In a curious way, we seem to be back to normal: the so-called “popular press” may now concentrate their fire – and their investigative effort – entirely on the political class, with the occasional foray into “celebrity” territory, and leave “real people” in peace.
While the newspapers chose politicians and self-appointed publicity-seekers as their targets for hacking phones, scrambling through dustbins and inventive gossip, readers didn’t seem to mind what methods the papers used. Remember the Daily Telegraph on MPs’ expenses and The Sunday Times on Peers’ misbehaviour? There was manifestly a public interest at stake, so the illegal appropriation of private data was overlooked. However, as soon as the Dowler and McCann families were subjected to this treatment there was a fully justified reaction which led to the Leveson Inquiry. Attacking politicians seemed to be fair game, whether accurately or not, but illegal surveillance of “ordinary” people was seen in a quite different light.
Excluding the Murdoch and Barclay press, the serious newspapers (FT, Guardian and Independent) have all cautiously welcomed Monday’s cross-party agreed Royal Charter, underpinned by statute. However, the Daily Mail’s Paul Dacre (who elected him?) and the other proprietors, who choose to interfere in British politics from abroad, seem about to declare war on the UK Parliament.
It would be an interesting test of the new regulator to see whether the Mail would be rebuked for publishing such inaccurate rubbish about the nature of the proposed new regime. I suspect very much that it would not be so rebuked. As now, it will be free to make tendentious claims in pursuit of the powerful but not – as now – to go unchecked in making the lives of private citizens a misery.
In any war of words with Dacre et al, the relationship between politicians and the media could deteriorate further. In return for daring to challenge newspapers’ freedom to publish whatever they want, no matter its veracity nor its effect on innocent people, MPs and Peers can doubtless expect further “revelations” about their own conduct. So be it, if they leave others alone. The public, in the end, will judge who has their best interests at heart.
Neither the Monarchy, Establishment, Parliaments, Judiciary, Civil Service, nor Media
“best serve the Public Interest”.
If it were not for the (somehow non-economic*) retail-market-place, accessibly run and priced by almost “fairy-godmother” Business experts,
we permanently low-income millions of people would very probably not be able to afford bread, let alone ‘cake’.
————-
* Economics has long since passed its use-by date, having long since been seen to be lacking in a fundamentally balanced equation but having failed to construct and begin to operate a sustainworthy equation, including failing to make co-constructive progress with the newer discipline of Global Ecolonomics.
================
(God! ) we are so “lucky” that even our disableds and poverty-liners can live healthily and (contrastingly with the “Third World billions of truly struggling peoples)
affluently,
upon a single human living (of about £200 per week: yes, with other allowances one can ‘live well’);
whilst our “indispensable” and “essential-services” ‘workers’ in the above listed Filthy-Lucre-Pyramid topped by the Establishment, Parliaments Judiciary and Media
each ‘member’ of which thereby is ‘entitled’ to draw and be progressively-awarded not just two or three human-livings but upwards of ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred, and even more than 400 (the latter e.g. Big-Bankers).
(God) why do they “NEED” –
and how can they be honestly argued to need –
lifeplace supports for twice, ten-times, a hundred-times their number of human-beings ?
Even the poor psychiatrist, “having” to draw £2000 per week is behaving as if s/he were ten human beings –
and that under any common-sense “mental health” judgement is a quite serious Delusion.
And “privately”, secretly, those wastefully fat paypackets must be given, received and spent;
under ‘pain’ of any challenger being taken to court under the richman’s “super-injunction” and not only be made to pay huge ‘redress’ money but be publicly ‘gagged’ forever from
talking about or questioning such truth-questions.
Indeed ! Who does serve the People’s Needs and the Public’s Interest ?
I take the practical approach whereby I assume that the press wants to sell newspapers and so tries to put in stories that people think might be interesting. The correlation between the story content and the truth is variable.
I’ve been on the ‘inside’ where I know what’s happened and then subsequently seen how it’s reported, and I’ve spoken to others in a similar position and it’s quite clear that some stories are written to be sensationalist and not a unbiased reporting of the facts.
Given evidence that some are so written, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume that pretty much all of them are like that.
