest and favours. The public fear continuation of this rather than their fear of politicians controlling the press.
No longer can we trust the care of the press to those in who’s interests it lies in not regulating.
Having a body set up by statue does not mean Governmental control, for example see the BBC established by statue and nobody could claim it is controlled by the state.
Leveson’s recommendations must be fully implemented, and I also agree with Leveson that self regulation of the press backed by law will not damage freedom of speech.
One point that should be brought up when contacting MPs. Yes, implement recommendations in full. However, as former British ambassador to Uzbekistan writes on his blog:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/12/leveson-wrong-answer-to-the-wrong-question/
Leveson fails to address the issue of the ownership structure of the British media even though he says that it is part of his terms of reference to do so. As Murray outs it:
“The real problem is the ownership structure of UK mainstream media. Newspapers and broadcasters function as the propaganda tool of vast and intertwined corporate interests, shaping public opinion to the benefit of those corporate interests and ensuring popular support for politicians prepared to be complicit with those interests.
The only answer to this is to break up the corporate structure of the UK mainstream media. The legislative framework to do this is not difficult. What needs to be changed are the criteria. I would propose something like this; no organisation, state or private, should be allowed effective control of more than 20% of the national or regional newspaper market or the television market, or more than 15% of those combined markets.”
There has to be some controll over the press. Or the press should get their facts straight inthe first place. Or actually investigate their sources before releasing headlines. The truth is the truth. Not made up stories to sell papers.
I respect the judgement of Lord Leveson and wish to see the recommendations of the Leveson Report implemented in full. There must be a statutory underpinning. A wary public will be looking to see whether politicians’ response to Leveson is influenced more by their need for a cosy media relationship in the run up to the next election or whether there is indeed a place for honesty, truthfulness and decency in our society. You came out of the investigation into MPs’ expenses well, Jo, but we need an independent body monitoring the activities of the Press more than ever before!
The public need to be protected from intrusion by the press. It is the job of the police to investigate all allegations, whether proven to be true or untrue. If the press have suspicions, they should lobby the police to take action. The public may well be curious by nature, but this curiosity need not be further fuelled by media scavengers who only wish to sell more newspapers. If they were not being paid to report, they would not bother to harass the public. They have no sense of justice.
The hyprocracy is one of the worst aspects. They dabble in other people’s lives but they protect their own privacy. Did we hear about Rebekah Brooks divorce? Did we hell?
What is the point, unless Cameron’s in the press’s pockets of him ignoring a commission that HE set up & used words such as “bonkers” about ignoring it ?
Elements of the press are trying to frighten us into believing that there is no way of controlling the press without seriously endangering basic civil liberties. This is obvious self-serving nonsense. We have an independent judiciary which can be harnessed to control the press. They should be subject to punitive damages and the need for serious retractions for breeches of a code of conduct. Current damages are insignificant and retractions are buried in inside pages instead of receiving the same prominence as the original article.
Please will can you help to ensure that Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations are implemented and not ignored.
There has been some control over the press. I think the press ought to get their facts straight in the first place actually investigating their sources before releasing headlines. The truth is the truth – not made up stories to sell newspapers.
Implement the leveson recommendations in full
The press has over many decades shown itself to be incapable of self regulation. The only way the excesses of the past can be a prevented is to have a regulator totally seperate from press involvement underpinned by statute. I urge you to support legislation to this effect.
I totally AGREE with Graham. Self regulation has not worked in the past, and I DO NOT believe that the Press Media will EVER change it’s spots. Perhaps we should not use the word Control. I see it as forcing the Press/Media into Responsible and accoutable conduct.
I believe that there are many ways of doing this WITHOUT suggesting control.
And the much touted Free Speech will only occur when we the public have a forum, not controlled by the Press in which to air legitimate grievances against the Press/Media.
Also that the dead should not automatically lose thew protection of Libel Laws.
I see Leveson as only a start , and a not very good or clever one at that.
The recommendations of the Leveson report Must be implemented if we are to have a National Press that respects the people it claims to be informing . The Press owners appear to be Immune from prosecution just like the banks . There is a Rottenness at the top of our Society it needs Firm Action or it will destroy our Society .
Most of the Press can be trusted all of the time, some can trusted some of the time and some can never be trusted – it only takes one to hack and to harrass. So none of them can be trusted!
