Monday 23 December 2019

BBFC reject criticism of Cats U




An orgy of throbbing tails: is Cats the kinkiest film to earn a U certificate?

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/dec/19/cats-the-kinkiest-film-to-ever-earn-a-u-certificate-tom-hooper-andrew-lloyd-webber?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail 

Friday 13 December 2019

IPSO help Tories in election? Hospital boy photo

This could be seen as a rather concerning development, IPSO acting exceptionally quickly after being asked to do so by the Tory party during an election. Contrarily they could also be praised for swift action!


Boris Johnson aide tried to stop media using image of boy on hospital floor (Guardian)

A senior adviser to Boris Johnson was involved in trying to stop the media reporting images of a four-year-old boy photographed sleeping on a hospital floor.

The Conservative aide contacted the press regulator Ipso on behalf of Sarah Williment, the mother of the boy, after the health secretary, Matt Hancock, spoke to her by phone, according to individuals with knowledge of the case.

The regulator then issued a notice asking the press to not name the boy or use the photograph, which had previously been widely used.

It is highly unusual for a political party to send a complaint to the press regulator on behalf of an individual and seemed designed to try to limit reporting of the row. The image had become one of the defining photos of the final week of the campaign.

The unusual intervention, first reported by BuzzFeed News, was made as the Conservatives struggled to contain the row over the photograph. Pictures of the child on the floor at Leeds General Infirmary were published initially in the Yorkshire Post and followed up by the Daily Mirror.

On Monday, Johnson had grabbed a reporter’s phone and put it in his pocket when he was confronted with the photograph.

Hancock was then sent to the hospital in an attempt to bring the story under control. During his visit, Tory sources said he spoke to Williment over the phone. Another aide approached journalists about the story on Monday afternoon, warning them to consult with their news desks before following up the story.

In an apparent bid to silence other news outlets from following up on the story one of the prime minister’s most senior aides contacted Ipso, saying they were acting on behalf of Williment.

The aide also sent the letter to the BBC, which reported extracts of it, claiming the story was “causing significant distress” to the boy and his family.



Monday 9 December 2019

IPSO Mail guilty but zero consequence other than election outcom!

If you want to know how good press regulation is just ask me about The Rock ... snowflake!

Here's a case that may well in time define the failure of the 4th attempt at self-regulation, and the ongoing success of lobbying to prevent statutory regulation.



Mail on Sunday made false claims about Labour's tax plans (Guardian)



The erroneous article was published in June, and the press regulator ruled on the inaccuracy in November. The MoS must now publish Ipso’s ruling on page 2 of its print edition and on the top half of its website for 24 hours. But because the paper sought a review of the process by which the decision was made, publication of the correction has been delayed until after the election.

Saturday 30 November 2019

FILM OWNERSHIP Disney censorship starts

Disney have already s/mashed the big 6 into 5, and are uncomfortably close to an absurd 50% market share with no obvious end in sight to their growth and dominance.

This has raised concerns over how the conservative brand might censor - and it's begun already on it's Disney+ service...

Not just a single case of swearing but even 'goddamned' is wiped out by the mouse's scissors


https://screenrant.com/disney-plus-free-solo-movie-censored/

Monday 25 November 2019

BBC v WE MEDIA BoJo no laughing matter

Let's recall how another Johnson, Dwayne, took to his Insta to correct a made-up, damaging story in the Star rather than deal with IPSO.

In this case it's Boris Johnson - laughed at by a live TV election debate when he answered a question on the importance of truth, but not according to the BBC's later news report on its own show.

Is that evidence of bias? Very debatable, but the BBC was forced to admit poor judgement after a clip of the original audience response went viral. So, an active audience, not OfCom or the BBC's own editorial board, forced the Beeb to apologise for its misleading coverage. 