What gets my goat in all of this is, accuracy. It matters not who they go after if what they write or expose is accurate, the Dowlers, etc., being a different kettle of fish, because they were not up for any kind of scrutiny, or, ripe for the illegal act of hacking and harassment.
That is where the problem lies, illegal acts, and harassment. If courts were easily accessible and to sue cost little and really gave huge compensation for inaccuracy and lies, or, propaganda carried by newspapers for the use of government indoctrination, then all this lunacy would stop.
The Mail, for example, without fail is usually inaccurate in what it puts out. They have half right, or, part stories or leave out the true message in order to plug their particular agenda.
And this makes way to the selling stories to the public that are paid for directly, or, indirectly by celebrities agents as in the matter of the Royals with their PR machine. You get pages of it and such complete nonsense sometimes, it makes you puke when you read it.
If only we could believe what we read and get the full story the better the nation would feel. For presently we believe nothing. It is all considered some kind of PR stunt. Otherwise it’s simply selling their political interests to what they feel are a gullible people.
As far as politicians and others who are in the business of vending their ability to serve the public, then they are indeed fair game, as long as the reports are accurate and are in the public interest. Because we have a right to know who we have elected to represent us. If those in power are liars and on the make, they deserve to be exposed. We are paying their stipend after all and if they are not willing to stand by what they are selling us, then they are frauds and deserve to be outed.
When I was in the US, I used to see headlines in the rubbish paper called, The National Enquirer, and used to laugh as the stories they put out were so outrageous and off the wall you could never believe them. However, over the years I began to realise that, in general, the scandal they floated turned out to be truth. It changed my mind about peculiar stories regarding those who manage to climb the greasy pole of notoriety.
The real story is what we need to read about, as long as it is factual, that is all there is to it.
The comment page is another form of lying outrageously on some issue or other, usually political in some form. And if it favours the party line, there is never any come back from those in the know, they collude in the deceit and in the public being mislead because it suits them to do so. this is lying by ommission.
Dear Lord Tyler,
I strongly agree with your point of views, dear Lord Tyler knowingly that there is good and bad in press reporting. Regarding inaccuracy of information,this matter could lead to disinformation and can ruin a whole life.I suggest that the press division could regularly give some factual printed information to journalists so that these kind of incidents are not repeated. As such, dear Lord Tyler, England needs more press offices so that only facts are reported on newspapers. Nevertheless a journalist’s job is not an easy task as he or she has to master the information and if the guide line given is a wrong one, the summing up will bring misleading information and can be detrimental to both parties, for the journalist as well for the subject reported.I trust you will think about more press offices which will be a good oustanding solution to erase misinformation.
God bless the United Kingdom. God save the Queen and the beloved lords.
Nazma FOURRE
We don’t hear much about the BBC’s part in all this, possibly the worst perpetrators of dis-information of them all.
Perhaps that is it; they dis-inform rather than scandalize in more releases than the hard copy printed press. Even the online newspapers ie not hard copy, are much harder to pin down
than the street purchased ‘tabloid’.
It is far more difficult to sue the transmitted media for libel and defamation
since they are merely bytes, now digital, which are here one moment and gone the next.
In the case of BBC iplayer (and it is totally uncontroversial) if you saw or heard the defamatory item and could then go instantly to the recording all well and good.
I don’t suppose the libellers and defamers make it any eaier for their victims to get published ‘copy’ than they ever did, hard copy press or otherwise.
Ipad and kindle do have downloadable daily news papers which would be one way. I don’t know how many people use them. There is such fragmentation of Media and news compared with 30 years ago, that Lord Tyler’s comments seems as though they are giving an airing to the bickering between different parts of the fragmented news.
My golden rule is that the press, AND Tv, (journalists not being notably clever either), is ANARCHIC, and is perfectly happy to start a war, if it sells their newspapers or increases their viewing figures,and fails to report serious issues of public interest, if it does not.
Oh dear Lord Tyler where to start.
The Leveson Inquiry was a total irrelevance to the issues you raised. Huge libel and hacking damages have been awarded (some still ongoing) to those concerned, many journalists have been arrested; some charged. The law already has a remedy. The proposals many with an axe to grind are backing is content control; not for matters that breach any law – or should – but because they disapprove of the content.