Harriet’s proposal for the Press Council MK ??? to be subject to a statutory audit/valuation/MOT every three years is nearly there.
The Hacked Off pressure group has done a brilliant job – keep harrassing The Press
Firstly let me say that I have signed the petition and I have written to my MP and I agree with Graham’s last sentence that stories should not be made to see papers; however I am not too sure that there is only one version of the truth i.e., “the truth is the truth”, there are always versions depending on your position in the flow of actions which go up to make the truth. The fact of the matter is (as I see it) that whilst people are prepared to buy newspapers with made up stories in them or illicit photographs of so called ‘celebrities’ then the newspapers will continue to argue that what they do is in the ‘public interest’, which they confuse with ‘public interested’ and they will continue to print such dribble. In short the readers should vote with their feet and stop buying the offending newspapers / magazines.
I can understand the nervousness that Cameron exudes when thinking of some form of external control over the press. However, he should realise that his relationship with the press in general and NI in particular means that he and the press cannot be trusted. There must be some form of general, legal, judgment represented on a press council which is dominated by the press themselves. In the past their judgments (I use the word lightly) have been appalling.
The issue goes wider than invasion of people’s privacy, as Graham and John have pointed out. The publication of misrepresentation of facts is causing our society to suffer from propoganda originated from within, normally aligned to the interests of large businesses. As we’ve seen those companies often cause a lot of problems within our society themselves (banks going bust and the avoidance of corporation tax to name 2 issues) and yet MPs are either reluctant to regulate them or not clever/knowledgeable/imaginative enough to understand how to regulate them. That’s compounded by the mess we call political funding and we’re hoping for the press to uncover the issues to act as a counter balance, BUT WE CAN’T TRUST THEM!
It seems simple enough to me. Make the Press – on or offline – subject to the same regulations as the televised media.
self regulation alone will not work on its own….. would you expect a footballer to miss an opportunity to score an open goal from a yard out ? of course not…. how many last chance saloons have the press been drinking in ? #leveson must be implemented in full, anything less would be unacceptable to decent people the length and breadth of the country. Miss this opportunity and future generations of victims of press abuse (and there will be more)will never forgive us all.
Please work to ensure the Leveson recommendations are followed.
The press argue that statutory underpinning of any regulatory body would infringe freedom of the expression. How can we have a ‘free’ press and freedom of expression in these papers when most of them are owned by a few rich old men?
Self regulation has not worked with the press. We need a press that accepts it has a responsibility to all of us – the subjects of stories and readers. We need to weed out the rubbish that is printed purely to sell newspapers and appeal to the lowest tastes in society. These stories can ruin lives as we have witnessed.
The most important factor about press regulation is that the press maintains the power to influence millions of people. In this way irresponsible journalism could hardly be any more powerful, misinformation and propaganda are the most potent tools of warfare as they confuse, confound and demoralise. This is as true of the public sphere, misinformed people are quick to judge, based on scant evidence and easily angered, and a mob mentality can set in, innocent parties judged (Socially, morally and legally,) without due process and their lives totally destroyed according to trial by media. Everybody has the right to protection from such severe persecution; it is in fact quite animalistic, like predatory packs in pursuit of their quarry. As things stand the individual can be crushed by corporate power, and at the whim of a media proprietor, vestiges of tyranny in 21st century Britain, a ‘Might is Right’ attitude, which is the law of the jungle. The rule of law, due process and civil and human rights must come before all other considerations or, as Aristotle claimed, when separated from justice and law we abandon our primacy and are the worst of all creatures.
Cameron doesn’t want Parliament to have any form of control over a free British press. He’s right, and that is to be applauded. He also doesn’t seem to like the idea that the Courts, who are not controlled by government, but by the laws of the United Kingdom, should have no form of control over a free British press. He’s wrong, and a coward for using it as an excuse for ignoring Leveson. The civil courts do already exist as a form of monetary control, but the majority of people can’t afford or wouldn’t want the stress and expense of suing a newspaper just to put the record straight, and the majority of newspapers know that untrue sensationalism sells — and it invariably is worth the eventual cost in the courts (if they don’t settle first).