BBC admits 'mistake' in editing out laughter at Johnson in TV debate

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/25/bbc-admits-mistake-in-editing-out-laughter-at-johnson-in-tv-debate?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail

Friday 1 November 2019

AIRLINE FILM CENSORS unregulated regulators

'No scissor emoji?!' Olivia Wilde criticises airline censorship of Booksmart

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/oct/31/no-scissor-emoji-olivia-wilde-criticises-airline-censorship-of-booksmart?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Tuesday 15 October 2019

FACEBOOK the new Sun and it's broadcaster error

How Facebook shot themselves in the foot in their Elizabeth Warren spat https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/15/facebook-elizabeth-warren-regulation?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger


Ignore Zuckerberg’s self-serving rubbish. Facebook must be regulated

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/31/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-regulate?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Sunday 6 October 2019

PHONE HACKING new court case targets executives

This brings phone hacking right back into our current orbit, moving it out of the historic category.

The Prince is part of a group action which effectively targets the more senior people who were effectively unpunished, unlike a few jailed journalists, when the issue was pursued by the police and private lawsuits (generating millions in compensation payments). This time it's the editors and even owners who are being targeted, with the allegation being that they covered up hacking over decades.

High profile editors have stated under oath in court that they had no knowledge of the practice. This could be an explosive case - but the wheels of justice grind slowly...

Prince Harry: tabloids hid hacking crimes for 20 years https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/05/prince-harry-joins-court-case-against-tabloid-hacking-crimes?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger

Further reflection on the case; the fundamental role of the press to hold the press to account - and an argument, that notwithstanding the whiff of racism of the focus on Meghan, this outweighs some of the complaints from the royals and will doom their stance even though they'll likely win the letter case against the Mail under EU HRC laws.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex may win the battle but lose the war

https://www.theguardian.com/media/commentisfree/2019/oct/06/duke-duchess-sussex-mail-on-sunday-lawsuit?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Monday 30 September 2019

IPSO slam Sun but refuse royals front page demand

The Sun breached guidelines with Harry and Meghan story https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/30/the-sun-breached-guidelines-with-harry-and-meghan-story?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger

Thursday 26 September 2019

FLAK WEB 2.0 Labour call out mainstream media bias

Useful article - it clearly states the perception of anti-Corbyn (the relatively radical, left-wing, Labour leader) bias; the ongoing reliance of broadcast media on newspaper stories to set their own news agenda; and the risky Labour strategy of relying on online media to counteract this

Labour v Fleet Street: why Corbyn is picking a fight with the media https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/25/labour-media-tactics-more-trumpian-admit-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger

Wednesday 18 September 2019

IPSO ignored again in cricketer Ben Stokes Sun privacy story

Ben Stokes attacks 'despicable' Sun story about family tragedy https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/17/ben-stokes-attacks-despicable-sun-story-family-tragedy?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger

Thursday 1 August 2019

GOOGLE POLITICAL POWER Chomskian video analysis

Clunky title but an intriguing, provocative video which unpicks the story of a US Democrat running for the presidential nomination having her account suspended just in time to probably doom her campaign.

The video makers take a clear editorial line on this, which you may well take issue with (it could have been random algorithm bad luck...), but they provide useful context and research - she had pledged to tackle big tech; research showing how the ordering of the top 4 search results can powerfully impact opinion.

There are parallels here to the long running failure to effectively regulate UK press content/conduct (never mind ownership) given the power of the press (these days more through setting TV/radio news agendas) to utterly torpedo a party or politician's electoral prospects.

Google is on a power level way beyond the press (ditto Facebook, with the press suffering a triple whammy of extreme ad revenue loss, circulation hemorrhage, and reliance on secret algorithms to push traffic their way - whilst complaining about how the tech giants exploit their expensive product while grossly underpaying...).

https://youtu.be/b8A2kzeEqGA

Wednesday 17 July 2019

BBFC inside view but nothing on Sweet 16

Interesting if quite lenient feature from a writer invited into their offices. He mentions Sweet Sixteen ... but doesn't appear to have asked about anything as awkward as this.

