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:

...

FUTURE Could Corbyn reintroduce ownership limits?

It is abundantly clear that a right-wing government able to rely on generally favourable coverage from a UK press which is also largely right-wing, and which has undermined the BBC's finances so radically, will have no desire to regulate on media ownership.

Quite the opposite: should we expect Murdoch to resurrect the buyout of the 60% of BSkyB shares his conglomerate doesn't own - so inconveniently halted by public outrage over his paper's phone hacking of Milly Dowler? Probably, yes; despite the protests of the Culture Select Committee and others, the Tory Culture Secretary was set to wave it through pre-Leveson.

Now we have a left-wing Labour leader, will there be a sharp end to the consensus over free market, laissez faire media regulation? Again, probably.

Corbyn has said little on this yet, but his one utterance directly attacked concentration of ownership and many perceive Murdoch's empire as a target.

Let's not forget that Tom Watson, who doggedly pursued News International and the phone hacking story even when directly threatened by the Murdoch press, and at the cost of his marriage, is now deputy leader.

The Blairite right-wing Labour MPs will doubtless argue that Labour needs to court the likes of the Mail and the S*n - after all, Tony himself flew out to Australia to genuflect before the great man in advance if the 1997 election.

Such arguments will surely now be rejected, and we can expect to see a sustained, vicious barrage of flak to shoot down this counter-hegemonic force.

The largely hostile coverage in the Guardian suggests that there might be friendly fire too, even if Greenslade thinks the paper will be neutral.

Greenslade also states that Corbyn has to become PM to change media policy, but that isn't necessarily so. We saw under the coalition government that the backbench Select Committee undertook the scrutiny that the responsible government minister, Jeremy Hunt, appeared reluctant to, including Watson famously describing James Murdoch as a Mafia boss.

With some cross-bench support (ie, Labour, Tory and others) its recommendations could still be enacted, though whether it will put forward any radical changes, other than eviscerating the BBC, does seem unlikely.

We have also seen plenty of examples of backbench bills getting close enough to passing to force government to act.

Whatever now happens, the cosy consensus and hegemony of deregulation will at least be up for debate, marking a distinct shift in 36 years of both major parties cutting media regulation.

Jeremy Corbyn versus the media - will he take on Murdoch? 

The current Tory Culture Secretary could face charges for leaking anti-BBC briefings to the Sunday Times: John Whittingdale accused of misleading parliament over BBC story in Sunday Times.

Select Committee role: the 2011 Murdoch hearing

As well as the formal media regulators we have to consider the role of Parliament in overseeing media regulation. Governments can set up one-off investigations at times of scandal over media (usually press) behaviour, as happened with the 1970 Younger Committee, 1989 Calcutt Committee, and the Leveson Inquiry (July 2011, reported November 2012, with a 2nd part to come following the end of criminal trials). The 1985 Peacock Committee was set up with the aim of getting support for privatising the BBC or at least applying free market principles to the TV sector rather than any scandal.

When issues are seen as too sensitive for one party/government to deal with, the major parties can agree to set up a Royal Commission, as has happened three times on the press.

Its easy to overlook the important role of backbench MPs here.

Through the Culture, Media, Sport Select Committee they can investigate any area of the media, and have been holding regular hearings into press standards, privacy and libel, with some particularly famous hearings including appearances by the Murdochs. You can watch the entire July 2011 hearing at which Rupert Murdoch, having declared this was the "most humble day in my life", was attacked with a shaving foam pie and rescued by his much younger wife (who would divorce him in 2014). James Murdoch also took considerable umbrage at Labour MP Tom Watson's description of News Corp as a "mafia-like organisation".

