Facebook more pub than publishing, Leveson told

The director of public policy (EMEA) at Facebook told the Leveson Inquiry today that regulating what people say on the social network would be akin to regulating what people say in the pub.

Richard Allan said it was ”important” to distinguish editorial published content from “chatter on the internet”, noting that websites of papers such as the Guardian provide content, while Facebook provides distribution.

Questioned about the website’s oft-debated approach to privacy, Allan said that the purpose of the social network, to which over 50 per cent of Britons over 13 subscribe, is to allow people to connect and “share information with others”. He defended the network’s anti-anonymity policy, arguing using one’s real name made for a more “meaningful” experience.

He told the Inquiry that users should be able to speak freely on the website as long as they obey rules. He noted that the site has clauses on hate speech, pornography and harassment, adding that the “strongest protection” came from its 800 million-strong community of “neighbourhood watch” users.

Earlier today, representatives from Google urged the Inquiry to ensure a distinction between the publisher of content online and the host platform.

“Google is not the internet, and it is also not the only entry point to the internet,” the web giant’s head of corporate communications in the UK, David-John Collins, told the Inquiry. “Whatever robust system you recommend will have to cover all entry points.”

He emphasised that there was a “very essential balance online”, while Daphne Keller, the corporation’s legal chief who appeared alongside Collins today, warned against the “over-breadth” of regulating the internet.

Keller and Collins spoke at length about Google’s policy for removing content. They told the Inquiry that it has removed hundreds of URLs from its search function relating to the News of the World Max Mosley splash, but stressed that that does not mean the content disappears from the web.

Last November Mosley told the Inquiry that search engines were “dangerous”, as they could “stop a story appearing, but don’t or won’t as a matter of principle”. The former motorsports chief revealed he is currently taking litigation action in 22 countries, suing Google in France and Germany, and considering bringing proceedings against Google in California in an attempt to remove certain search results.

Keller said that defamatory material will usually be taken down within days, but if such content is defamatory under UK law it may still be visible for users via google.com, so long as it does not violate US law.

She said it would be impractical for Google to search out potentially defamatory content itself, and said it is “much better” for users if a judgment has been made by a court or legal process that has weighed the evidence.

Also appearing this afternoon was Camilla Wright, co-editor of celebrity news website Popbitch.  ”You can’t choose when you’re public and choose when you’re private,” Wright said of celebrities, adding that the website had apologised “five to six” times since it was founded.

The Inquiry will resume on Monday.

Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Information Commissioner quizzed on data protection at Leveson Inquiry

The Information Commissioner was pressed at the Leveson Inquiry today over whether or not he should seek out evidence of data protection breaches.

Christopher Graham said he had seen no proof of breaches of data protection beyond the “historic” evidence resulting from Operation Motorman published in 2006, which disclosed the names of 22 newspapers that used private investigator Steve Whittamore to access illegally-obtained information.

Graham said there is currently “no smoke”, and that it was not in his remit to “set off on fishing expeditions.”

“I am inclined to wait until I have more evidence of current abuse than I do at the moment,” he said, adding that the regulator had to “pick its battles” and “prioritise resources” where there is evidence of wrongdoing.

Lord Justice Leveson said that the absence of evidence does not mean something is or is not going on. “We do not know what we do not know,” he told Graham.

Graham added he was “surprised” to hear the Daily Express’ revelation earlier this month that they had used private investigator Steve Whittamore in 2010, five years after he had been convicted for illegally trading information.

He was also quizzed over a letter published today by the Hacked Off campaign asking the ICO to inform Whittamore’s targets, so they may challenge claims that searches were done in the public interest.

Graham said it would be a “phenomenal undertaking” to notify the targets revealed by Operation Motorman (the investigation that examined the use of a private investigators by the media to obtain personal information), adding that he “would have to take on a veritable army” of people to do so.

He later invited those concerned to make “subject access requests”.

Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Bloggers don’t do it for the money, Leveson Inquiry told

Blogger and media lawyer David Allen Green has praised social media at the Leveson Inquiry today.