So, a bit of a puff piece but some very useful details and context.

Sex, violence, f-bombs and randy sausages: a day inside the BBFC https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jul/16/bbfc-british-board-film-classification-sex-violence-fbombs-randy-sausages?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger

Wednesday 3 July 2019

PRESS FLAK Monbiot attacked by right-wing press over column

After urging land reform I now know the brute power of our billionaire press https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/03/land-reform-brute-power-billionaire-press-attacks?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger

Wednesday 12 June 2019

LIBEL LAW cases 2019-

I'll start updating this post with anybody cases or changes...

Independent and Evening Standard lose appeal over libel case https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/12/independent-and-evening-standard-lose-appeal-over-libel-case?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger

Tuesday 4 June 2019

NUDITY FACEBOOK wethenipple protest over double standards

FOLLOW-UP RESOURCES: 

2020 MARCH: LIZZO ATTACKS TIKTOK FOR RACIST, BODY SHAMING CENSORSHIP (Guardian)

2020 OCTOBER INSTA ACCUSED OF CENSORING ONLY PLUS-SIZED WOMEN'S BODIES (Guardian)

While IPSO has an Editor's Code (though it had nothing to say about Page 3 & it's discrimination clause certainly doesn't impact sexist coverage) the web is a largely unregulated media (the so-called wild wild web).

Facebook, like Google (especially YouTube) and others to a lesser degree, is under fire from governments and pressure groups for its undermining of democracy and general lack of openness. Unlike the BBFC and IPSO these FAANGS giants (& smaller co's) keep their algorithms and rule books as closely guarded secrets, their information firewall occasionally breached by whistleblowers or research.

STORY: Guardian, JUNE 2019: Naked protesters condemn nipple censorship at Facebook headquarters.

The different treatment given to the male and female nipple is one case where the social media giants' policies are known. All are censorious of the female nipple, operating a stark double standard with the male nipple, though the effectiveness of this varies - Instagram and Facebook run algorithms to remove such images (including many cases, controversially, of breast feeding), while the likes of YouTube run ineffective age 'blocks'.

This has sparked multiple campaigns I've blogged on before, notably freethenipple. #wethenipple is another, enacting a smartly designed naked protest outside Facebook US offices - covering their nakedness with cutouts of male nipples.

The issue, as I've pointed out before, is complex. The gender binary is well established in law - women can be prosecuted for 'indecent exposure' for baring their nipples, men can't. Media coverage continues to normativize the sexualisation of the female nipple.

Such law (and media policies) is oblivious to the contemporary undermining of the gender binary through increasing visibility and prominence of queered identities, leading to an increase in gender-free toilets. Butler would approve - while some US states have passed laws (sparking cultural boycotts) banning trans people from using bathrooms of their asserted gender.

What isn't so ambiguous is the problematic nature of giants like Facebook, increasingly influential in shaping opinion and cultural views, having secretive unregulated rules on what they deem acceptable or unacceptable.

As weak, largely ineffective and lamentably limited (ownership? lack of pluralism?) as the Editor's Code is, it is at least transparent, with decisions explained (though no ruling is made if mediated) on their website, as are the BBFC's (in their case backed by regular research into public attitudes on swearing etc).

What isn't


Saturday 1 June 2019

HOMOPHOBIA FACEBOOK abuse RUSSIA cuts 5mins from Rocketman

Taron Egerton speaks out against Rocketman scene cuts in Russia https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jun/01/taron-egerton-speaks-out-against-rocketman-gay-scene-cuts-in-russia?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger

YouTube says homophobic abuse does not violate harassment rules

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/05/youtube-says-homophobic-abuse-does-not-violate-harassment-rules?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Friday 24 May 2019

IPSO 2019

Rather than multi-posts, a short sharp summary of recent relevant events, focusing on Clause 12 Discrimination cases; issue of 3rd party complaints; argument in favour of free speech... Here's the Editors' Code.

probably the key one being the Rock/Dwayne Johnson snowflake case!

