IPSO RULINGS 2021

 IPSO RULINGS 2021

DAILY STAR ACCURACY BREACH 2021

'Greedy granny' story

Complainants noted she wasn't granny; amount stolen wrong; wrong home town

Clause 1 Accuracy(note: IPSO publish details for public, including guidance on clauses!!! BBFC too!)
Star had offered to publish correction; complainants didn't accept it; 

IPSO ruled SOME inaccuracy; said correction was sufficient
Took EIGHT months to rule!!!!

arguably: reputation damage already done?

this was an issue with PCC...which was even slower!

IPSO does not cover taste, decency. Lightshade lover ruling

An odd case, but certainly illuminating on the limited purview of IPSO. An interesting contrast with BBFC here, which quite explicitly does judge taste (annual reviews of public opinion on swear words etc) and decency (it refuses an 18 if it judges a film work to be without artistic merit and obscene, thus breaching the archaic, shamefully undemocratic Obscene Publications Act, as it did with Human Centipede II).

The complaints panel at the press regulator sided with the newspaper, saying that they acknowledged that the article was considered to be “offensive and upsetting” by Liberty but that Ipso do not cover issues of taste and decency.

Woman's attraction to chandeliers not a sexual orientation, ruling says.

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.

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.

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

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!!!

• here's Greenslade on the decision:

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'.

PCC case studies from DB3igs

...

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.

The Rock says Daily Star fabricated 'snowflake' criticism.

PRESS OWNERSHIP 2019- IPSO and OfCom rulings

Another planned hub post

Evening Standard and Independent could face inquiry over Saudi funds

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/13/evening-standard-could-face-inquiry-over-saudi-investment?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Will the watchdog dare dismiss this impartiality case against Newsquest? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/20/watchdog-nuj-impartiality-newsquest-union-ipso?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger

Sale of Standard and Independent stakes to Saudi investor investigated

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/27/government-investigate-sale-evening-standard-independent-stakes-saudi?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

IPSO Mirror guilty but Hopkins apology goes viral

This is perhaps a unique example...
Katie Hopkins, whose writing has sparked high profile complaints, 'won' with her complaint against the Mirror.

It's pithy apology has gone viral though, noting they were wrong to link her with drug abuse ... when it was racist abuse instead!!

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2018/05/24/the-mirrors-apology-to-katie-hopkins-is-absolute-gold/

IPSO damages payments scheme

Clearly a big step up for IPSO, undermining a key argument against it...

• offering a low cost (max charge £100), quick arbitration scheme as an alternative to (expensive) law courts
• more than just ruling on whether a Code clause has been breached...
• ...damages of up to £60k could be paid out (closest we've come to fines)
• this was to undermine MPs support for (1) carrying out Leveson2, the 2nd half of his investigation (as agreed and announced by PM Cameron back in 2011 - to alleviate the huge pressure to act on press behaviour), and ...
• (2) the Tom Watson proposal to make law Leveson's report proposal that any papers NOT signed up to a royal charter-recognised regulator (ie, Impress; IPSO refuses to engage with this, as do the papers not in IPSO) would face large (the legal term is 'exemplary' = making an example of) damages payments AND would have to pay complainants fees win or lose!!!
• it succeeded ... but only after the Culture Secretary announced that Parliament would review IPSO's arbitration every 3 years (see below for more)
• that will create a little bit of statutory regulation!
• moreover, surely if MPs declare themselves unhappy with how IPSO are running the scheme they'll then look at the wider system of regulation?
• So: under huge pressure from backbench bills/amendments seeking to bring in Leveson 2 AND serious financial penalties for royal charter refuseniks, IPSO rushed out a proposal to offer an alternative to sueing with possible damages + a £100 costs cap; MPs clearly didn't trust IPSO/press industry, so it took a government pledge to make a 3-yearly review of this arbitration scheme a legal requirement (statutory) for the Watson + Leveson2 proposals to be rejected

Press Gazette.

Here's more from the Press Gazette on the extraordinary steps the government took, hand in hand with a press industry MPs clearly didn't trust to stick to their word, to convince MPs to back down from voting through the Watson (royal charter refuseniks penalties) + Leveson2 bills/amendments:

...

PRIVACY 2018 SUMMARY

on the TBC list, but for now (+ use the privacy tag):

The Sun pays damages over revenge porn images of lottery claimant

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jun/14/the-sun-pays-damages-over-revenge-porn-images-of-lottery-claimant?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Thomas Markle is the latest victim of the abusive relationship between press and palace

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/15/thomas-markle-is-the-latest-victim-of-the-abusive-relationship-between-press-and-palace?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Privacy laws can be used by the rich + powerful to maintain secrecy over actions that may well be in the public interest to expose (though the red top approach that whatever the public is interested in is automatically in the public interest has commercial but not legal or ethical logic, and is clearly rejected by the Editors' Code, which limits the public interest defence to a few of its clauses).