Green, legal commentator at the New Statesman, argued that bloggers and Twitter users should not be viewed as “rogues”, adding that social media users often act responsibly and regulate themselves by being transparent.

“Most alleged abuses by people using social media can often be traced back to someone who may or may not have an agenda,” he said.

He added it was “wonderful” that mainstream sources were co-operating with social media users, noting that “almost every journalist now has a Twitter account” and that the platform is increasingly used to distribute breaking information quickly.

Revealing he has made about “about £12″ from advertisements on his Jack of Kent blog, Green told Lord Justice Leveson bloggers do not blog for the money but to “engage in public debate…[and] be part of a civic society.”

He claimed the mainstream media’s use of photographs from social media sites such as Facebook was “analogous” to the phone-hacking scandal, noting that newspapers do it ”routinely” without recognising that it is a form of copyright infringement.

The editor-in-chief of the Press Association, Jonathan Grun, also appeared today. He said the news agency, which provides a “constant stream” of stories and video to major British news organisations, placed great emphasis on accuracy, adding that its customers needed to be able to rely on it without making checks.

He said most editorial mistakes occur “by accident”. He described one occasion in which a PA reporter with 30 years of experience confused someone named in a story with another person of the same name. Grun said it was the agency’s “gravest editorial error”, adding that the reporter was so ashamed that they resigned.

There will be a directions hearing for Module 2 of the Inquiry, which will examine the relationships between the press and police, later this afternoon.

Hearings continue tomorrow, with evidence from representatives from Facebook and Google, the Information Commissioner’s Office and journalist Camilla Wright.

Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Fake Sheikh recalled to Leveson

Investigative reporter Mazher Mahmood was recalled to the Leveson Inquiry today and quizzed over the reasons for his 1989 departure from the Sunday Times.

Mahmood, also known as the Fake Sheikh for the disguise he wears while investigating, told the Inquiry in December that he and then managing editor (news) Roy Greenslade had “had a disagreement”.

In a blog post written after Mahmood’s first appearance at the Inquiry, Greenslade wrote that Mahmood had “falsely blamed the news agency and then tried to back up his version of events by entering the room containing the main frame computer in order to alter the original copy.”

Having been found out, Greenslade wrote, Mahmood “rightly understood that he would have been dismissed” and so wrote a letter of resignation.

Mahmood, who returned to the Sunday Times last autumn after the News of the World closed in July 2011, regretfully admitted today that he “foolishly” tried to blame the news agency for his mistake.

He added later that a recent claim made by former Sunday Times news editor Michael Williams that Mahmood had offered a financial bribe to staff in the newspaper computer room to falsify his copy was “completely untrue”.

Mahmood told the Inquiry that Greenslade has since been “very critical” of his investigations: “Ever since he has displayed obsessive hostility towards me. There were run-ins over several stories.”

Tuning into the Inquiry, Greenslade tweeted:


Grilled by Lord Justice Leveson and counsel David Barr on the reliability of his sources, Mahmood said: “I’ve had front-page splashes from crack addicts, prostitutes, all sorts of sources”, adding that “one crack addict stole my tape recorder.”

A prosecution arising from Mahmood’s 2002 News of the World splash claiming there was a plot to kidnap Victoria Beckham was dropped when prosecution lawyers decided that Florim Gashi, the key witness (one of Mahmood’s sources), was unreliable.

Also appearing this morning was RMT union leader Bob Crow, who claimed his union had been a victim of “victimisation”. He described being doorstepped by reporters and photographers from the Sun, who said to him: “What’s it like not to get to go to work? You stopped people going to work this week so get a taste of your own medicine.”

He was also asked about a Mail on Sunday story from 2003 showing that he had got a scooter to work owing to tube failures. The Inquiry was told that the registration identity of the scooter was blagged from the DVLA and then passed on to private investigator Steve Whittamore, who passed it on to the paper.

Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Jefferies coverage a “watershed” for UK media, Mirror reporter tells Leveson

Ryan Parry, the Daily Mirror journalist whose byline appeared on the libellous coverage of wrongly arrested Bristol landlord Chris Jefferies said the episode was a “watershed moment” for the British media.