The cautionary tale of David Bookbinder vs The Times is one that should be heeded as an example of precisely why the press needs a mediator (if not a regulator) with its own teeth. It took decades just to get a simple unreserved apology (and a bottle of champagne). No money changed hands.
Untruths are printed glibly and without recourse, and it has been this way for decades. We now have the opportunity to fix that without undermining the freedom of the press to report the truth.
In the words of Stephen Covey, American author:
“While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions.”
The Press and Media in general, by their recent actions, have shown that they can no longer be trusted voluntarily to regulate their own activities, in such a manner that ill consequences do not ruin the lives of ordinary subjects of our nation.
Unpalatable though it may be in the UK, it is time to help them by using law to enforce regulation.
I agree there is too much corruption within the UK media to leave it to themselves to regulate. They will wait until everything dies down and look for other ways to invade privacy, make lives a misery and act in a cruel and heartless way. Regulation should be put into statute and overseen by a completely independent body who have no interest in any papers.
I have already received a reply from my Conservative MP, she also supports Levison
Hi Mick,
It would be really useful for the campaign to know what your MP said. If you’d like to share, please forward us the email at campaign@hackinginquiry.org
Thanks very much!
I think it is time this government listen to the public. There seems to be one law for the rich and one for the not so well off. All the time and money that has been spent on this enquiry is absolutely ridiculous and for what the good old PM Mr Cameron is not doing anything about it. We need the Leveson to be honoured.
It’s time for control. The papers have continually proven that they connot be trusted to police themselves. We have an opportunity here that may never come our way again. As long as the likes of the sun do as they please then we will never have politicians that feel free to speak their mind and the average joe on the street will never know when they will be the next victim of the papers venom.
I can remember when the sun hounded a you g actor in eastenders during the eighties , until he took his own life. That’s how long they have behaved with out morals.
We live in a free country and the freedom of the press is not something to take lightly, we are lucky. But, that freedom has been abused by media and politicians for too long without challenge from the genral public. The press have abused that freedom and must now accept control. The Leveson report is a first step in bringing back balance to public life and the media.
That we have a “free” press is an illusion. Most of the established media is owned by a handful of billionaires who wield tremendous influence as we have seen. Which is why they so hate the BBC, for all its faults the only broadcaster not beholden to big business. We need a system that is independent of both politicians and the proprietors but underpinned by law. We would of course expect an articulate output from the practitioners about the threats to “our democracy” but that is shroud waving. All important professions and institutions are subject to some form of regulation.
In order to sell newspapers, the newspaper proprietors have never “allowed the truth to get in the way of a good story”. All other forms of media require a licence to operate, I don’t see why newspapers should be treated differently. If the licence is removed by a properly independent authority the editor and owners would be forced to amend their activities.
I agree with both above, Cameron does not want to see the Leverson report followed, after all look who was critisiced in it, all his “friends” now he wants to curry favour with the media, The whole proposals Cameron, NOT your wants but the wants of The people, including the 146,000 on “hacked off”, every day a blunder, its like a dictaorship, remember you said “you were going to listen” then use them things on the side of your head.
How well you put it.
But don’t we know already, what to you expect from a goverment who with no mandate are pushing through legislation to destroy our welfare state.
The Government need to introduce some control on the press. If I was one of them, I wouldnt want to be hacked and have my personal info exposed. Time to sort it out.
It occurred to me years ago that the press describe their products as newspapers, not “fictionpapers”. Therefore if they are proved to print fiction there should in each instance be some remedy under the Trade Descriptions act?
I was also mauled by the press with an inaccurate story but had no recourse, there was a muted apology hidden in only one low circulation newspaper, the nationals did not carry it.
look where self regulation has got us,news paper editors have the shortest memorys when its their failings but they happily crucify anyone they please,the truth or ethics/morality,a conscience if you please means nothing to these monsters,and who does cameron have round to talk about it,the very same clan.the british people are sick of your abuses.we want levesons reccomendations implemented fully.
I would dearly love to contact my MP. However, I don’t have one. Having lived in France for 15 years my wife and I are now disenfranchised. I wish your cause well.
The people have spoken! Please listen to them. We are the people that voted you in.
