Leveson endorses Clegg about democratic accountability but is still trying to tease out the issues around a quasi judicial decision making process and the pressures on the person making the decision.
Clegg's position is that the present situation is not a one off and Leveson thanks him for that.
If he could provide any evidence for his comment, wouldn't that be political dynamite ?
OK........you might say that whatever NI wanted the Tories were never going to give it to them but isn't he suggesting that NI at least thought that by supporting the Tories they would get their business interests looked after ?
I agree. The point is that every company is going to do it's best to influence politicians and gain an advantage. What is different here is that this company had the potential to influence the election result. Even people who deny that must accept that politicians believed that to be so and that in itself was a corrupting influence.
I agree. The point is that every company is going to do it's best to influence politicians and gain an advantage. What is different here is that this company had the potential to influence the election result. Even people who deny that must accept that politicians believed that to be so and that in itself was a corrupting influence.
Not much of an potential to influence though because the Conservatives did not win and the electorate made up their own minds.
The PCC has failed miserably. There is an existing code which the PCC has not enforced. Something new seems needed but quite what that is I am not sure.
Well yes, that was kind of my point. The idea of the current system is fine. The fact that it doesn't work and that being bound be the PCC is voluntary isn't.
The PCC or a successor organisation should have legal powers to force papers to print apologies, etc.
Clegg discussing what happens if a media organisation grows organically and becomes dominant. There is no present mechanism which automatically come into play to question it. Clegg thinks that there should be a check.
You don't have to provide "evidence" for it as in a court of law.
Maybe........but you can't imagine Jeremy Paxman letting it go without asking Clegg what evidence he has for his potentially very damaging statement for Murdoch and maybe for Cameron.............
I missed this bit of Cleggs evidence so don't know the context, merely what's been reported on here
Well yes, that was kind of my point. The idea of the current system is fine. The fact that it doesn't work and that being bound be the PCC is voluntary isn't.
The PCC or a successor organisation should have legal powers to force papers to print apologies, etc.
It's a hard choice. I support in principle the idea of press freedom.
But there are two freedoms involved, free to and free from.
No freedom should involve being able to do anything you want while being free from some sort of check. I guess that's Leveson's job.
Another fly in the ointment is the lack of control in the electronic world of publishing while broadcasters and newspaper publishers are restricted (at least to some extent) In the case of the BBC, having to re-apply for a licence ensures that certain standards are met.
Not much of an potential to influence though because the Conservatives did not win and the electorate made up their own minds.
I don't think that anyone can deny that propaganda does influence people though. For instance telling people that a vote for the Lib dems was a vote for brown would almost certainly have reduced their vote and was, as it turned out, untrue.
Maybe........but you can't imagine Jeremy Paxman letting it go without asking Clegg what evidence he has for his potentially very damaging statement for Murdoch and maybe for Cameron.............
I missed this bit of Cleggs evidence so don't know the context, merely what's been reported on here
Paxman's brief is different from Leveon's brief. He is acting under terms already set down.
Paxman tries to get at the truth which is what all good journalists should try to do. Within the boundaries of his terms of employment and BBC standards he is free to put pressure on those who choose to come before him.
Paxman tries to get at the truth which is what all good journalists should try to do. Within the boundaries of his terms of employment and BBC standards he is free to put pressure on those who choose to come before him.
Well some of the time he does, some of the time he's very biased, rude and arrogant and some of the time he's just interested in getting a good healine.
I don't think that anyone can deny that propaganda does influence people though. For instance telling people that a vote for the Lib dems was a vote for brown would almost certainly have reduced their vote and was, as it turned out, untrue.
You are probably right (although no evidence can be produced to prove it).
The last election was untypical in some ways because the third minor party had gained a bit of momentum and was getting quite a bit of attention. Ironically it was the televised debates that imo influenced people. (The X-Factor factor was at play)
I dimly remember the 1945 election when Atlee's wife drove him round the country in their car to campaign.(My grandad made much of this) We got news on the wireless at set times three times a day and that was that. People bought newspapers in large number and usually bought their favourite one. News was presented as factual. There were no "political commentators" ramming things down our throats twenty four hours a day. By and large people voted tribally. And, despite all of Churchill's war time efforts the electorate voted him out.
