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.
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