“All we can do is learn from this and improve for the future,” Parry told the Leveson Inquiry. The Daily Mirror was fined £50,000 and The Sun £18,000 respectively for contempt of court over its coverage of Jefferies. It was revealed today that the Sun has withdrawn its Supreme Court appeal against the contempt ruling, while the Mirror’s appeal is ongoing.

Parry said he was pleased with how he had conducted himself on the coverage of Jefferies, who was wrongly arrested on suspicion of murdering his tenant Joanna Yeates in December 2010.

“If he came across…as an eccentric, it’s because the evidence suggested he was,” Parry said of the correspondence he had had with Jefferies’ former students. One story carried the headline “Nutty Professor”, while in others Jefferies was referred to an “oddball”.

Gary O’Shea, a journalist at the Sun who had also covered the case, told the Inquiry that their coverage should have been more “neutral and dispassionate”, and said that the paper’s libel settlement with Jefferies was an acceptance of this.

“We don’t often go wrong, we don’t often make mistakes, and when we do they’re honest mistakes,” O’Shea said. The paper’s publishing director, Stephen Waring, also took responsibility for a headline in a story about Jefferies titled “Obsessed by death”, and apologised to the former teacher.

Earlier in the day, the Inquiry heard from a selection of women’s groups who discussed the sexualisation of women in media. Anna Van Heeswijk, of pressure group Object, said the redtops’ page 3 feature existed “for the sole purpose” of women being sex objects.

Van Heeswijk added that violence is often trivialised and eroticised in the papers, and pushed for “consistent” regulation of print media, arguing that the press should abide by the taste and decency watershed that determines what can be broadcast on television before 9pm.

Heather Harvey of Eaves Housing for Women told the Inquiry that media coverage of women and the sexist abuse they may encounter online “actually curtails and limits” women’s freedom of expression and their ability to engage in public debate.

Overhyped headlines and inaccurate stories were also slammed today. Inayat Bunglawala of Muslim group Engage accused the Daily Express and the Daily Star of being “the most egregious offenders” in relation to Britain’s Muslim community. He and Robert Jay QC read through a series of headlines from the two redtops — one from the Express read “Christmas is banned, it offends Muslims” — which Bunglawala said were aimed at increasing hatred and prejudice against Muslims.

Bunglawala noted that he got a one-paragraph clarification after complaining to the Press Complaints Commission about a story in the Star that claimed remembrance poppies were banned in Muslim areas. He added that it was a “very odd situation” that the Express and the Star are not members of the PCC.

Fiona Fox of the Science Media Centre praised Britain’s “excellent” science journalists but blamed sub-editors for writing inaccurate headlines. She cited a report in the Independent today headlined “Once they were blind, now they see. Patients cured by stem cell ‘miracle’”, which describes how two blind people have shown signs of being able to see again.

“Within science extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, but in the newsroom it’s the exact opposite,” Fox said, lamenting media reports of preliminary findings. “It would solve a lot of problems if journalists just didn’t over-claim for these stories.”

The Inquiry continues tomorrow with evidence from journalists Roy Greenslade and David Allen Green, RMT union leader Bob Crow and further testimony from investigative journalist Mazher Mahmood.

Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Index on Censorship chief testifies at Leveson Inquiry

Index on Censorship and English PEN championed the cause of libel reform at the Leveson Inquiry this morning.

Index CEO John Kampfner and English PEN director Jonathan Heawood stressed that access to justice needed to be improved, arguing that the costs of bringing libel claims forward are “enormous, frightening and chilling”.

Kampfner said it was also “extremely difficult for media faced with a wall of laws and other restrictions to find out otherwise legitimate information.”

The pair advocated Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to provide fairer access to justice through offering a fast and inexpensive mediation service. Preliminary research last year showed that 96 per cent of defamation cases could be successfully mediated.

Lord Justice Leveson questioned whether or not wealthier parites would choose to take a claimant to court rather than opt for mediation. Heawood admitted he had “wrestled with” this problem.

Kampfner stressed it would be a “tragedy” if the Inquiry’s ongoing work inadvertently delayed the insertion of libel into the Queen’s speech in May. Lord Justice Leveson replied that libel reform was not directly in his remit, but said he would like to offer a “considered response”.

