An article on CiF comments on the ongoing Leveson Inquiry into the behaviour of the press. Timothy Garton Ash bemoans the unchecked power that the press has wielded. There is an irony here, of course, in that the Groan is as much a part of the problem as all the rest. The paper may complain about the tabloids but when it comes to facts and evidence – or as we plain English speakers like to call it; the truth – the Groan can be as flexible as the their bête noire of the red top tabloids – or, shudder – the Daily Mail. They are all as bad as each other. All will cheerfully destroy lives and reputations if it serves their prime directive and that is to sell copy.
David Yelland, who edited the Sun for nearly five years, this week acknowledged that tabloid editors in the era of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and the early months of David Cameron, simply had too much unaccountable power. Faced with a story about a footballer’s sex life, Yelland recalled honestly, he would not have asked himself if publishing it was in the public interest; he would have asked if the story “stood up”. When he was editor of the Sun, he felt as if there was a “big red button on my desk”. If he pressed it, then next morning there would be a giant explosion somewhere. (Bang goes a career. Bang goes a family. Bang goes a life.) He added that what is remarkable about bosses like James Murdoch (of News International) and editors like Paul Dacre (of the Daily Mail) is their almost total lack of self-awareness. They see themselves as the boys at the back of the class “when in fact they own the whole school”.
Yelland’s new found honesty is refreshing, but why did he do it? Why was there not a conscience holding him back? The Max Mosley case distilled the principle nicely. The press like to claim public interest, yet in the the case of Mosley’s S&M party there was no public interest. It was, however, interesting to the public and the salacious details could be guaranteed to sell newspapers, which is why the News of the World went ahead and published. And, on top of that, they like to claim free speech, while abusing the principle, twisting it out of all recognition. Who cares if a life is irrevocably damaged if a few million newspapers get sold?
Mosley is fortunate to be wealthy enough to chase the bastards through the courts and make them pay. You and I, ordinary people who may find ourselves on the wrong end of media attention have no such recourse. And should we ever get them to admit that they made the whole thing up, or embellished what little fact was there, any retraction will be hidden away inside the paper unlike the original scoop, thereby enabling the tarnish to stick.
So, what can be done? The knee jerk reaction is more regulation. And, despite my general dislike of more regulation, it is something that finds some sympathy with me. These evil bastards need to be brought down a few pegs. Self regulation clearly hasn’t worked. But then, if you have an organisation chaired by Paul Dacre dealing with complaints, you might just as well have the Godfather running the justice department. Any body charged with holding the press to account needs to be independent and have some real teeth. It needs to be able to hurt them badly where it makes a difference – in their pockets. And it needs to have the power to make them print full page, front page apologies and retractions.
The press in Britain is out of control. Quite apart from reporting that is incompetent with journalists publishing press releases without bothering to check the facts behind them, simply cutting and pasting copy, there is the salacious hounding of people when there is blood to be had. Maybe that blood letting is right and necessary. Maybe there is indeed malfeasance to be exposed and exposure is right, proper and in the public interest. Unfortunately, so much of what they publish simply isn’t. The real stories get lost in the cacophony. And, unfortunately, because they have behaved so badly, the backlash when it comes is likely to hamper proper investigative journalism. If it does, they have no one but themselves to blame and no sympathy from this quarter.
All that said, broadcasters such as the BBC aren’t much better…
Interfering with a primary-school age child’s “satchel” so that the press can get at her mother …(J.K.Rowling, today’s evidence) is about as sick as it gets – exept, of course, for battening on the murdered dead – more than once.
Not sure I agree at all. If you have a prominent public position, the fact that you’re deceiving your wife and cheating on her does not deserve to be kept secret by law.
If we’re not careful the rich and powerful will be able to get away with all kinds of unpleasant behaviour and nobody will be any the wiser. We will end up with a gagged and emasculated press.
I’m sorry but l can’t stand the bleatings of celebrities. This came about because almost all of them are too dumb to put a pincode on their voicemails. Milly was different because the bastard deleted her mail. lf anyone thinks all this hoo-hah is to protect us mere citizens … think again!
Be careful what you wish for.
…. and just remember the government is monitoring everything we are using! They just dont want us to do it to them.
It seems to me that the dead tree press is dying on its arse and in a desperate attempt to reverse its decline is sinking further and further into the gutter. Surely their reputation for printing made up lies will catch up with them eventually. The Daily Mail, in particular, now has such a reputation for lies and falsehood that any story that comes from them is automatically viewed with suspicion. Blogs like Tabloid Watch regularly provide evidence that these “newspapers” now regularly print stories that they know to be untrue. They also employ hacks who write ranty opinion pieces about stories that the blogsphere refuted days ago.
I can’t now remember who the guilty party was but I remember an example of lazy copy and paste journalism in which a “newspaper” printed ‘Click here to find out more’ in the middle of one of their articles.
The fact that a celebrity is cheating on their spouse is not in the public interest – it is interesting to the public and that is the difference. Unless it is a matter of hypocrisy as was the case of politicians who were proclaiming family values on the one hand and cheating on the other, it is no one else’s business – just as Mosely’s peccadilloes are no one else’s business.
