Leveson Report Published, Central Recommendation Rejected

[Simon_Jester]

But given this, is the problem that the British need to ban unlicensed practice of journalism, or that they need a tougher set of libel laws?

[Sea Skimmer]

There's more to danger than killing people, not to mention that people have died as a result of tabloid harrassment. Diana for one.

She died because her driver was drunk and speeding actually, and she was too irresponsible to use a seatbelt. No other vehicle caused the crash.

And people have been seriously injured; like that doctor who was misidentified as a paedophile. People have had their lives ruined, their families shattered, lost their jobs, been pushed into committing suicide and had their privacy invaded by a bunch of self-righteous untalented hacks; tabloids, reports, journalists have power and that power when misused is dangerous. The fact that the misuse of that power caused harm was the entire reason why the enquiry was asked for in the first place.

Most if not all of that is already covered under existing laws. But you are not going to make it go away with any reasonable accreditation scheme that is not just mass censorship. Causing emotional harm in any event, not the same thing as killing people. I hope you realize the implications of treating the two as the same. I have little sympathy for rich celebrities in particular who complain about the pavarazzi.

[Simon_Jester]

I suspect a lot of it could be made to go away; Britain could well have gone too far in the direction of "the newspaper can make up malicious bullshit without penalty." But there's a difference between laws that punish journalists for directly causing serious harm by making false reports about a serious matter like criminal charges, and laws that forbid anyone to practice journalism without a license.

[Chirios]

She died because her driver was drunk and speeding actually, and she was too irresponsible to use a seatbelt. No other vehicle caused the crash.

She died just as much because she was being chased.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/07/diana.monarchy

And people have been seriously injured; like that doctor who was misidentified as a paedophile. People have had their lives ruined, their families shattered, lost their jobs, been pushed into committing suicide and had their privacy invaded by a bunch of self-righteous untalented hacks; tabloids, reports, journalists have power and that power when misused is dangerous. The fact that the misuse of that power caused harm was the entire reason why the enquiry was asked for in the first place.

Most if not all of that is already covered under existing laws.But you are not going to make it go away with any reasonable accreditation scheme[/quote]

Never said it was, I said that the idea that newspapers cannot cause harm is ridiculous.

Causing emotional harm in any event, not the same thing as killing people.

Shrug. There are worse things in life than dying. Being forced to live under prolonged abuse simply because you're unlucky enough to be born with the ability to sing, act, have a son/husband/daughter/wife in the military; or had your daughter kidnapped and murdered is one of them. Also, the idea that emotional harm was equivalent to killing people was never the point, the point is that newspapers using their power irresponsibly can and have caused harm.

I hope you realize the implications of treating the two as the same. I have little sympathy for rich celebrities in particular who complain about the pavarazzi.

Then your problem is with the victims, which is retarded on so many levels but fine. What about Milly Dowler then? What about the soldiers families phones they hacked? What about the families of the 7/7 bombings? What about the depressed model who was tricked by a tabloid journalist into agreeing to have sex for money then committed suicide once she realised what happened? What about the son of the politician who committed suicide?

[Teebs]

But given this, is the problem that the British need to ban unlicensed practice of journalism, or that they need a tougher set of libel laws?

England already has some of the most claimant friendly libel laws in the (democratic) world.

[Irbis]

There's more to danger than killing people

Leaving aside the problem of blaming the victims, be they paparazzi or not, the entire British press is trash unworthy wiping your ass with it when it comes to reporting news from continent, doubly or quadruply so when it came to reporting anything concerning European Union. During my brief stay in Scotland/Wales, I often looked at front page of magazines displayed in shop - and I can hardly count time when anything containing letters 'EU' didn't have 2 or 3 lies in opening sentences. And that is with me not being expert in international/economical/diplomatic matters and only catching the obvious ones...

I'd say warping national policy by deliberately lying about position of your country and the choices the country makes done by Murdoch and co for their own ends is far worse than anything that happens to individuals because of said press - and who is going to do anything to set the record straight? EU? UK government? Martians? So, yeah, UK definitely doesn't need higher journalism standards

[Simon_Jester]

But given this, is the problem that the British need to ban unlicensed practice of journalism, or that they need a tougher set of libel laws?

England already has some of the most claimant friendly libel laws in the (democratic) world.

Then why do they have a problem again? Is the problem that the libel laws are unenforceable against tabloid journalists? That, too, can be fixed without establishing state control of the media.

