The Leveson Inquiry is over

[Cain]

You can read all four volumes (2000 pages) of the report here

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0780/0780.asp

Note: Leveson is constrained by ongoing trials into criminal practices at News of the World, and in particular has to be very careful when mentioning the government role in the press.  Nevertheless, the report is a good one, a solid piece of investigation and in fact quite brilliant on the issue of the press culture.

Leveson has also strongly recommended some kind of press regulations and an independent regulator to control them.  Which, after four attempts at letting the press regulate themselves only to completely fail to do anything of the kind, seems fair, but does have some worrying implications concerning a slippery slope.

Of course, to listen to the press, said slippery slope is a wide, yawning chasm.  Which demons reside in.  Asylum seeking, pedophile, swan-eating, benefit cheat demons.

[Dildo Argentino]

In your esteemed opinion, Cain, what, if any, changes to UK legislation are likely to result?

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

The sexism in the media recommendations made me quite happy.

·         Lord Leveson says there is evidence to show that the "Page 3 tabloid press often failed to show consistent respect for the dignity and equality of women generally, and that there was a tendency to sexualise and demean women", in particular the Sport;


·         He agreed with the key recommendation of the women's groups that "what is clearly required is that any such [new] regulator has the power to take complaints from representative women's groups";


·         Lord Leveson also said that consideration should be given to Code amendments which would give the new body power to intervene in cases of allegedly discriminatory reporting and reflect the spirit of equalities legislation.

·         Crimes of violence against women are frequently reported inaccurately and without context, with a tendency to minimise the perpetrator's actions and to blame the victim
·         Some tabloids contribute to the sexualisation of girls while purporting to condemn it; sexual abuse of children is sometimes presented in a way that minimises the abuse and is even on occasion titillating
·         In many newspapers women are persistently portrayed as sex objects, alongside the mainstreaming and 'normalising' of the sex industry; this is also an area where the line between advertising and editorial is extremely blurred
·         Regarding women in public life, younger women are visible but heavily stereotyped and infantilised, while older, disabled and black and minority ethnic women are less visible, and those in public life are often subject to ridicule.

[Junkenstein]

So from what I've been seeing, the various meetings between government and editors have thus far boiled down to:

"Really, regulate yourselves this time. Totally last chance now it really is. I have to dissolve the PCC and create a new agency with the exact same lack of power and make it sound good now thanks to you. So stop please"

The media reaction is almost exactly as expected, I grow more confident that it will require another Diana-esque accident somewhere before any legislative change has real teeth.


Like most semi-government agencies here, whatever is created will undoubtedly be as use useless as it's predecessor. A perfect example is the current running around trying to find a new name for the cluster fuck that is PFI. It's hard to be in favour of any statutory legislation due to the totally unknown impact, who it would affect, what media channels it would affect, huge cost to enforce efficiently and high probability that any government would fuck it up. I would suggest any good examples here are more anomalies in the world than most countries.


Edit- Also, the whole fucking enquiry has turned out to be a total disappointment overall in my view. There seem to be a number of areas where little or no problem was found yet there patently was. It looks more like a little slap for everyone rather than totally screwing a number of senior media personnel. This may be premature bitterness, not all the criminal trials are concluded. I do now suspect that these too will turn into little more than show trials with no or negligible punishment.

[Junkenstein]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20603930

In between the nigh constant stream of non-news over the "royal" spawn, the farce continues unabated.

The current stance of a year long inquiry costing around £4million has left editors debating which proposals they will sign up to. All of them that involve no change in law or new law is the common consensus.


I'm told an Australian broadcaster recently made a call to a UK hospital and incidentally broadcast certain personal information. Some people are a little touchy over this. Even if you do regain some control over mass media, this does highlight how susceptible you remain to mass media abroad.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Of course, to listen to the press, said slippery slope is a wide, yawning chasm. 

I tend to agree with them on this part.

Our press, over here, has ALWAYS been a pile of shit.  But it has worked.  Unless you're Spain, in which case...Not so much.

TGRR,
Huge fan of yellow journalism.

[Cain]

In your esteemed opinion, Cain, what, if any, changes to UK legislation are likely to result?

None.  There is a strong relationship between the media and the government.  Far, far too strong.  You can't tell where the Tories end and News Corporation begins.  It'll be a slap on the wrist and "self-regulation", unless New Labour and the Lib Dems can put up a majority to change the law...which they can't, because Labour also have a strong, if conflicted relationship with the media.

The Lib Dems can take the "principled" position because it costs them nothing.

Also, the whole fucking enquiry has turned out to be a total disappointment overall in my view. There seem to be a number of areas where little or no problem was found yet there patently was. It looks more like a little slap for everyone rather than totally screwing a number of senior media personnel. This may be premature bitterness, not all the criminal trials are concluded. I do now suspect that these too will turn into little more than show trials with no or negligible punishment.