Some useful links:
Wiki: DCMS
2010 guide to junior Culture ministers
Wiki: Culture Secretary
Shadow Culture Secretary (2013: Harriet Harman)
Mail report on the July 2011 hearing
NY Times on the same

PCC Essay1 pointers

In my written comments + docs, I'll use various abbreviations, eg 'para' = paragraph; EAA you should know (EX + TY for the other main assessment criteria); ctee = committee

Some quick points leading off from today's lessons:

RESEARCH/PLANNING PROCESS FOR HOMEWORK ESSAYS:
Make an initial assessment of what the Q is asking; what sub-topics/themes/elements it includes
Do an initial brainstorm of what points you might explore to answer this Q
Consider what resources you can access: lesson notes, blog (its archive, links lists etc), handouts (prompt Q handout is huge - use it), books, Guardian themed sections (PCC, press + privacy, Leveson etc), googling [if you come across useful resources that you've not seen linked on my blog please pass on a link/info]
Start reading + annotating/note-taking
Reflect and decide on the 4/5 (maybe 6) major points you'll explore (you can squeeze some more into a final para or 2)
Take a separate sheet for each, add your sub-heading + review your notes, adding/pasting relevant points from each of your sources into each point. There will be some overlap here - which is good: this helps to plan out a flowing essay structure
Make sure you've got some positive and negative points
Make sure you've got specific, detailed example(s) to back up your argument (EAA)
Have you highlighted any TY in each point? Will your notes be sufficient to score highly on this? Look at your long handout for MANY egs of TY, and how to apply it
You may already have spider-planned. Even so, I generally find it useful to write out a full plan as brief bullets, identifying points I'll explore in more detail (eg, simply 'Desmond' would denote the whole issue of his withdrawal from PCC). Again, try to organise your major points so that one leads logically onto another

ESSAY INTRO MUST:
Discuss the Q set
Explain/define any terminology (or bodies: PCC) in title
This may require some context (or you may keep this for 2nd para)
Vitally, set out, very concisely, the structure you will follow for this essay (your main points/themes, stressing that you will explore pos + neg/supportive + critical arguments)

SOME THEMES SUGGESTED IN TODAY'S LESSONS:
you could break any one of these down into many further points
PRESS DISDAIN PCC (Murdoch apologised to Morgan for having to bother him with PCC ruling; Desmond; simple repetition of breaking EdCode)
MEYER/POSS PCC REFORMS
PRIVACY (Assange eg; caused Calcutt; backbench 80s bill leads to Calcutt; web issues; superinjunctions + wider law; Press Council's poor record)
PCC's COMPLAINT CRITERIA (espec on 3rd party: Moir case; PCC user stats + opinion polls)
COURT/LAWS (libel law; privacy; superinjunctions; PCC failing if these laws used?)
ACCURACY/POWERS [2 big points that could be split] (routine inaccuracy on EU, Islam, single mums, immigrants, benefits claimants, immigrants etc: DMail cancer song; weakness of punishments - correction prominence policy; compare to OfCom - leads to self-reg v statutory reg)
PCC FUNDING/MEMBERSHIP (funded by press = bias? BUT also zero cost to taxpayer [contrast to OfCom]; Desmond; MUST cite PressBOf; 1963: PC just 20% lay members, PCC now majority [BUT who chairs key ctees?])
OFFICIAL REPORTS/RESPONSE (Leveson!!! rem: MUST include some speculation on FUTURE reg; Tom Watson MP + his book: initimdation of MPs by NewsInt; Calcutt's 93 review + 3rd RCP 1977 ignored: why?)

SOME FRESH LINKS:
Tom Watson MP says News Corp acted like a shadow state;
Tom Watson's new book: summary of his key claims;
Short but devestating analysis of Watson's claims;
How Watson was pressured to stop pushing on NewsInt;
50 new claimants against NewsInt in past 3 months listed;
Consider why convergence makes PCC insufficient: M.Moore argues Fox News will be caught up in Hackgate eventually;
Murdoch's decline by Dan Sabbagh;
DPP line on public in defence? Use your common sense (ie, vague + ambiguous; subjective + open to interpretation on a case by case basis) [by Peter Preston];
Latest ABCs, incl pic of Sun on Sunday front page: footballers + prostitutes story;
Those Feb 2012 PCC stats - look closely at clause cited + summary (eg many just tagged as '3rd party' + so ignored); 
ROYALS:
Satire report on allegations on P.Charles' sexuality (+ how it can't be reported openly);
Sky on 'From Squidgy' to 'Camillagate';
Squidgygate [wiki];
Camillagate + Qs it raises for Murdoch;
David Scarboro: vid tribute to actor who committed suicide after press hounding (during PC era);