This brings phone hacking right back into our current orbit, moving it out of the historic category.
The Prince is part of a group action which effectively targets the more senior people who were effectively unpunished, unlike a few jailed journalists, when the issue was pursued by the police and private lawsuits (generating millions in compensation payments). This time it's the editors and even owners who are being targeted, with the allegation being that they covered up hacking over decades.
High profile editors have stated under oath in court that they had no knowledge of the practice. This could be an explosive case - but the wheels of justice grind slowly...
Prince Harry: tabloids hid hacking crimes for 20 years https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/05/prince-harry-joins-court-case-against-tabloid-hacking-crimes?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger
Further reflection on the case; the fundamental role of the press to hold the press to account - and an argument, that notwithstanding the whiff of racism of the focus on Meghan, this outweighs some of the complaints from the royals and will doom their stance even though they'll likely win the letter case against the Mail under EU HRC laws.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex may win the battle but lose the war
https://www.theguardian.com/media/commentisfree/2019/oct/06/duke-duchess-sussex-mail-on-sunday-lawsuit?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Useful article - it clearly states the perception of anti-Corbyn (the relatively radical, left-wing, Labour leader) bias; the ongoing reliance of broadcast media on newspaper stories to set their own news agenda; and the risky Labour strategy of relying on online media to counteract this
Labour v Fleet Street: why Corbyn is picking a fight with the media https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/25/labour-media-tactics-more-trumpian-admit-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger
Clunky title but an intriguing, provocative video which unpicks the story of a US Democrat running for the presidential nomination having her account suspended just in time to probably doom her campaign.
The video makers take a clear editorial line on this, which you may well take issue with (it could have been random algorithm bad luck...), but they provide useful context and research - she had pledged to tackle big tech; research showing how the ordering of the top 4 search results can powerfully impact opinion.
There are parallels here to the long running failure to effectively regulate UK press content/conduct (never mind ownership) given the power of the press (these days more through setting TV/radio news agendas) to utterly torpedo a party or politician's electoral prospects.
Google is on a power level way beyond the press (ditto Facebook, with the press suffering a triple whammy of extreme ad revenue loss, circulation hemorrhage, and reliance on secret algorithms to push traffic their way - whilst complaining about how the tech giants exploit their expensive product while grossly underpaying...).
Interesting if quite lenient feature from a writer invited into their offices. He mentions Sweet Sixteen ... but doesn't appear to have asked about anything as awkward as this.
So, a bit of a puff piece but some very useful details and context.
Sex, violence, f-bombs and randy sausages: a day inside the BBFC https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jul/16/bbfc-british-board-film-classification-sex-violence-fbombs-randy-sausages?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger
I'll start updating this post with anybody cases or changes...
Independent and Evening Standard lose appeal over libel case https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/12/independent-and-evening-standard-lose-appeal-over-libel-case?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger
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
Taron Egerton speaks out against Rocketman scene cuts in Russia https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jun/01/taron-egerton-speaks-out-against-rocketman-gay-scene-cuts-in-russia?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger
YouTube says homophobic abuse does not violate harassment rules
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/05/youtube-says-homophobic-abuse-does-not-violate-harassment-rules?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
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)
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]
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.
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.