Government enquiries are always going to steer away from the most interesting and and potentially damaging accusations.  That's part of their nature.

Given the low bar I had for this, it actually did get somewhere.  However, the failure to address media ownership concentration, the Daniel Morgan murder, political intelligence gathering, influence brokering in the Met is disappointing, to put it mildly, though there are enough threads from the enquiry that hopefully talented investigators can follow up on them.

I tend to agree with them on this part.

Our press, over here, has ALWAYS been a pile of shit.  But it has worked.  Unless you're Spain, in which case...Not so much.

TGRR,
Huge fan of yellow journalism.

Well that would depend on the actual proposals, which have not been made yet.  The press have delcared, a priori, that any attempt to regulate them will result in Zimbabwe, North Korea, the resurrection of Hitler, the death of hope and love and the end of the world.

As previously pointed out, the press are not seperate from the government in the first place, so them taking the "principled" stance of noble, apolitical truth-tellers who must be unfettered by the laws of man and god to go about their just cause is hilarious.  I mean, sure, maybe Nick Davies and the Bureau of Investigate Journalism broke the phone-hacking case, but The Sun, NotW, Mirror, Star etc were the ones covering it up, with no small amount of help from the Metropolitan Police.

And of course, there is the problem of asking what is essentially a branch of government to be regulated by the government, when both are clearly in cahoots with each other...

All I'm saying is, regulation is not necessarily evil when carefully worded, certainly not apocalyptic as the barons of Fleet Street seem to believe, and probably wont happen anyway, so their temper tantrum at being told that, actually, no, you can't go around hacking the phones of kidnap/murder victims and minor celebrities, pay ex-coppers to break into their houses and use your press power to intimidate public figures into giving you favours (like when News Corporation told a 12 year old Charlotte Church it would "destroy" her unless she performed for free at a Rupert Murdoch event) is mostly like putting a bunch of three year olds in suits and watching them go on an epic rampage.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Why bother regulating the press at all? Wouldn't it make more sense to just make things like hacking voicemail illegal? No ... wait ... 

Okay so they spent 4million on a totally pointless charade. Which billionaire avoided jail while all eyes were focussed on the giant floating head?

[Junkenstein]

Max Clifford arrested on Suspicion of Sexual offences.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20627765

For those not familiar with Clifford, he's an exceptional example of media scum. He has owned a large stable of D-Z list celebrities for many a moon and routinely trades tales of shenanigans with all major press outlets. In the case of his larger clients being found up to no good it is known for him to throw one or more of his smaller clients under the bus in exchange for the major story being shelved.

As far as "Leading PR Expert goes" it's a little misleading. He's an expert at "Don't publish the photo of X doing Y. Wouldn't you rather publish a picture of Z's tits?"


Note - Z is frequently under 16.

[LMNO]

Pardon, but do >16 girls have tits?


LMNO
-it's been a while since middle school.

[Junkenstein]

Depends. If they don't have any then it's probably an article about how Z is "coming along nicely" or "Will be legal soon" (Actual phrases frequently used in UK media)

edit- The Daily mail is quite notorious for this. Many page 3/4/5 article about a child actress in a swimsuit invariably followed by pages of "opinion" announcing that anyone deviating from the missionary position is kiddie-fiddling filth. Then "Shades of Grey" occurred and it was nigh on compulsory to claim to be some kind of BDSM expert too. The level of cognitive dissonance in the media here is amazing.

House prices are another example of this kind of shit. You can have 5 articles over 4 pages some days announcing that everyone's rich now because homes cost fractionally more according to some bullshit "survey" (Because that's how economics work. And if you rent: Fuck you, you're probably an illegal immigrant on benefits) or they've fallen so now we must all eat our young to survive the winter.



Googling, I find this:

http://maxclifford.com/current-clients-testmonials/companies/

What the fuck is THIS?

As well as tailoring adrenaline fuelled situations, Wish.co.uk have a slightly more sensitive side. One of their best-selling adventures is a romantic break in the countryside ... for three, as well as an exclusive, one-of-a-kind cash for access experience which will see you hugging the Prime Minister (or as you may call him, Dave).

I can't find that kind of thing on their website, yet given the media connections I'm sure it's just a phone call to arrange.

I'm lost for words. This isn't even subtle.

[Junkenstein]

A total aside, the nickname for Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail around his office is "Mugabe".

Carry on.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

Pardon, but do >16 girls have tits?


LMNO
-it's been a while since middle school.

I had a bra and periods before my 12th birthday.

British girls do puberty quite early.