Do make sure you read http://mediareg.blogspot.com/2018/05/ipso-damages-payments-scheme.html post; this is also a key POSITIVE for IPSO as an improvement over past press regulators.

COURT CASE EXAMINE TIMES 2019 TRANSPHOBIA (CLAUSE 12: DISCRIMINATION)

SUMMARY + FILM LINK: I've summed up this case, linked to Burchill (trans, Observer), Moir/Gately, Iain Dale (sexuality, Mail), Sun/Liddle +  Mail/Letts (racism) cases, bringing up 3rd party complaints; freedom of speech safeguarded for opinion pieces; discrimination must be against named individuals; Twitter-fuelled rows. FILM COMPARISON: there isn't an easy direct comparison, BUT... Paddington 'sexual references' homophobia?; anti-Indie bias censoring working class voices and representations? (anti-racist TisEng message through violence + racist terms + general 18s for 15s)

The Observer (Guardian's Sunday sister paper) case on Julie Burchill's column and of course the notorious Jan Moir column on Stephen Gateley's death are key past examples to consider with this.
The point is simple - The Times editor Witherow was forced in an employment tribunal hearing (a journalist alleged they couldn't work there because of the transphobia) to defend his paper's record on covering trans issues, for example this column by Giles Coren:
Coren’s piece, There came three wise people of non-binary gender, referred to a mother identifying her new baby “as male without consulting it” and referred to someone “who could easily have been a woman or something in between”.
Witherow admitted he would also have rejected one story from a Times Scotland reporter about an apparent row over allowing trans men and women to share single gender cabins on the overnight sleeper from London to Scotland. The piece was based on a tweet and a comment on Mumsnet website. [Guardian]
Where are the press regulator here? Why haven't they dealt with this???
The Times' editor admits both these stories DID contain discriminatory language.
We're only hearing this because of a court case.
VERDICT: IPSO FAIL

LINKED CASES:
2015 IPSO 3RD PARTY RULING V THE SUN [LIDDLE COLUMN, TRANS]
This appeared to show IPSO would be tougher than the PCC, and wouldn't routinely ignore 3rd party complaints, something the Culture Select Committee (MPs) condemned the PCC for, and something IPSO said it would improve on. 
In this case IPSO did accept and rule on 3rd party complaints about a Rod Liddle S*n column in which he mocked a trans woman AND forced it to publish IPSO's ruling.
See post.

2018 QUENTIN LETTS MAIL RACISM TWITTER ROW [IPSO REFUSED 3RD PARTY]
If the above example (Liddle) seemed to show IPSO would be tougher, including by accepting 3rd party complaints, this case seems to show that early promise has quickly faded, and we now see a repeat of a key PCC failing. Whats notable about this case, which would seem to be an example of discrimination (targeted against a named individual ... BUT from a column, not editorial, article), is that it played out as a Twitter row - IPSO rejected 3rd party complaints.


2018 MUSLIM LEADERS SUES TELEGRAPH AFTER IPSO RULING
Mosque leader goes to courts AFTER IPSO ruling. S.Tele paid damages.
Very useful case - the IPSO ruling was 'resolved through mediation'; they didn't rule on whether the Telegraph had breached Clauses 1 + 12 by labelling the mosque leader as an extremist; they DO state that the complainant was satisfied with the IPSO and Telegraph response (Telegraph apologised and printed a correction).
He then sued them under defamation (libel) law, and won a £30k payout.
To be effective, surely IPSO needs a tough fining system like this?
They DO, in theory have a very limited scheme, launched in the same year as this case, 2018, which can lead to compensation payments up to £60k ... but it hasn't been seen in operation yet (just like the UK government have NEVER refused a newspaper sale after the 1960s law was brought in to tackle concentration of ownership).
We should also think beyond the INDIVIDUAL in this case - such articles, regardless of any apology/correction, simply help to reinforce the negative, harmful stereotype of Muslims as terrorists/extremists.

