Some people may have been following the Leveson Report story, created by the sins of the British 'meeja'. Well, it's happened, Britain has become North Korea, (or possibly Switzerland... I always get those two mixed up). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20543936 Watchdog needed to curb press 'havoc' A tougher form of self-regulation backed by legislation should be introduced to uphold press standards, the Leveson report has recommended. Lord Justice Leveson said the press had "wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people" for many decades. He said the proposals in his report will protect the rights of victims and people bringing complaints. He criticised the relationship between politicians and press over the last three decades, which had been "damaging". But Lord Justice Leveson acknowledged that all of the press served the country "very well for the vast majority of the time," holding a privileged and powerful place as a defender of democracy and the public interest. I'm not sure how this new, improved 'self-regulation' will work or even if an outside body, not controlled by the 'meeja' itself' CAN be described as 'self-regulation' in any meaningful sense. Still, it's gonna be fun to watch the 'meeja' scream blue murder about ANYTHING that will stop them committing the most appalling acts against ordinary people.
An overview of the report... http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/29/leveson-report-key-points Some pretty shocking stuff in there. For example... The McCanns Leveson devotes almost 12 pages to the McCann family. Some of the reporting of the disappearance of three-year-old Madeleine McCann from Praia da Luz in Portugal in May 2007 was, Leveson says, "outrageous". A number of newspapers were "guilty of gross libels", with the Daily Star singled out for its headline claiming the McCanns sold their child: "Maddie sold by hard up McCanns".
Would it be better to allow a free press, but permit a monitor to impose penalties after the fact, for proven violaitons of a Code of Conduct? Individual sanctions could range from fines, to suspensions of the right to work as a journalist, to an outright ban for egregious or repeated violations. Publisher violations could also include fines & suspensions or termination of the media outlet, but also suspensions of editors & producers, so there is accountability up an established chain of command & supervision.
The thing is this is being discussed as if we have a 'free press' but that's only true up to a point. Imagine if Murdoch owned all the papers in the UK. Could it THEN be called a 'free press'? Well, it would certainly true that Murdoch would be free to print anything he wants but I kind of think a 'free press' implies there are a number of views, with different proprietors able to target particular viewpoints to differentiate themselves. As it is we have only a few large newspaper groups holding about 80-90% of the market, (unlike the US where you have regional or city newspapers), so we're less diversified. The other thing is that we already HAVE an 'Editor's Code' which they're meant to stick to but, as Leveson points out, it's policed by the 'Press Complaints Commission' which is funded and consists of the Editors of the newspapers themselves so it's very much the press 'marking their own homework', (to use the phrase of the moment). Leveson's suggested 'independent self-regulation' which sounds like a contradiction in terms to me, (if it's self-regulation then how can it also be 'independent'???), but, obviously, we're gonna have to see the details of who they come up with as a regulator and how they're chosen. Of course, in theory, we all have the ability to choose our own regulator... just don't buy they damned paper! The problem is that that relies on the concept of a 'perfect market' very much in the way 'Adam Smith' envisaged it and, as we all know, they very rarely exist.