6 previous declarations that the press would regulate itself have lasted only a short time. There’s no reason to believe that another attempt would be any more successful. Leverson MUST be implemented in full or the same will happen yet again. As a Researccg Director once put it ” A code of Conduct isn’t worth the paper its written on. Its less than the responsible will do of their own volition and more than the irresponsible will do without coercion” Don’t let Cameron get away with another fudge to suit his buddies !
I think the government is over-emphasising the scale of complexity required to implement the Leveson proposals. Does the judge live in some utopian cloud, divorced from the real world of practicality? I think it more likely that politicians are scared of grasping nettles, when the failure to grasp them has resulted in so much unsavoury baggage, both for some of them and for some unscrupulous journalists. Nobody seriously suggests that Offcom is not independent, in spite of its CEo being appointed by the Culture Secretary. I think the public would be more impressed by courage than by an apparent desperation to think of reasons for not doing anything.
70 years of “press freedom” and many forms of ‘Press Council’ and still we are no further forward in curbing the excesses of the “press”. Politicians have a vested interest in allowing the “press” to roam wild in the public domain. They tolerate their discretions, distortions and mis-reporting in order that they may use the “Press” to carry there political messages when in suits them. For too long has the ‘public’ been feed the line that to control ther ‘press’ by statute, would impact upon the “Freedom of the Press”. This “Freedom” has been abused by the ‘press’ and the public require action to establish ‘Freedom of the public, from excesses of the ‘press’”. We require that ‘parliament’ set up an ‘ Independent Press Commission” by statute, and leave the commission to regulate the ‘press’ under the legal powers given by ‘act of parliament’. Do not forget, that politicians are “elected representatives” of the general public who voted for them. We, ‘the General Public’ require protection from the excesses of the ‘press’ as heard in evidence to the “Leveson Enquiry”. The Leveson Report is the result of a well reasoned case against the ‘press’ and should be followed in all of it’s recommendations. To do any less than to fully implement the recommendations is a betrail of the citizenns of this one proud country.
A number of times in the past, the press has promised to VOLUNTARILY clean up its act. This has continualy failed and must now be be backed up with the law! Do not let the Lords in on this as many of their friends are the press barons who have led us to this point in time.
The Political Parties are too “cosy” with the Press …so are the Police, we need to ensure the Press reports “facts” and not invented “hearsay” which can destroy lives …The Press are a law unto themselves, we know they have some Politicians “in their pockets” and even Public figures require some Privacy, Cameron needs to do the right thing and back Leveson’s report to the hilt ….
I am disappointed that there will be no legally binding regulation of the press. I say this for a few reasons.
1. The breeches outlines in Leveson are so extreme to merit legally binding regulation.
2. Additionally the press are more ‘influential’ in society than at any time in the past and reach more people (largely with technology). 50 years ago this was not the case. The media can make a better contribution to betterment of society with accurate and informative reporting. Thru this and reasoned political argument we open the debate for politicians to show their worth and with a better informed public enshrine sensible law, process and economic progress.
3. Finally other professional groups now have ‘independent’ regulation including that of many ‘trusted’ groups, including my own (doctors). This has occurred after certain inadequacies of self-regulation. How is the media any different especially given their role in #2 above?
i don’t want anyone to control the press (although Rupert Murdoch is doing a pretty good job), I just want them to be accountable. When they print lies or rake up unnecessary dirt – they should be made to pay, whether financially or by admitting that they are liars.
I totally agree with Chris`s post, whatever happened to checking the facts? All media outlets should have a licence to operate, not a monopoly based on monetary power and influence. If they cannot prove that what they are saying is the truth or they get disproven, they get points on their licence. Too many points, then they lose their license, simple as, give someone else a go. While we`re at it, how about OfGov? Think about it! ..A totally independent body,…eg… FSA chief quits and gets plum job at Barclays?….He`d have to give it at least 5 years if I was in charge [and I`d work for free!]
Lord Hunt is being left free to imply, ‘no need of statutory carrots and sticks, only bringing instability from the threat of their subsequent removal or extension’. His point requires address.
It seems to me that the implicit challenge of Lord Justice Leveson, for parliament, is the creation of a Statute for Press Freedom that is, by its very nature, incorruptible, at least for as long as reason stands to prevail in national counsel.
Unlike the Charter & Agreement of the BBC, subject to down-grade from “upholding fundamental principles of democracy” to merely “explaining British Parliamentary Government”, the moral logic of a Statute for Press Freedom must be fit to stand the test of reason.