I think that most people vote thoughtfully within the limits of their own life experiences and hopes for the future. And if there are those who vote for someone like Clegg because he looked prettier than Brown then so be it. It's a free counntry.
Well some of the time he does, some of the time he's very biased, rude and arrogant and some of the time he's just interested in getting a good healine.
I couldn't agree more. He was once far fairer and respectful. He had become crabby and ill-tempered as he has grown older.
It's a hard choice. I support in principle the idea of press freedom.
But there are two freedoms involved, free to and free from.
No freedom should involve being able to do anything you want while being free from some sort of check. I guess that's Leveson's job.
Another fly in the ointment is the lack of control in the electronic world of publishing while broadcasters and newspaper publishers are restricted (at least to some extent) In the case of the BBC, having to re-apply for a licence ensures that certain standards are met.
Recent criminal cases have shown that things posted online are subject to the same rules as those published in other ways, so I don't think there needs to be any online-specific rules made.
You are probably right (although no evidence can be produced to prove it).
The last election was untypical in some ways because the third minor party had gained a bit of momentum and was getting quite a bit of attention. Ironically it was the televised debates that imo influenced people. (The X-Factor factor was at play)
I dimly remember the 1945 election when Atlee's wife drove him round the country in their car to campaign.(My grandad made much of this) We got news on the wireless at set times three times a day and that was that. People bought newspapers in large number and usually bought their favourite one. News was presented as factual. There were no "political commentators" ramming things down our throats twenty four hours a day. By and large people voted tribally. And, despite all of Churchill's war time efforts the electorate voted him out.
I think that most people vote thoughtfully within the limits of their own life experiences and hopes for the future. And if there are those who vote for someone like Clegg because he looked prettier than Brown then so be it. It's a free counntry.
I agree, unfortunately as well we can't legislate to make newspapers treat all political parties fairly. All the more reason though IMO to make sure that we limit the amount of media any one person or company owns.
Paxman is and always has been a bit of a god for me. Newsnight without him is a damp affair, although Gavin Essler can sometimes rise to the occasion. But just occasionally Paxman perhaps doesn't get the best out of his interviewees because he is openly contemptuous from the beginning. I wonder sometimes if he is bored! Do hope not because Newsnight without him would be like Today without John Humpries or PM without Eddie Mair.
Information: For any fans Paxman is speaking at the Chalke Valley History Festival at the end of this month.
I agree, unfortunately as well we can't legislate to make newspapers treat all political parties fairly. All the more reason though IMO to make sure that we limit the amount of media any one person or company owns.
Another thin line.
During the war (WWII) for example news was heavily censored and inaccurate information was dished out.
In particular cases, I agree that here should be some balance. But newspapers do not make money and only those with a fortune and a vested interest would start a new one.
Unfortunately as well we can't legislate to make newspapers treat all political parties fairly. All the more reason though IMO to make sure that we limit the amount of media any one person or company owns.
No we can't and nor should we try to really but a proper complaints process could allow for obvious and blatant mis-reporting in the media in general to be addressed more adequately.
As for media ownership and the domination of the media yes there do need to be restrictions and that also applies to broadcasters such as the BBC.
Paxman is and always has been a bit of a god for me. Newsnight without him is a damp affair, although Gavin Essler can sometimes rise to the occasion. But just occasionally Paxman perhaps doesn't get the best out of his interviewees because he is openly contemptuous from the beginning. I wonder sometimes if he is bored! Do hope not because Newsnight without him would be like Today without John Humpries or PM without Eddie Mair.
Information: For any fans Paxman is speaking at the Chalke Valley History Festival at the end of this month.
Mair is one of my favourites because he makes me laugh! Jack de Manio was the same. And I liked Brian Redhead. Humphrys has got old and crabby and I have gone off him too.
Paxman's television documentary about the Victorians was excellent. imo.
Comments
Clegg's position is that the present situation is not a one off and Leveson thanks him for that.
I agree. The point is that every company is going to do it's best to influence politicians and gain an advantage. What is different here is that this company had the potential to influence the election result. Even people who deny that must accept that politicians believed that to be so and that in itself was a corrupting influence.