“However, the Daily Mail’s Paul Dacre (who elected him?)”
You’re seriously going to play the ‘election’ card lord Tyler?
“It would be an interesting test of the new regulator to see whether the Mail”
The test will be the almost certain striking down of the punitive damages as illegal unequal treatment under the EHRC.
Not that I think that will matter. All these proposals will do is incentivise publishers – who are increasingly online now – to move to safe jurisdictions for publication. The Daily mail is I believe now the world’s most visited newspaper website. They could move their servers to the US and presumably fall under the Libel Terrorism Protection Act (and similar acts) passed to protect free speech from the idiocy of UK libel law. A number of key UK blogs already use similar measure to protect themselves.
Don’t fiddle your expenses and papers can’t write about it. Those celebrities were victims but the thieving politicians made their own mess. Huge difference there.
And don’t use state secrecy laws to cover up what’s gone on.
I must say Lord Tyler that for once I feel I agree with you. However, a friend of mine who runs a blog is terrified that the Royal Charter as it currently stands would expose him to being shut down or sued. Could you put his mind at rest on that?
Malden: Blogs are included in the state censorship charter as we speak. The fact blogs had no part in the hacking scandal is neither here nor there for those who want to gag the internet this is the opportunity they have been looking for and they are taking it.
You get pages of it and such complete nonsense sometimes, it makes you puke when you read it. Once in a while is ok, then you only reach a little, realising that it is the same old story they put out ten years ago or twenty and expect people to pay for it again.
If only we could believe what we read and get the full story the better the nation would feel.
I don’t think many people are equipped to speak on behalf of the “nation” in the way that the hon lady obviously is.
Those who are thus endowed surely have a very special insight and foresight, in to all our lives.
politicians and others who are in the business of vending their ability to serve the public
I met one of those once. He said he did very well, but the hours of travelling round the vast number of different machines were rather heavy work. He did work on commission though, just like some MPs would like to; done!!
We are paying their stipend after all and if they are not willing to stand by what they are selling us
Ha!Ha!Ha! I wonder who it was? Was it chocolates or coke?
manage to climb the greasy pole of notoriety. It is surely easier to slide down the greasy pole of notoriety than it is to climb up the greasy pole of fame?
It is certain that, once you are on it, there are only two ways….. up or down.
Jack has been informed about the beanstalk,which should be planted and growing by now.
Dear Lord Tyler,
Journalism makes the politics and politics makes Journalism. This saying of mine should lead up to the thought despite the counter arguements of Garett Howell, that both of the important twin functions are for the best ruling of the United Kingdom. Journalism without politics will make one orphan :the communication skill that a good cover could give to politics.
To remedy this situation, I would suggest as a participant ,that short briefing press notes should be handled by the politicians themselves and be given to journalists all written.Secondly, press officers for politicians should ask for a copy of any article which is be published. At that stage, this measure would prevent any unsollicitated article from Journalists who attend parliamentary sessions.
I would conclude that the job of a press officer in this particular situation is vital to allow abusing articles to be published on politics and to monitor that only factual information are published in newspapers.
God bless the United Kingdom. God save the Beloved Lords and the Queen.
Nazma FOURRE
Croft: I think I can ‘play the election card, since I have campaigned for decades for members of the Lords to be chosen by the public, in direct elections. Indeed, I was first elected a County Councillor in 1964, and then an MP in 1974, so I believe in elections! Unlike most of those appointed to the Lords, I have not changed my view since taking my seat here. Indeed, I was very disappointed when the Government’s House of Lords Reform Bill was withdrawn, after gameplaying by the Labour Party and plain undemocratic intransigence by the Conservatives.
You also raise the point about freedom for bloggers, which is a very important one. You may be interested to know that the Government has made clear that blogs will not be within the ambit of the new regime. This is what Tom McNally (Deputy Leader of the Lords) said on it yesterday:
“In future, the digital world is likely to be the principal method of distribution for much of our news, and our regulatory system must reflect this. It is important because the public have different expectations about different kinds of media, and in taking a regulatory approach we should take seriously those public expectations. Clearly, the online version of the national press, its regional counterpart or an online yet press-like news site, carry very different public expectations when compared with a small-scale blog-or, for that matter, a tweet. Our definition of “relevant publisher” seeks to make this differentiation. It does so by employing an interlocking series of tests, all of which must be met before the threshold of the definition is reached. They are, first, whether the publication publishes news-related material; secondly, whether it is written by different authors; thirdly, whether it is to any extent subject to editorial control; and, fourthly, whether it is published in the course of a business. The definition is therefore intended to protect small-scale bloggers while capturing the more sophisticated, press-like online material that Leveson described.