The Labour Party’s draft Press Freedom and Trust Bill seeks to “guarantee the freedom and independence of the media”. This is unfortunately without address of need to secure the freedom (in conscience and under law) of individual human actors. Without such freedom, ‘the press’ will remain ‘free’ (in fact by fear and greed compelled) to indulge an on-going freedom to abuse the public interest, even the false claim of service made only ‘as necessary’.
Within the draft Bill, in the Schedule, paragraph (5), “the public interest” is already in a sense abused, given that ‘guidance on interpretation of the concept’ is left to the new supposedly independent board, ‘in relation to the (standards) code’ of its own creation. Thus enacted, Parliament would be failing to make plain our genuine “public interest”, recognisable ‘in the pursuits of a free people’, leaving its definition wide open to anti-democratic abuse.
Of a piece, the draft Bill defines ‘independence’, for the press, only as ‘from the executive’. Thus dwelling on understandable fears, made the more understandable in the above neglect, the Bill would ignore realities of overwhelming significance at the heart of all conflict-of-interest scandals, not least of those that led to the calling of the Leveson Inquiry. It has been from the insecure inequality of individuals that the “culture and practices” of the press and others have made a mockery of their ‘codified ethics’.
In advance of general education for the institution of genuine democracy, if our Parliament wishes to support a Statute for Press Freedom made securely protective of individual professional conscience, for not against advance to democracy, then the primary ‘guarantee’ will have to be of public right to receive – in all publications – proportionate political education and declarations of conflict of interest.
The Bill should make clear the expectation that, in advance of wide understanding and formal agreement on full institution of democracy, occasions of ‘public interest’ disregard, or confusion, will continue to make necessary the provision of a reliable special avenue for address of complaints and redress for grievances, preferably to be funded from general taxation, its costs an incentive upon all with more material roles in public life.
With the above provisions, the market could then be left to decide as to whether due plurality is delivered in one educational cover, or by many titles, each title meeting statutory requirements.
Another way to promote ethicality and democracy in printed media, would be statutory inclusion of all national strands within one national cover, the ‘titles’ being left free to compete on their own terms for periodic votes on their space-allocation.
Self regulation does not and will not work. A small number of very rich men use their ownership of the media to influence government policy to the detrement of the larger populace. A proper democracy should have an element of open control of this otherwise unfettered control.
The real story here is ‘ why have none of the politicians and commentators opposing Cameron’s views chosen to highlight the obvious flaw in his argument for not supporting legal underpinning of press reform?’
The prime minister’s stated objection is based on the fear that future democratically elected politicians will use this legislation to further restrict press freedom. CAN NOBODY SEE THE FLAW IN THIS ARGUMENT? Is the fact that “our prime minister is suggesting that future generations should not be allowed to have their opportunity change our society because their views are not in agreement with his” not a massive glaring affront to our democratic process?
The real story here is why nobody has highlighted this point when disputing Cameron’s objection to legal underpinning of press reform. Is it because they are stupid or just dishonest? Many may be stupid but perhaps a frightening number are dishonest and wish to promote the same restriction on the people’s will concerning their pet subjects? So they do not expose the flaw in Cameron’s argument for fear of ” rocking the boat”.
Politicians, commentators and even members of “Joe public” know that press reform is just one of four current massive issues facing the British electorate right now ; constitutional ties to Europe, immigration, press regulation and human rights legislation.
I suggest the restriction of the “will of the people” ,in at least one of the above, is supported by many clambering for legal underpinning of press reform and it is this basic dishonesty/denial that may allow the obvious flaw in Cameron’s argument to go undisputed.
True democracy cannot be selective but i suggest, sadly, many of the supporters of Hacked Off only want democracy to prevail in promoting their views.
If you dismiss this view as pointless conspiracy theory then you are effectively allowing David Cameron to promote the view that the electorate cannot be trusted and “we in government know what is best for you and will only allow your will to be done when it does not conflict with our own views because you really don’t understand how society should work”.
Well that is not good enough for me! The majority of the electorate are every bit as qualified as David Cameron to pontificate on how we should live our lives, it is just that most of us are busy getting on with it rather than talking about it. Whether it be a footballer, actor, factory worker , or even a politician or journalist , the use of the term ” in the public interest” should be defined in statute in relation to press intrusion in private lives, no ifs or buts. That is my belief but I also believe the will of the people should prevail and if the agreed democratic process results in legal underpinning being proposed then I would support it.