The pair were also quizzed by counsel Robert Jay and Leveson about the balance of 8 (right to privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of speech). Heawood stressed it was not the case that one was more important than the other, but rather that they are “complementary”.

On privacy, Heawood argued that there was a difference between a harmful publication in a newspaper and “real intrusion.” He cited JK Rowling’s testimony of a slipping a note into her daughter’s schoolbag as “tresspass”.

Kampfner, former editor of the New Statesman, lamented the “weaknesses” in the British media. Recounting his time as a lobby reporter, he described a “culture of services rendered” in political journalism. “Westminster is all about spin doctors feeding journalists on daily basis,” he said, adding that the so-called feral beats of the media were often “locked up”.

But Kampfner warned emphatically against a statutory element of regulation, arguing that it was unnecessary in a “robust environment”. He added that Parliament’s record in navigating the course towards better transparency and accountability was “very poor indeed”.

Citing Hungary’s “seemingly innocuous” co-regulation model, which gives the country’s Media Council the power to impose fines, Kampfner said: “be careful what you wish for.”

Heawood was largely in agreement, arguing that co-regulation was often wrongly seen as a “holy grail” or a “magical third way between statutory and self-regulation.”

Kampfner urged for improved corporate governance and editorial management. “The ‘I was in Tuscany’ excuse from editors is no excuse,” he said. “The buck stops with editors.” He suggested organisations’ quarterly board meetings having an agenda item on standards,  and an improved regulator should have a standards arm.

Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson

Index on Censorship Submission to the Leveson Inquiry January 2012

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Leveson must not delay reform of our dreadful libel laws

This article was originally published in The Times

Sometimes the most reasonable-looking laws can cause the most damage. Let’s hope members of the Leveson inquiry into media ethics are familiar with this awkward fact. In France, stringent privacy laws have prevented investigation into the dodgy financial dealings of leading public figures. In Hungary, a media law has in a matter of months emasculated a free press, leading to radio stations being closed down and reporters and editors fired. That law includes many items on the wish lists of several witnesses to the inquiry, such as press regulation, licensing and fines.
In the UK journalists pride themselves on the irreverence and bolshiness of their newspapers. Yet despite the outrageous behaviour that led to the phone-hacking scandal, the real problem with Britain’s press is that it is too weak. It finds out far too little. If the job of journalism is to put into the public domain inconvenient truths that the rich and powerful would like to hide, then the performance of Britain’s press is nothing to be proud of. Part of this is economic (investigations are costly); laziness is another factor.
By far the biggest reason, however, is the number of laws that impede proper scrutiny. The most pernicious area is our defamation culture. Index on Censorship, together with its partners, has been leading the campaign to reform England’s libel laws. A defamation Bill has been drafted and should be included in the Queen’s Speech in May, as ministers have promised. Libel reform was, after all, part of the coalition agreement.
London has for years been a rich men’s playground, with oligarchs, oil barons and autocrats using our plaintiff-friendly courts to bully bloggers, newspapers and civil society groups. It was bad enough when the creators of South Park satirised our legal system (with Tom Cruise threatening: “I’m going to sue you — in England!”), but when President Obama signed into law the Speech Act, designed to protect Americans from English libel rulings, we went from farce to tragedy. MP’s rightly described that action as a “national humiliation” for the UK.
Until recently, libel reform appeared on course; broad consensus has been achieved on the main points of a final Bill. Yet some are now calling for delay, for defamation to be thrown into the post-Leveson soup. This would be folly. As he proceeds in his vital task of improving the standards of British journalism, Lord Justice Leveson should make clear that his inquiry will not be used as a device to delay implementation of a law that goes to the heart of democracy and the public’s right to know.

John Kampfner is chief executive of Index on Censorship

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Broadcasters reject press regulation

The editor of Channel 4 News and head of compliance at ITN both argued against statutory regulation of the press at the Leveson Inquiry this afternoon.

In a debate with Lord Justice Leveson, ITN’s John Battle expressed concerns over statutory regulation, noting that it was “quite a leap” from the current self-regulatory model, and suggesting a meeting point between the two.