There's more to danger than killing people

Leaving aside the problem of blaming the victims, be they paparazzi or not, the entire British press is trash unworthy wiping your ass with it when it comes to reporting news from continent, doubly or quadruply so when it came to reporting anything concerning European Union. During my brief stay in Scotland/Wales, I often looked at front page of magazines displayed in shop - and I can hardly count time when anything containing letters 'EU' didn't have 2 or 3 lies in opening sentences. And that is with me not being expert in international/economical/diplomatic matters and only catching the obvious ones...

I'd say warping national policy by deliberately lying about position of your country and the choices the country makes done by Murdoch and co for their own ends is far worse than anything that happens to individuals because of said press - and who is going to do anything to set the record straight? EU? UK government? Martians? So, yeah, UK definitely doesn't need higher journalism standards

The UK desperately needs higher journalism standards.

What the UK does not need is a situation where only state-approved content can be published, broadcast, or blogged.

Figuring out how to get the one without the other shouldn't be that hard, but apparently it's a difficulty.

[Irbis]

Also, speaking of these awful celebrities who dare to complain about paparazzi, remember Duchess of Cambridge? Wife of Prince William, most probable next UK King, currently in hospital due to pregnancy complications?

Well, yeah, paparazzi just tried to force access to phone to her bed, by lying they're the Queen, to make spectacle out of her, live on radio. Nope, it's not despicable or anything, why anyone would complain about that hilarious prank?

[Teebs]

Also, speaking of these awful celebrities who dare to complain about paparazzi, remember Duchess of Cambridge? Wife of Prince William, most probable next UK King, currently in hospital due to pregnancy complications?

Well, yeah, paparazzi just tried to force access to phone to her bed, by lying they're the Queen, to make spectacle out of her, live on radio. Nope, it's not despicable or anything, why anyone would complain about that hilarious prank?

Since they're Australian I don't see how UK media regulation is going to do much to them.

[fordlltwm]

^ My thoughts exactly. But it does sound like a possible Sachsgate in the making.

[Irbis]

To my best knowledge, Australian journalism is styled after UK one and on first glance, these seemed to be Australian correspondent journalists in the UK, but anyway, main point I was making was against saying that celebrities have no right to protest paparazzi actions and they can't reasonably endanger anyone by their invasions of privacy.

[Stark]

Can you rethink that sentence and try again?

Is the joke that even licencing journalists wouldn't have had any impact on a prank pulled by people who are not journalists?

[Sephirius]

^ My thoughts exactly. But it does sound like a possible Sachsgate in the making.

The receptionist in question that was duped killed herself, her body was found this morning.

[ryacko]

Just curious, the Queen can still issue decrees in her colonies and in the United Kingdom, potentially imposing new press laws against impersonating the royal family upon them?

When was the last time the Monarchy issued a decree? I know it's ben centuries since the Monarchy refused an act of Parliament, but what about issuing a law?

I imagine the Queen is not amused at the joke.

[Dartzap]

Charles was joking about it yesterday when he was bidding an Arctic survey team bon voyage, so I doubt they gave much thought to it really.

[Zaune]

Just curious, the Queen can still issue decrees in her colonies and in the United Kingdom, potentially imposing new press laws against impersonating the royal family upon them?

When was the last time the Monarchy issued a decree? I know it's been centuries since the Monarchy refused an act of Parliament, but what about issuing a law?

I imagine the Queen is not amused at the joke.

I dare say they could, but only at a cost of some very bad PR; the Crown has a surprising amount of power on paper, but they're only allowed to keep it as long as they promise not to actually use it except in extreme circumstances.

Besides, I'm pretty sure it's already illegal to acquire confidential medical information by deception, both in Australia and the UK.

[Stark]

Do you honestly think the Queen can create laws in Australia by decree? For real?

Even if Australia was as authoritarian as the UK, the result would best be achieved through the traditional indirect channels. ignorant Americans like ryacko indulging in power fantasies are always a laugh.

[Korgeta]

I think Camerons got this exactly right and I think anyone who really believes in the freedom of the press would back him on this.

As usual many people are playing the man not the issue.

If he is such a believer of 'freedom of speech' then why would he hold back his own emails that he exchanged with NOW rebekah brooks? He is closely connected to Murdoch as Blair was.

The press have abused 'freedom of speech' long enough, they nearly jeapordised the Jo Yeates murder case by demonising the landlord without any evidence and were digging up on his past and everything, and that was just one of several crinimal cases they meddled with for the sake of headlines. Reporters are meant to report the facts and solid opinion.