However, I believe the easiest way to undermine Cameron’s argument is to expose the fragility of his reasoning, and that is something many seem unwilling to do.
As a former journalist for a Provincial Newspaper Publisher I am aware of the pressures applied to modify stories. National Journalists do not live in your community. Local journalists do, and may suffer a punch on the nose if they get it wrong. Nationals have more money to “buy” the stories the Publishers want. Local journalists have to seek the approval of their largest advertisers – usually Councils, Colleges and Garages. Editors who cross the line in favour of free speech risk the wrath of their Company Directors, (especially those Directors who want to be knighted) or the Unions (who are often not elected by you!) The Media will always be unable to regulate themselves because of these pressures.
Cameron does not want to see the Leverson report followed, after all look who was critisiced in it, all his “friends” now he wants to curry favour with the media, The whole proposals Cameron, NOT your wants but the wants of The people, including the 146,000 on “hacked off”, every day a blunder, its like a dictaorship, remember you said “you were going to listen” then use them things on the side of your head.
There is no such thing as the ‘free press’! What an absurd notion! Unless you mean the freedom to lie and distort in the name of circulation or manipulate public opinion in the name of the media moguls and their nefarious agenda. They don’t want ‘State Control’, as they call it, because that would amount to confiscation of the the control which has been theirs all along. Free press! That implies free from undue influence over what is written and published, doesn’t it? We know that that’s just silly at the moment. The World looks in horror at our Press and not just the gutter Press. We need Leveson now. We need our Democracy back.
One other thing, a properly moderated press might actually lead to a rejuvination of the Press. I, for one, might start buying newspapers again if I thought I could trust them.
I whole heartedly support the freedom of the press but with freedom comes responsibility and this is where many of the national and some local papers leave me cold. There must be a body not of the press to say “this is not right you cannot print lies about someone on your front page and the apology for them in 2 lines on page 27. There has to be an independent body that can make the press in this country check their facts before printing. This situation does not just affect those who have had terrible tragedies in their lives it also affects people who have never been written about directly. Many disabled people in this country are suffering abuse and attacks on a regular basis because of Cameron’s friends whipping up a frenzy about benefit “scroungers” to get support for his cuts in the welfare system. Many others are just giving up and loosing the will to live having faced these policies first hand but our free press are not printing these stories so they can say to our elected leaders you scratch my back..
Even though I live in the UK I wish that something like this would come to the where I live. I always felt that the press had more power to do whatever they wanted to do. Even when that meant crossing personal lines. Everyone has a right to privacy. Whether you’re famous or not. I agree that the word control should not be used, because everyone is entitled freedom of expression. But this can get very twisted when not having the right information, and using it for the wrong purposes. It is to my understanding that the press/media is suppose to be positive, but now a days you would be lucky to hear one good thing in the news. Possible solution? The press should work with the public to create pieces that people can enjoy that less involves the public figure(s) private life(s).
Look, it`s very simple, information is power and power corrupts. The trouble is that the people with the most power also have the most information, not just about us but about each other. So essentially, the media, the police/state organisations, the politicians etc are playing a mixture of poker and top trumps with the “dirt” they have in their hand. Back in my day, it had a more honest description, …………blackmail. The latest spat between the Telegraph and Ms Miller the Culture Secretary is a rare public standoff, very enlightening, and entertaining too! More!!
The control of the press is long over due I don’t want to see the freedom of the press curtailed ,but I would like to see it being truthful and responsible for it’s actions. For example if a front page headline naming ,shaming or exposing someone or something is found to be untrue a retraction and apology should be the same size and on the front page of that newspaper .Also a minimum fine should be made ie £100000 yes it may be a large fine but it would make the newspaper very careful what the print if it cannot be proven by them As for Cameron what’s the point of setting up the Leveson Inquiry if you are not going to act on his recommendations the mans got no b****s
Has anyone seen the character assassination of Hugh Grant in the i paper this Saturday 15th. This is lower than the Sun on a bad day.This from a supposed prestigious paper. A very good reason why these appalling people should be regulated.