Superinjunctions, to avoid even reporting on legal cases, such as that used by footballers Ryan Giggs and David Beckham (both rendered meaningless by widespread social media sharing) to try to hide news of affairs they have had, and in the Trafigura case to try and prevent The Guardian from reporting on pollution and the devestating social and health impact of this, are one level of this.

The most famous recent case, Max Moseley being reported as engaging in a Nazi-themed 'sex party' with escorts, with the Murdoch tabloids offering up free undercover video footage, was to found to lack any public interest in the courts - where the powerful are most likely to go, rather than PCC or IPSO. Injunctions seek to stop reporting before it happens (or the further repeating of already reported stories), the PCC/IPSO focus on POST-publication scrutiny (does an article breach the Editors' Code?).

Moseley's case is very well known, but he won damages at the high court for the breach of privacy. His position as a leader of autosports did not make his private antics a democratic issue! The reportage was simply to sell papers, not to make any meaningful contribution to public discourse.

The courts, especially with Tory government slashing of legal aid, are only really an option for the rich, however. The 2018 case of the Finsbury Park mosque leader who went to the courts AFTER going through the IPSO complaints process, and won £30,000 damages (libel, not privacy case) again indicates a higher level of protection available to those able to afford expensive legal fees.


****The newly announced IPSO arbitration scheme, which includes possible damages payments up to £60,000 and a capped complainant cost of just £100, is at the very least an attempt to address such concerns. See post.****

Moseley continues to get his revenge by funding Hacked Off and Impress.

The issue does often overlap with clauses on protecting children, notably the Toploader guitarist/celebrity wife case (Express, which had left the PCC...). Clause 6 is intended to specifically protect children's right to privacy, and IPSO's 1st ever case, raised as a 3rd part complaint by an MP (Sarah Wollaston) on the 'devil child' story (see http://mediareg.blogspot.lu/2017/05/ipso-children-rulings.html).

We have seen the rich and powerful protected by IPSO, as in the Harry on the beach case:

See the 'royal family' tag.

BUT - IPSO have also backed a member of the public in a case which led to calls for changes in the writing of the privacy and children's clauses (see Press Gazette article; IPSO said this was not necessary), to state that social media accounts should not be assumed to be public (their ruling here):

Privacy is 1 of the most complained-about clauses (numbers, from IPSO's website, accurate on 14.5.18):

...

DAILY MAIL in RACISM row IPSO third party rejection

From Zelo-Street blog

Tad sardonic there, but whether Quentin Letts' direct question (was actor cast because he's black [is it cos he's black to paraphrase Ali G, a no more preposterous voice one could argue]) is racist or not what is also noteworthy is that ...

... Once again there's no mention (yet, at least) of IPSO, this is largely a Twitter-based row.

Guardian: Daily Mail's Quentin Letts accused of 'racist attitude' in theatre review.

----------------------------

QUENTIN LETTS THEATRE RACISM ROW -

IPSO reject third party complaint

Daily Mail columnist accused the RSC of politically correct tokenism for casting a black actor in a Shakespearean role. This quickly led to a Twitter-based argument, and in turn to an IPSO complaint. Somewhat surprisingly (to me anyway), IPSO rejected the complaint (of breaching editors’ Code Clause 12: Discrimination) as it did not come from the actor highlighted by Letts.

My surprise comes from IPSO’s apparent resolve to do better than its predecessor the PCC with third party complaints (ie, someone other than the subject of press content complaining), which had been repeatedly and specifically highlighted by the Culture Select Committee as a key failing of the PCC. That issue was also highlighted over the Stephen Gateley/Jan Moir case (also Daily Mail, generally the most-complained about paper).

ANTITRUST REGULATION Should new media giants be broken up?

Google, Facebook not playing by the rules, News Corp tells ACCC

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/may/04/google-facebook-not-playing-by-the-rules-news-corp-tells-accc?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

TERMINOLOGY - very useful neologism/mnemonic below: GAFA...

UPDATE: MURDOCH'S FOX RAIDED BY EU ANTI-TRUST AUTHORITY OVER SPORTS RIGHTS
The Murdoch press enjoys a dominant market position in the UK with no hint of any regulatory action (unless left-wing Labour leader wins the next election) from government or the self-'regulator' IPSO. Yet his corporation's handling of sport rights once more sees clear evidence of the tough regulatory environment for broadcast media compared to 'print' media.
Guardian: 21st Century Fox's London office raided in market abuse inquiry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A useful primer, including a quote from Adam Smith, on the history of and current clamour for enforcement of antitrust laws.

In a nutshell these exist to combat market dominance by single companies (or colluding cartels), seen as to the detriment of customers.