It isn’t about it being protected by law, but having a recourse when the press poke about in stuff that is none of their concern – or, worse, as in the case of the McCanns, made stuff up.
If we do end up with a gagged and emasculated press, it is something they will have brought upon themselves as a consequence of their excesses. And there will be no sympathy from me.
I’d also point out that failing to change the PIN code might be foolish, but it doesn’t excuse the behaviour – it is akin to saying that a woman in a short skirt is asking for it.
But where do you draw the line? If you’re a married footballer who is a “Youth Sport Ambassador”, but is regularly “roasting” 16-yo girls with his mates in hotel rooms, are you entitled to keep that private?
If you’re a leading politician who is a habitual sexual predator a la Strauss-Kahn, are you entitled to keep that private?
If you live by publicity, to some extent to have to expect the glare of the spotlight to be turned on you.
” . . broadcasters such as the BBC aren’t much better . .”
Actually the BBC is much much worse. The BBC has a monopoly position in broadcast radio and TV in the UK (as far as monopoly is defined for legal purposes by the law and practice of the Competition Commission). It uses this monopoly to pursue a particular, broadly speaking, left-wing statist narrative beloved of the metropolitan left who both inhabit and are pandered to by the BBC. Worse, you and I cannot legally refuse to pay for the BBC’s bias – but we don’t (yet) have to buy the Guardian.
I’m no apologist for the paper press but why should all of us suffer when the press misbehaves. I’d rather have the present press, warts and all, than a gagged and emasculated one. Who do you trust more; a press which is, in the end, subject to the law (even if it’s people like Mosley who can bring it to heel) or the shower of crap at Westminster and Brussels and in every townhall in the UK.
Umbongo:
Irrelevant lying trolling.
Stick to the subject.
Just because the Beeb doesn’t follow the neo-fascist Murdoch/Fox line is no reason to try to derail this thread.
Smoking Hot:
IF it was only “celebrities” you might have a point.
But it isn’t and wasn’t, so you don’t.
Pursuing a primary-school-age female child, merely because her mother is a successful author is NOT an excuse.
Nor is interfering in more than one murder enquiry – that is criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of Justice.
Please engage brain before posting, in future, huh?
Where there is evidence of illegal activity or behaviour that impacts upon their public role. Otherwise, no one else’s business.
Greg got in there before me. This is not about celebrities, it is about ordinary people who have suffered at the hands of a press that is way out of control. The Dowlers and the McCanns are not celebrities, they are victims of particularly nasty crimes, yet have been subjected to intrusion that is far beyond the public interest story of the crime itself. Indeed, the McCanns are claiming that fabricated stories hampered the investigation into the disappearance of their daughter. If this is true, the journalists concerned deserve to be doing jail time.
I am not suggesting a privacy law. I am, however, suggesting that the useless PCC be replaced with an independent body that has the authority to hold these bastards to account when they cross the line. To force them to publish front page retractions of falsehoods, to impose hefty fines and if necessary to bring criminal proceedings.
While celebrities have the money to take them to court when they publish lies and intrude into their privacy for the purposes of titillation, ordinary people cannot and have to suffer as a consequence. An independent body that can act on our behalf would level the playing field. None of this would impact genuine investigative journalism and if the press behaved responsibly, none of it would be necessary at all.
I trust them equally – in that I don’t.
“Any body charged with holding the press to account needs to be independent and have some real teeth”
“I am, however, suggesting that the useless PCC be replaced with an independent body”
Well you’d better hope for something more than the Media Standards Trust, which is stuffed full of Common Purpose placemen.
They are behind the Churnalism site which many bloggers are promoting to check up on the “Copy/Paste” sloppiness you mentioned above.
LR
Indeed I don’t trust either but my point is that without an unemasculated press the crap is totally out of control
Greg Tingey
Smoked a few too many substances have you? Had an argument with your partner? Bit frustrated? Tell me where the lies are, let alone “trolling”. I suggest you calm down before commenting – or just calm down generally – it’s bad for your blood pressure.
Umbongo, I’m not saying that an emasculated press is a good idea, simply that if it happens, then it is a direct consequence of their behaviour and I have no sympathy.
What I am arguing for is the responsibility that goes hand in hand with the principles of a free press. The responsibility to discern between “public interest” and “interesting to the public” and to refrain from poking about where they have no place doing so. To pull a story because that is the right and ethical thing to do.
What I would like to see is the press behaving responsibly without any form of regulation. Hasn’t happened, has it? Given that, an independent watchdog that holds them to account on our behalf is a necessary compromise.
LR
I see your point – and it’s a good one. But the moment the press starts being regulated (unless it’s self-regulation which, as you write, has been found wanting) it’s a matter of who appoints the regulators and what powers they will have.
Either such a regulatory body will morph into something like the BBC Trust which has been captured by the organisation it is set up to regulate or the regulatory body – appointed by those the press is (partially) established to expose (politicans) – will, effectively, control the press.
Another way is to leave things as they are. Not a wonderful prospect but IMHO superior to any alternative.