Lord Justice Leveson argued that there were “all sorts of statutes that affect us, without affecting our independence”.

Chiming in with the evidence given by BBC Director General Mark Thompson and BBC Trust chairman Lord Patten earlier today, Battle argued that broadcasters were heavily regulated by the law, and that a state regulator of the press might “be left open to being viewed as not independent or not impartial”.

He called the current climate a “difficult and dark” period for the press, but reiterated the UK had a “strong tradition” of press freedom that needed to be maintained.

He added that he hoped there could be a regulatory system that could be viewed or considered by the press before being enacted.

Channel 4′s Jim Gray also said he was “anxious” about a heavy form of regulation for print media.

The Inquiry will continue tomorrow, with Index on Censorship CEO John Kampfner among those giving evidence.

Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Patten criticises relationship between politicians and News International

Politicians would make better decisions if they were not so influenced by the front pages, BBC Trust chairman Lord Patten told the Leveson Inquiry today.

Patten said that politicians have allowed themselves to be “kidded” by editors and proprietors that newspapers have more power and sway with the public than they in fact do.

“The question is how seemly it is for politicians to behave in a certain way or appear to be manipulated by papers,” Patten said.

He accused major political parties and their leaders of having “demeaned themselves” by courting the press over the last 25 years, adding that he was not a fan of “grovelling” to the press.

He said he would need a “lot of persuading to organise sleepovers for newspaper proprietors”.

Taking a mischievous dig at Rupert Murdoch, Patten said: “I’d have expected to meet the prime minister and other party leaders more times if I was a News International executive.” He told the Inquiry he had seen culture secretary Jeremy Hunt two or three times, and met David Cameron once.

When asked about his relationship with the media mogul, Patten told the Inquiry he sued publisher HarperCollins after Murdoch — its owner — tried to block the publication of a book Patten had written that was critical of his dealings with the Chinese authorities. Patten, the last governor of Hong Kong, said Murdoch had intervened to “curry favour with the Chinese leadership”, fearful that the book would “harm” his prospects in China.

But Patten went on to say he did not have a vendetta against the News International chief, adding that “ it is probably the case that certain papers exist in this country because of him.” He also described Sky News as a ”terrific success”.

He also reiterated his view made last November at the Society of Editors that broadcasting regulation could not be applied to the press.

“It would be preferable not to have any statutory backup because we should be able to exercise self-discipline in our plural society,” he said, “which doesn’t involve politicians getting involved in determining matters of free speech.”

Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

BBC chief says statutory press regulation risks independence

The director general of the BBC, Mark Thompson, has said it is “unreasonable” to suggest other media organisations in the UK “can or could operate in the way the BBC does”.

Testifying at the Leveson Inquiry this morning, Thompson said it was ”important for the plurality of media in this country that the press is not constrained” in the same way as the BBC is, with with its public service requirements and statutory backing.

“I think this country has benefited from having a range of media that are funded differently, constituted differently, have different objectives,” he said.

He noted that the British public had “uniquely high” expectations of the broadcaster’s standards, and that the BBC was “committed to being most trustworthy source of news in the world”.

He added that statutory regulation of the press may risk newspapers’ independence from the government.

During his marathon 2 hour and 45 minute session, Thompson said the public service broadcaster used private investigators for surveillance and security purposes, rather than “primary journalistic inquiry”. In his witness statement, Thompson wrote that PIs were used on 232 occasions by the BBC from January 2005 to July 2011, with one being hired in 2001 to track down “a known paedophile”. Thompson said there was a “strong public interest defence justification” for doing so.

Thompson stressed that subterfuge, notably secret filming, would also on used by the BBC in the case of “very serious” public interest stories, adding that there would need to be “clear prima facie evidence” of any wrongdoing, as well as no other journalistic way of recording it.

He cited the abuse at a care home exposed by investigation programme Panorama last year as an example.

Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson

http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/furl_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/newsvine_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/technorati_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_24.png http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_24.png

Bad Behavior has blocked 4446 access attempts in the last 7 days.