Elliot, the Guardian Economics editor, references historical cases of oil, and 1980s action on AT+T (US equivalent of BT in the UK or Post in Luxembourg), but he could also have referenced action against a forerunner of the modern cinema big six, forced to vertically DE-integrate before gradual deregulation allowed this dominance to return.

Microsoft were desperate for Apple to survive during its 90s crises, as it helped put off antitrust action against them.

Elliot cites the GAFA crew, Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, but Comcast and Disney also are worthy of such consideration as they clamber above even global media barons such as Murdoch, who faces Disney buying his film empire and Comcast his prized TV empire.

(See Guardian article, Is it time to break up the tech giants such as Facebook?, for more on this)

The argument goes like this. Data is as vital to the modern digital economy as oil was a century ago. The tech giants have the same sort of monopoly power that Standard Oil once had (Google and Facebook accounted for two-thirds of online advertising spending in the US last year and Amazon was responsible for 75% of online book sales). Mark Zuckerberg might wear chinos rather than the top hat sported by Rockefeller but a robber baron is a robber baron. It is time for anti-trust legislation to be used to break up Facebook, Google and Amazon.

The charge sheet is a long one: the tech giants are exploiting their monopoly power to stifle competition; they are spreading fake news; their fantastically rich owners portray themselves as right-on yet go to a great deal of trouble to minimise their corporate tax bills; they are ripping the heart out of communities through the closure of bricks-and-mortar retailers. To the list can now be added (in Facebook’s case) the harvesting of the personal data of 50 million Americans and its use for political purposes. 

No question, Big Tech is more vulnerable to a backlash from Washington than it has ever been. Companies have outgrown management systems that were not designed for systemically important businesses and have used their market power to gobble up rivals. It is this charge – that the disruptive startup companies of yesteryear are today’s anti-capitalists – that creates the biggest risk of anti-trust action.

OWNERSHIP Leveson 2 n Murdoch sunk as Comcast seeks Sky

A name which may be familiar from its ownership of NBC-Universal, Comcast has launched a shock bid to usurp Murdoch's long-planned full takeover of Sky, the most lucrative arm of his now fragmenting global empire. Just as there are questions about the ethics and fitness of the Murdoch conglomerate, Comcast brings with it a tarnished reputation for behaviour that both Chomsky and Ben Bagdikian would recognise as predictable from their models:

Comcast, which last week unveiled a £22bn offer for Sky, has been labelled the “worst company in America” twice in recent years over shoddy customer service and pricing. It has also been involved in regulatory transgressions which legal experts believe means its plan to take over Sky should be closely scrutinised by watchdogs.
The pay-TV firm, which is poised to formalise its bid to try to steal Sky from under Rupert Murdoch’s nose, announced a $300m plan to spruce up customer service three years ago, but to little avail so far. Comcast was named “America’s most-hated company” in a respected customer satisfaction survey last year.

(Guardian: Sky bidder Comcast labelled 'worst company in America')

I'm picking up on points linked to Comcast, but this is a useful primer on the perceived failings of the latest press regulator, IPSO.

This comes just as Murdoch seemed to have won a vital victory, with the Tory government announcing they have rejected calls (including from an angry Leveson himself) to launch the 2nd stage of the Leveson Inquiry. This was part of their originally announced plans as fury swept the UK over the NoTW phone-hacking scandal - with the Tory government under huge pressure to do so given the presence of Andy Coulson, sacked NoTW editor, in the centre of government as then-PM Cameron's press advisor. 

NB: Hancock = current UK Culture Secretary, so oversees media policy.

Just two days before Hancock’s announcement, the Murdoch family’s long-held ambitions to own the whole of Sky faced a far mightier opponent than a government with a wafer thin majority. Comcast, a telecoms and entertainment giant valued by the market at some $184bn (£130bn) – more than twice the value of 21st Century Fox – looks set to outfox the man who started Sky in 1989 and built it into Europe’s most significant satellite television platform. By offering 16% more to Sky shareholders, who have been waiting for over a year while competition regulators agonise over the possibility of increasing Murdoch’s dominance, Comcast has highlighted that market economics can trump media power.

 

The appearance of a huge US business, the owner of NBC television and Universal Studios, to spoil Murdoch’s takeover plans, shores up his argument for a merger with Disney. Despite the local power held by his newspapers – which is largely unchanged – the Murdoch media empire is relatively small compared with the Apples and Amazons of the world. Comcast makes a fortune from telecommunications in the US but revenues from the rest of its business are just 9% of its total.

 

In this game of superscale, Murdoch’s desire to control Sky has twice been held up by regulatory questions over the behaviour of his employees: first through phone hacking, then with sexual harassment allegations. It’s worth pointing out that Comcast, like so many media groups, has been tarnished by the latter: its television network NBC fired its best known presenter Matt Lauer amid harassment allegations last year.

(Guardian: Leveson 2 is off but relations between press and power are little changed)