2013 PCC REJECT BURCHILL SCREAMING MIMIS COMPLAINT
This was an extraordinary case, covered in bullets in this post. Burchill used language which might be expected in a right-wing tabloid or mid-market like the Mail, but never a supposedly left-wing, politically correct paper like the Observer (Sunday sister paper of the Guardian): column featured strong derogatory terms for describing transsexuals ("screaming mimis", "bed-wetters in bad wigs" and "dicks in chicks' clothing")
Incredibly, following a protest outside their offices, the paper sacked Burchill ... but the PCC ruled there was no breach of Clause 12!!!
Clearly, the PCC decided that Burchill's column, despite her colourful choice of language, could not be deemed to be prejudicial. In other words, she had a right to be offensive. 
Reading between the lines, I imagine the commission took the view that it was a matter of taste and therefore lay within the editor's prerogative.
2015 KATIE HOPKINS SUN RACISM
In its own way just as extraordinary, though reflective of a powerful argument that opinion columns deserve more room for 'colourful' opinion than editorial articles, Hopkins is a widely despised right-wing mouthpiece for hire sacked from multiple jobs for offensive utterances... [MY POST]
The National Union of Journalists has condemned the press regulator’s decision to reject complaints about Katie Hopkins’ Sun column which described migrants as “cockroaches”.Last week, the Independent Press Standards Organisation rejected all complaints that the column, which sparked widespread anger by suggesting that Europe should use gunboats to stop migrants crossing the Mediterranean, was discriminatory on the grounds that it did not refer to a specific individual.The NUJ said that by rejecting the complaints IPSO has “thrown further doubt on its own legitimacy” as the successor to the Press Complaints Commission.Only two complaints out of more than 400 have been referred to the Sun, both under clauses of the editors’ code dealing with accuracy rather than discrimination.
It seems clear there is an incredibly high barrier to getting cases of discrimination agreed by IPSO.
The principle of allowing columnists scope to be outrageous IS at minimum an argument worth considering, BUT in this case IPSO's ruling focused on the notion that because she referred to all immigrants, not any individual, she wasn't discriminating. That logic makes discrimination widely acceptable.

KATIE HOPKINS 2018 MIRROR 'APOLOGY'
This is a bizarre case. The Mirror were found guilty of breaching Clause 1 with its claims of drug-taking by Katie Hopkins. Her victory was pyrrhic (ie, really a defeat) as the Mirror printed its apology and IPSO's ruling ... but noted that they should have stated she was guilty of racism instead!!!


JAN MOIR + IAIN DALE DAILY MAIL CASES
See the doc below; both are from the PCC era. The Gately case especially should be used in ANY essay, its a very powerful argument AGAINST voluntary self-regulation, though again the argument around allowing opinions IS an important one to consider.
VERY briefly, Jan Moir wrote a rather hateful column clearly linking gay boyband singer Gately's death to his homosexuality (ie, the stereotype that all gay men are all promiscuous, take drugs, bound to get AIDS), published on the day of his funeral. It sparked a huge number of complaints, rejected by the PCC on the grounds they were 3rd party complaints (an organised campaign saw 25,000 submitted). They only ruled when Gately's partner complained.
Just as importantly, they didn't even consider it under Clause 12 but rather Clause 1.
They again found the Mail not guilty of breaching Clause 12 for another opinion piece describing a politician as 'overtly gay'.

...

Tuesday 16 April 2019

OFCOM fine TV and radio stations for hate speech

Once again you can see the vast difference between a statutory regulator (BBFC is another example) and a (voluntary!!!) self-regulator (IPSO). Leveson had proposed a tougher regulator with OfCom-like powers, but the right-wing Tory government, generally favoured by most of the UK national press, unsurprisingly took the side of the press industry and refused to accept Leveson's tougher proposals or to allow the second phase of his inquiry. The left-wing opposition party, Labour, support much tougher press regulation (under Tony Blair they became a right-wing party, favoured by some of the right-wing press, but this has radically changed under current leader Jeremy Corbyn, and they are once more a bogeyman figure for the press).

