LIBEL Daily Mail owners sued by Pussycat Dolls

Pussycat Dolls sue Daily Mail owner over 'prostitution ring' story https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/may/23/pussycat-dolls-sue-daily-mail-over-prostitution-ring-story-kaya-jones?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger

This on the same day they paid out, and removed a story (BUT note that they did not accept liability in doing so)
Daily Mail to pay Kate Maltby £11,000 costs over negative article

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/may/23/daily-mail-to-pay-kate-maltby-11000-over-negative-article?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

ASA Beach Body Ready ad cleared; inoffensive???

Interesting case that sparked a large petition, and a defacement campaign that went viral - but the advertising regulator the ASA ruled the ads were within the rules and so needn't be removed.

Protein World's 'beach body ready' ads do not objectify women, says watchdog.

Music Video regulation: collected articles

I'll use this post to draw together links on this topic - use the tag and you'll find earlier posts on this, and I will be separately blogging more on this. Its a useful case study as it brings to the fore so many issues:

• Globalisation: UK regulation only to (compulsorily; likes of VEVO are volunteering theirs) apply to videos produced in UK?
• Digitisation: with YouTube's weak controls as just one example, do we really think this block digital t(w)eens from accessing these videos?!
• Politics and moral panic: this is a convenient, socially conservative issue on which the government can win favour from the right-wing press, just as was the case with the 80s 'video nasty' campaign
• Gender: is there a risk of penalising and continuing to render taboo female sexuality? OR is this an important corrective to the pornification of culture?
• Children: you can't decouple this from the digitisation and gender issues above. Should we be concerned that government gets to influence what is released/accessible in popular culture? Could such powers once granted spread beyond the initial, explicit intent? Is there research into effects to back up the need for this regulation?

ARTICLES FOR FURTHER READING:

IPSO A gender setting: group ruling on Sun discrimination

The PCC attracted censure from the Culture Select Committee for their refusal to consider third party complaints, despite this being covered as acceptable within their rules, and being too lenient on the discrimination seen in much of the press. So this early IPSO ruling suggests quite a major improvement on the PCC.


The basic points:

• the complaint was about a S*n column (significant as the notorious Jan Moir column which abused Stephen Gately on the day of his funeral was deemed acceptable as an opinion piece) which mocked a trans woman, Emily Brothers
• the complaint came from a third party (pressure group Trans Media Watch), NOT Brothers (again, something the PCC generally refused to accept) - IPSO will do so if they consider there to be a wider, "substantial public interest"
• The S*n took steps which the PCC would likely have accepted: offered Brothers a column to respond, and issued an apology from Liddle - ironically, it was the apology which was the clincher; Liddle was deemed to have repeated his mockery, using Emily's former male name, and the paper itself had refused to accept that it/Liddle had been transphobic
• IPSO forced The S*n to publish their ruling

BELOW: Greenslade's detailed analysis, and the full published ruling.

Roy Greenslade: The Sun censured by Ipso for Rod Liddle's discriminatory column.

Sun columnist Rod Liddle has been censured by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) for crudely mocking a woman’s gender identity and her disability.