Not much of an potential to influence though because the Conservatives did not win and the electorate made up their own minds.
Well yes, that was kind of my point. The idea of the current system is fine. The fact that it doesn't work and that being bound be the PCC is voluntary isn't.
The PCC or a successor organisation should have legal powers to force papers to print apologies, etc.
Maybe........but you can't imagine Jeremy Paxman letting it go without asking Clegg what evidence he has for his potentially very damaging statement for Murdoch and maybe for Cameron.............
I missed this bit of Cleggs evidence so don't know the context, merely what's been reported on here
It's a hard choice. I support in principle the idea of press freedom.
But there are two freedoms involved, free to and free from.
No freedom should involve being able to do anything you want while being free from some sort of check. I guess that's Leveson's job.
Another fly in the ointment is the lack of control in the electronic world of publishing while broadcasters and newspaper publishers are restricted (at least to some extent) In the case of the BBC, having to re-apply for a licence ensures that certain standards are met.
I don't think that anyone can deny that propaganda does influence people though. For instance telling people that a vote for the Lib dems was a vote for brown would almost certainly have reduced their vote and was, as it turned out, untrue.
Paxman's brief is different from Leveon's brief. He is acting under terms already set down.
Paxman tries to get at the truth which is what all good journalists should try to do. Within the boundaries of his terms of employment and BBC standards he is free to put pressure on those who choose to come before him.
Plus it should be on the same page they printed the orignial story they are apologosing for and it should be able to levy fines against them.
If it hasn't already been done all mobile phones should force a user to select a PIN or change the default PIN to access their voicemail.
The more difficult thing to tackle is the relationships between the press and politicians and the police.
Well some of the time he does, some of the time he's very biased, rude and arrogant and some of the time he's just interested in getting a good healine.
You are probably right (although no evidence can be produced to prove it).
The last election was untypical in some ways because the third minor party had gained a bit of momentum and was getting quite a bit of attention. Ironically it was the televised debates that imo influenced people. (The X-Factor factor was at play)
I dimly remember the 1945 election when Atlee's wife drove him round the country in their car to campaign.(My grandad made much of this) We got news on the wireless at set times three times a day and that was that. People bought newspapers in large number and usually bought their favourite one. News was presented as factual. There were no "political commentators" ramming things down our throats twenty four hours a day. By and large people voted tribally. And, despite all of Churchill's war time efforts the electorate voted him out.
I think that most people vote thoughtfully within the limits of their own life experiences and hopes for the future. And if there are those who vote for someone like Clegg because he looked prettier than Brown then so be it. It's a free counntry.
I agree. I doubt that the press will be tapping mobiles again in a hurry though.
I couldn't agree more. He was once far fairer and respectful. He had become crabby and ill-tempered as he has grown older.
Recent criminal cases have shown that things posted online are subject to the same rules as those published in other ways, so I don't think there needs to be any online-specific rules made.
Agreed.
I think most smart phones do now.
Definitely.
I agree, unfortunately as well we can't legislate to make newspapers treat all political parties fairly. All the more reason though IMO to make sure that we limit the amount of media any one person or company owns.
Information: For any fans Paxman is speaking at the Chalke Valley History Festival at the end of this month.
Therein lies the problem with him, he appears often to have even taken to believing that himself.
Another thin line.
During the war (WWII) for example news was heavily censored and inaccurate information was dished out.
In particular cases, I agree that here should be some balance. But newspapers do not make money and only those with a fortune and a vested interest would start a new one.
No we can't and nor should we try to really but a proper complaints process could allow for obvious and blatant mis-reporting in the media in general to be addressed more adequately.
As for media ownership and the domination of the media yes there do need to be restrictions and that also applies to broadcasters such as the BBC.
Mair is one of my favourites because he makes me laugh! Jack de Manio was the same. And I liked Brian Redhead. Humphrys has got old and crabby and I have gone off him too.
Paxman's television documentary about the Victorians was excellent. imo.
You should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.:)
Someone will try it again given half a chance.
Let's hope that the current criminal investigations end with some convictions.
Indeed, and it begins today:
http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16246245
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9434000/9434799.stm