Would the Editors' Code be so routinely flouted (clause 1 is accuracy don't forget!!!) if there was a system of fines ... and/or licensing (scrapped for newspapers back in 1694!) in place???


UK-based TV station fined for anti-Ahmadi Muslim hate speech.


Sunday 14 April 2019

MURDOCH US newspapers racist boycott

He closed the flagship NotW after a highly effective advertiser boycott threatened to spread to his US media (and with the PCC so disgraced by its mishandling of the Murdoch press' phone-hacking, condemning The Guardian for reporting it, that it disbanded itself! Some press regulator...).

Now Murdoch faces a potentially crippling boycott of his paper that once again shows how pressure from outside the formal press regulators can be much more effective than the regulators themselves.

The S*n has long been banned across Merseyside for its hateful portrayal of Liverpool fans as drunken hooligans responsible for the deaths of nearly 100 Liverpool fans at Hillsborough, eventually apologising for this decades later after official public enquiries trashed it's claims.

Now it's an unsubtle attack by the New York Post that has attracted a retail boycott. Up to 5000 Yemeni-owned outlets will cease selling the paper after what they see as a clearly racist front page attacking 1 of the just 2 Muslim Congresspersons. They say it endangers US Muslims by encouraging anti-Islam hatred.

KEY POINT: Consumer campaigns, especially pressurising advertisers with boycott threats, + distributor/retailer boycotts can be much more effective than a formal regulator.



Friday 15 March 2019

MURDOCH evil genius?

As I've said many times, a fantastic case study for anyone interested in business.

Some quick links I was just sharing with a student, as they're a useful starting point on ole Rupe (and wee James):

the documentary Outfoxed (here it is) for looks at how Fox News reflects his very right-wing world-view; 'the most humble day in my life'; the pie attack; secret recordings of Murdoch; how Murdoch answered (or didn't) questions about phone-hacking; an icon of journalism condemns Murdoch as pretty much evil...  The Guardian wrote an editorial on how awful he is! They also did a handy video on his history!
...

...

NETFLIX to set BBFC ratings

Netflix to set its own age ratings for film and television programmes


Film regulation just got more complicated ...

The BBFC has loosened its monopoly on film ratings, allowing Netflix to set its own age ratings (using the BBFC categories and logos), stating that the scale of Netflix content and additions is too much for the organisation's workforce to cope with. They'll do a monthly sample to check Netflix ratings meet and are consistent with BBFC standards.

There are powerful arguments for and against this:
+ its an overdue response from the BBFC to the explosion of streamed content not tied to traditional TV companies/stations/broadcasters+ checks are in place to ensure ratings are consistent with existing standards+/- its an extension of free-market ideology, favoured by right-wingers (usually opposed to state control; the public sector)- its an extension of censorship (if you accept arguments that age ratings = censorship)- will Netflix really be as accountable as the BBFC, who publish details (parental guide) with every age rating decision?

Netflix has been given the power to set its own official age ratings for its films and television programmes, in a move that could spell the end for the traditional role of the British film censor. 
Under a first-of-its-kind deal announced on Thursday, the British Board of Film Classification will allow the US streaming giant to rate its own material and then use the official British age rating symbols on all of its content. 
“Because of the sheer amount of material that’s out there it’s not logistically viable for the BBFC to view everything in the traditional way,” said Craig Lapper, the BBFC’s head of compliance. “We’re going to permit them to produce BBFC ratings by applying our guidelines and standards to their content.” 
At the moment only films or DVDs which have been watched and assessed by an in-house BBFC employee can carry the recognisable U, PG, 12, 15 or 18 logos.Under the new system Netflix will essentially be allowed to mark its own homework. The BBFC will carry out a monthly audit on a selection of programmes to make sure the streaming service is meeting its side of the bargain. During the year-long pilot Netflix will use an algorithm to rank its own content in line with BBFC guidelines, based on its existing human-created database of programme content.

