Showing posts with label Leveson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leveson. Show all posts

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.


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!
...

...

Monday, 14 May 2018

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:

...

Monday, 5 March 2018

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.

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.