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.

Jubilee/BJohnson: press reg better than TV

A brief post for now, with what I think could be a very useful point to help balance up the line of argument in your essays away from just 'PCC bad, OfCom good/strong'.
In a recent post (I'll add links later) I cited the case of Boris Johnson, recently re-elected Mayor of London: leaked documents appear to show his office bullying the BBC into not running material which would have harmed his reputation (and electoral chances). Could the 'free press' be bullied in this way? (okay, so they do it the other way round by bullying politicians!) The point is negated somewhat, though, by the nature of the BBC: partially self-regulated, partially regulated by OfCom.
A rather more controversial argument, but one thats been popping up all over the press in recent weeks: why are the BBC dropping their legal requirement to deliver balanced, unbiased news coverage when it comes to the Jubilee celebrations? They've screened a series of programmes which are simple celebrations of the monarch and the hereditary monarchical system (notably at a time when the coalition government has been discussing abolishing the remaining hereditary, inherited seats in the House of Lords), and could easily have been produced by the royal family's own media operations. Where's the enforcement of the BBC's constitution here? Is this being done as the BBC are vulnerable to government pressure (the BBC may self-regulate, but its the government that sets the license-fee level, and can at any time privatise the BBC or set limits on what the BBC can cover - eg, there have been discussions about banning the BBC from bidding for sports rights or overseas programmes).
Peter Wilby has repeatedly addressed this in the Guardian, but there have been a variety of articles elsewhere too - I'll add later

2012/13 Government Media policy bill?

JUNE 2014 - IN BRIEF: Analysis of what the Tory-led government might change in media policy/regulation through a new Communications Bill. This bill seems to have quietly disappeared! Its not among the final 13 announced in June 2014, before the May 2015 general election.

Analysis of the decision to delay the Communications green paper at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/17/communications-green-paper-delayed. With Culture Secretary Hunt preoccupied with preparing for an appearance at Leveson, and facing calls for his resignation (163 emails released by Leveson appear to show he kept News Corp briefed on gov policy even as he was supposed to be assessing the company's bid to take over the rest of BSkyB in his capacity as gov minister), the new bill on media laws has been delayed, and won't now appear until autumn 2012. Even then, it will probably be delayed further as Leveson reports in October 2012, so his recommendations will probably be worked into a revised bill which may not be released until 2013.
Indeed, (this is my analysis, not whats said in the article) given the accusations of collusion, possibly criminal, between Hunt + PM Cameron with Murdoch/News Corp, any media/communications bill from this Tory-led gov are likely to face long drawn out debates, and may struggle to get passed before the 2015 election.
What direction might a new bill take? In a word, deregulation (again, this is my analysis, not whats said in the article): slashing regulation of the terrestrial 'public service broadcasters' (allowing ITV, C4, C5 to broadcast less news/regional/children's programming, lengthen the amount of ads per hour, and allow further concentration of ownership, such as a merger between C4 + C5), and probably some form of attack on the BBC (which Tory London Lord Mayor Boris Johnson claimed this week [May 2012] was "left-wing" and must in future be headed by a Tory [he seems to ignore the fact that the BBC Chairman Lord Patten is a Tory!!!]). As far back as 1985, the Conservatives have sought to kill the idea of an independent, publicly-owned broadcaster: when Thatcher appointed Lord Peacock to report on the future of the BBC + UK TV generally, she expected him to recommend privatisation - but his 1986 Peacock Report explicitly stated that a free market in TV would simply lead to dumbed-down TV and argued that a license fee-funded independent BBC, NOT funded by advertising, should remain as a guarantee of quality UK TV). See this post for more on the Tory/right-wing hatred of the BBC.

[Whats this 'Communications green paper' I hear you ask: 'The green paper marks the start of a legislative process that will culminate in a communications bill scheduled for the 2014/15 session of parliament.' Don't forget you have access to links about the main communications acts from the past 30 years at this post, links such as these:

Future Tory Communications Act?

Jeremy Hunt to 'radically rethink' media regulation [Gdn Jan2011];
Leveson inquiry: questions for Mr Hunt [Gdn editorial Apr2012];
No Minister: Any chance for the Communications Act? [Gdn Dec2011];
Organ Grinder/Steve Hewlett (TV reg equiv to Roy Greenslade as leading UK expert) micro-site for Jeremy Hunt articles;
How Hunt got his fingers burnt (Broadcast Apr2012 - Broadcast is TV industry's leading mag);]

Communications green paper delayed while Jeremy Hunt deals with Leveson

Policy thinking on internet piracy, public service broadcasting and spectrum unlikely to be published until the autumn

• Dan Sabbagh
• The Guardian, Friday 18 May 2012

Policy thoughts go on the back burner … Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt had hoped to publish the communications green paper in the spring. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

The planned publication of a communications green paper has been put on hold until after Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, has given evidence to the Leveson inquiry and dealt with accusations that he favoured News Corporation in its negotiations to buy all of BSkyB.
Those close to Hunt's Department for Culture, Media and Sport say the communications green paper, which will set out the government's initial policy thinking in areas as diverse as internet piracy, public service broadcasting and spectrum allocation, has largely been written but is now unlikely to be published until autumn at the earliest.
Hunt and his deputy, Ed Vaizey, had hoped to publish the document in the spring but Hunt's attention has been concentrated on the need to give a full account to Lord Justice Leveson of his relationship with Rupert Murdoch's company and see off Labour calls for him to resign.
One source said Hunt and the DCMS were distracted by the Murdoch controversy and it would be impossible for the document to be published until September at the earliest, assuming the culture secretary gives a successful performance before the judge.
There are also suggestions that the green paper could be shelved completely, with ministers instead moving to publish a white paper that by then would incorporate any relevant recommendations arising from the Leveson inquiry about the future of press regulation.
Leveson is due to report in October, and if his document appears before the green paper, it may have to be redrafted to include the government's initial response to his findings.
If Hunt were to be replaced, a new culture secretary would want to review the document before agreeing to release it. The culture secretary has been under fire after 163 pages of emails written by News Corp lobbyist Frédéric Michel were released by the company to the Leveson inquiry.
Those emails, written over several months, appeared to show that Hunt's office was passing information about the minister's BSkyB bid approval process to the company during 2010 and 2011. Michel repeatedly described information he had obtained to his boss, James Murdoch, as emerging from Hunt himself.
The culture secretary denied there was an inappropriate relationship between himself and News Corp. But his special adviser Adam Smith did resign when it emerged that the bulk of Michel's contact was with Smith rather than Hunt directly.
Hunt said that the "volume and tone" of the Smith/Michel communication could not be justified, but insisted that he oversaw the Sky bid correctly in a "quasi-judicial" manner.
Ministers are still officially insisting that the green paper will emerge in the spring. But the joke understood to be circulating in at the DCMS is that spring in Whitehall can run from anywhere from February to November.
The green paper marks the start of a legislative process that will culminate in a communications bill scheduled for the 2014/15 session of parliament.
Meanwhile Harriet Harman, Labour's deputy leader, told a meeting of the campaign group Hacked Off that there should be the "equivalent of the knife amnesty" for newspapers and politicians before regulatory reforms are introduced for the press. She said both sides needed to stop attacking each other and start with a clean slate once the Leveson inquiry made its recommendations.
"At the end of the day what I hope is that we have is no victors and no vanquished here," she said.