Monday 18 February 2019

SOCIAL MEDIA FAANGS 2019

Rather than posting multiple blogs, I'll gather new events/points in this hub post. The clear theme is an EU-led backlash against the wild west non-regulation of the web giants (FAANGS: Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google, Spotify), though US lawmakers won't necessarily be fooled by the millions being spent by FAANGS lobbyists to convince them this is a conspiracy against US business by a jealous EU which failed to produce companies/apps that appeal globally.

SOME FAQS/THEMES

Will there be statutory regulation?
Yes, its already happening: GDPR; Germany will enforce $20m fines if hate speech isn't removed within 24 hours, and it + France are leading the way on taxing the tax-dodging giants. Apple has already been forced by the EU to pay the Irish government €13bn in back-tax.

Will the FAANGS conglomerates be forced to break-up into smaller companies?
Probably, but the timescale is uncertain. EU pressure will be a factor, but it will be US regulators/politicians who ultimately decide if, like the film industry back in 1948 (Hollywood giants were forced to sell off their cinema holdings), they legally form monopolies and therefore competition + consumer protection law insists they must become smaller. The FAANGS are spending $millions to persuade US lawmakers that the EU are trying to undermine USA dominance, and that any attack on them is bad for the USA.

However, with deregulation being the long-term trend ever since Reagan back in 1980 (same for the UK from 1979 when Thatcher was elected, two very right-wing, 'free market' politicians), the film industry may actually see its anti-trust laws scrapped in 2019! Right-wing governments (eg Trump/Republicans, May/Tories) are reluctant to regulate the 'free market'.

The right-wing press may also be very free market, but they do frequently campaign for tighter regulation of other media (just not the press), which will add pressure to right-wing politicians to act.


Are children (+ how they are monetised) a factor?
Absolutely!!!
Protection of children, arguably even more than protection of democracy, is a (the?) key driver behind media regulation. The age rating system (film, games), TV watershed, multiple clauses in the press industry's Editors' Code, much of the ASA's policymaking, all are dominated or even defined by protection of children. The ASA's ruling that apps must not contain gambling if they're accessible to kids is just the start of what promises to be a tough EU-led fightback against the non-regulated, wild west approach of the 'digital gangsters' of new media.

Phone hacking was a scandal to Guardian readers until the Milly Dowler case broke, and within weeks the highest-selling Sunday paper was closed and a multi-year formal commission (Leveson) was set up to investigate newspaper malpractice, while the self-regulator, PCC, scrapped itself and announced IPSO would replace it.

Expect Facebook and Google/YouTube's lax age controls to become a major issue.

The non-regulated monetising of freemium apps (Lara Croft Go, Kim Kardashian's Hollywood) and vlogging social influencers like Zoella is already facing restrictions.




2019 STORIES

...

FACEBOOK + SOCIAL MEDIA TO GET STATUTORY REGULATION? UK MPs CALL FACEBOOK 'DIGITAL GANGSTERS'
Read more on the Feb 2019 'digital gangsters' statement + call for statutory regulation, which was quickly backed by the Labour party (but the Tories are unlikely to agree).
A 'digital gangster'? UK MPs are furious with Zuckerberg

Facebook (and Google/YouTube) are facing ever growing scrutiny over their (mis)use of user data and facilitation of anti-democratic forces (in US presidential election, Brexit vote, spreading of anti-vaccine ideas, etc). They have grown into vast global conglomerates with little or no formal regulation.

GDPR, laws passed within the EU to insist on minimal standards of privacy and registration of user data, was an early sign of this wild west era ending, though the lobbyists (PR, campaigners) employed by the FAANGS have successfully argued to US politicians that this is the EU trying to damage American business.

There remains the distinct possibility, though, that US regulators will get tough on them. Facebook is facing multi-billion fines for misuse of user data, which could lead to a re-think on regulation there.