I'm all for a press that is free but they have to be honest and have evidence, and I don't think we will get that without some regulation.

[Irbis]

Is the joke that even licencing journalists wouldn't have had any impact on a prank pulled by people who are not journalists?

You know, had the standards of the media (by regulation or whatever) been higher to the point of not accepting tabloid-like trash news gained by using paparazzi actions, the call might not have happened at all. Like it doesn't happen in countries with more civilized atmosphere.

And no, I am not in favour of sanctity laws protecting celebrities, just was sick these imbeciles never seemed to consider any possible consequences to the staff or the mother had they been more successful.

[Thanas]

^We here in Germany have licensing of the press/pretty strong libel and slander laws and yet prank calls happen all the time and are a regular occurrence in mass media. Heck, radio stations usually have one or three such segments each day.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

The UK desperately needs higher journalism standards.

What the UK does not need is a situation where only state-approved content can be published, broadcast, or blogged.

Figuring out how to get the one without the other shouldn't be that hard, but apparently it's a difficulty.

Never was a difficulty. It's only tough in the mind of unprofessional stupid hacks who cannot go through one day without bitching about how it's 1984 all over again. Call me authoritarian, if you will. But if we have traffic laws who fine stupid drivers while leaving normal ones alone, I think we can have that in journalism as well.

[Simon_Jester]

The UK desperately needs higher journalism standards.

What the UK does not need is a situation where only state-approved content can be published, broadcast, or blogged.

Figuring out how to get the one without the other shouldn't be that hard, but apparently it's a difficulty.

Never was a difficulty. It's only tough in the mind of unprofessional stupid hacks who cannot go through one day without bitching about how it's 1984 all over again.

Who, me?

Well, all I perceive is that licensing requirements for journalism don't help. Especially not in an era when we're seeing a lot more independent journalism, instead of less.

Call me authoritarian, if you will. But if we have traffic laws who fine stupid drivers while leaving normal ones alone, I think we can have that in journalism as well.

[/quote]I think the most you'd need is a law making it easy to sue journalists for this kind of... call it 'collateral damage.' So that there's a consequence when they report something that is bluntly false, or do something fraudulent, and actual harm results directly from their actions.

It would be neither desirable nor necessary for journalists to get punished when they report something true.

Sadly, the particular set of bastards we seem to be talking about at the moment might have a good defense in the case of "call the Duchess of Cambridge, the nurse on duty later commits suicide." No one would expect that as a predictable consequence of a prank call, especially one that isn't directly aimed at the nurse. So a "reasonable person" defense might apply.

Dammit.

[Grumman]

Never was a difficulty. It's only tough in the mind of unprofessional stupid hacks who cannot go through one day without bitching about how it's 1984 all over again. Call me authoritarian, if you will. But if we have traffic laws who fine stupid drivers while leaving normal ones alone, I think we can have that in journalism as well.

The reason that government oversight of journalism is more troubling is because journalism done right is often the enemy of the government. When the government does things that would be politically harmful it doesn't want journalists, it wants useful idiots who will say what the government wants them to say. It's certainly possible that this opportunity would not be misused, but I do not take it as a given that it won't.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I was talking about journalists, Simon, not you.

The reason that government oversight of journalism is more troubling is because journalism done right is often the enemy of the government. When the government does things that would be politically harmful it doesn't want journalists, it wants useful idiots who will say what the government wants them to say. It's certainly possible that this opportunity would not be misused, but I do not take it as a given that it won't.

Yeah, I was a bit knee-jerk. But I think that if a paper publishes outright lies, they should be held accountable for it. Or should freedom of the press mean they are allowed to lie? Perhaps it should de facto, since so many other professions (PR, politics, advertisement) lie that it wouldn't be reasonable to expect of the press to behave any differently. But as you said they are supposed to cry wolf, and lying would be incompatible with that.

Shit. I'm tired, I'm rambling. It's midnight over here.

[Simon_Jester]

Wouldn't it depend on the lie?

If the lie causes concrete harm, that's called libel or slander- no problem.

If the lie is an error of fact, you would first have to prove malice, or at least criminal negligence: why did this false piece of information get presented? Should the Chicago Tribune have been prosecuted for publishing "Dewey Defeats Truman!" in 1948, when in fact the opposite happened?


That doesn't feel right to me.

So we'd have to define "lying" very, very carefully.