Equally, the definition of “relevant publisher” is not intended to capture the news aggregation services of operations such as Yahoo! or MSN. Nor is it intended to capture social networking sites where individuals post user-generated material. Nor is it aimed at sites that simply moderate the comments of others, or aggregate a series of blogs without any active consideration of the content, such as the blog-hosting services WordPress and Tumblr.”
Thankyou for your reply.
I’m not sure Lord Mcnallys remarks do provide the protections you suggest. Most major (individual) bloggers have adverts on their sites (if only to cover upload/bandwidth costs) but others make a profit – So you can have an argument over when its a business there. Many bloggers allow others to guest post there and that may constitute 2 authors and an ability to moderate. Challenging the regulator, which will inevitable try to define its power maximally, in the courts is of course prohibitively expensive that will leave such avenues open only to the rich
Dear Lord Tyler.
I totally agree with the statement of Lord Tyler who has played an important role in the election card and as such his sayings are blessings as they come from his inner soul of a sound politician.A politian remains a politian and I am sure Lord Tyler is the best in his positions to answer precisely to the expectations of the public as he works for the welfare of the United kingdom. His gifted personal quality as a politician and a Lord has made him eradicate the burdens of the United Kingdom which he serves with passion.
God save the Queen and the Lords. God bless the United Kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE
And here we see a form of documentary on who definitely does not represent the publics interests.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcGh1Dex4Yo
This should be listened to very intently. It is this these people are wanting to hide.
First, they bring in secret courts, and now they censor those who are telling us about it. And how did they manage to do that? Why, showing a Bond movie, Skyfall, of course. Whoever came up with that little idea knew they had children in their clutches.
George Orwell knew exactly where he was coming from.
Be very afraid.
And this is a start at the obvious need to address the balance of politics this downright deceitful government has as policy, that rot we are being stuffed with day and night, by our rich Estate owning, fat faced, tax grabbers who want to see the vulnerable in our society starve.
http://ourwelfareworks.com/
First of all, Ian Duncan Smith, the public purse is not donated by our hard working people for you to fill your trouser pockets, it is given to run a civilised society in order to keep the people of this country cared for in their hour of need. Whilst you tell the world those who are living on £53 a week are cheating and are deserving of their fate.
It is you who is cheating and have cheated on every level. How RC’s have allowed you to remain a convert, (because you are not a genuine believer of that faith, you barely understand its message) within its ranks is an enigma. Pope Francis should seriously make moves in ex communicating people like you and the other anti christian, Blair, from its ranks. You are an embarrassment to any form of faith Christianity is the founder of.
Get back to your estate, via marriage, and work on it yourself. Those who make it to the next level of society, through their choice of heiress,, usually find it a privelege to work 80 hours a week to keep it going. Don’t they?
http://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/netmums-mums-panel-251/member-requests-185/911857-challenge-ian-duncan-smith-live-53-week.html
Get back to that privilege and leave the rest of the poor to stand on the policies your party, and the rest, sold us when you began stealing our cash before we saw it.
Brass:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmw2R10slH0
Dear Lord Tyler,
Money makes the politics which is well deserved by the politicians who are working for every breath of their soul trying to change the United kingdom for the best.I do not think that the conservative party is ruining the expenses of the United Kingdom,following the thread of the conversation of the previous participant as these expenses are met in the budget wisely by the Government. . It is quite depressing to see how politics reputation is put in mud just because frustrating minds could not meet both ends by the end of the month. In such case, I do not think neither should the conservative party is to be blamed nor any political parties.
God save the Queen and the blessed Lords.God bless the United kingdom.
Nazma FOURRE
I simply had to add this sixties skit which tells it as it still, obviously, is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2k1iRD2f-c