Thursday 31 January 2019

PRESS 20 Years of anti-EU baloney

I've blogged on the topic of the UK press's obscenely farcical coverage of the EU, rendered an antichrist all-encompassing evil surpassed only by socialism in the world view pumped out by the majority of the national press.
You may have seen my posts on the supposed EU determination to make all bananas straight for example. Which sounds like a slightly exaggerated satire ... but was actually a front page story.
Now that this sewage tide, alongside massive manipulation of new media through funding that may have broken electoral law, has achieved the improbable goal of Brexit, it's a good opportunity to look back at just how closely the UK press follow Clause One of the Editors' Code ... Accuracy. As 'enforced' by the self-regulators PCC and IPSO...

Some more links:

MUSIC CENSORSHIP jail sentence for black artists playing song

Skengdo and AM: the drill rappers sentenced for playing their song https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/jan/31/skengdo-and-am-the-drill-rappers-sentenced-for-playing-their-song?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger

Wednesday 23 January 2019

WEB 2.0 GOOGLE blocks ad-blockers boosting its ad revenue

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/

PHONE HACKING It Was The Sun Wot Dun It court told

Incredible that it's 7.5 YEARS since a panicked Murdoch closed the News of the World in the face of mainstream public fury over Milly Dowler and successful online campaigns to threaten advertisers with boycotts while they continued to place ads in the paper.

Murdoch was forced to put a humble face on, notably in his appearance before a parliamentary committee (when then wife Wendi Deng saved him from a custard pie!!!).

Nonetheless, as the issue has largely lost its heat, with advertisers free to finance the replacement Sun on Sunday without boycott threats and the Leveson proposals for a relatively mild toughening of press regulation largely defeated, with the support of the Tory government (and press!), and only the Labour opposition advocating following Leveson, it seems Murdoch has come through the crisis rather well.

He was forced by US shareholders to split the then toxic (and less profitable) print division from the film and TV wing, but this court case, which I'd bet will receive little if any coverage in the right-wing press (ie, most of it!) and therefore is less likely to become a broadcast (radio, TV) news agenda item either.

Phone hacking was widespread at the Sun, high court told https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jan/22/phone-hacking-was-widespread-at-the-sun-high-court-told?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger

Again, I doubt rival right-wing papers will cover or give prominence to this news story, which is in the top ten news stories in the Guardian mobile app this morning (so TWO headline stories on Murdoch!), but here's a reminder of Murdoch's alleged removal of an Australian PM. At least the second one he's accused of successfully plotting to undemocratically remove!

Lachlan Murdoch denies father Rupert ever said Malcolm Turnbull has 'got to go'

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jan/23/lachlan-murdoch-denies-father-tried-to-get-rid-of-malcolm-turnbull?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Sunday 20 January 2019

WEB 2.0 Zuboff surveillance capitalism as Google fined 44m

Lengthy feature (but tad quicker than reading the 600 page book!), but a tightly argued argument against technotopians


And lo and behold, here's a major sign of governmental concern and fightback against the FAANGS ( Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google, Spotify) seizing of user data, the surveillance that Zuboff warns of. No surprise that this comes from Europe - France has fined Google e44m. As Google's breaches are ongoing that could rise to 4% of global revenue, so the already record 44m fine could eventually rise to 4bn!
Google fined record £44m by French data protection watchdog.

Rupert Murdoch will be rather pleased with this - he continues to complain bitterly about (especially) Facebook and Google's use of and profiting from his print media.

Sunday 13 January 2019

WEAK IPSO The Rock says Star made up front page quotes

Getting to the (Rock) bottom of this, the performer's response to seeing what he asserts are made up quotes on the Daily Star's front page was not to contact IPSO ... but to release a short video rebuttal through his social media platforms (specifically a video on his Instagram).

It's hard to argue against the notion that social media can be more effective than the formal regulator: Johnson's version is now very widely known, as opposed to a small correction buried somewhere inside months later.