A press law is not needed
B Y THE time you read this, it may be clear what MPs will be voting for (or against) when they discuss press regulation in the House of Commons tonight. Then again, it may not. The arguments and counter arguments between politicians and protesters have become labyrinthine. What is absolutely certain though, is that whatever politicians decide will replace the discredited self-regulation of the Press Complaints Commission, it will be bad news for local newspapers. There is a consensus that regional papers like The Sentinel play an important role helping to hold together their local community. Even Lord Leveson agreed. They don't tap phones, hound celebrities or make up stories. They spend their time reporting from local magistrates' courts and council chambers. However, through no fault of their own, local papers now find themselves as impotent bystanders in a dispute – between national politicians and national newspapers – the outcome of which could make their lives so much more difficult. For the new regulations – whatever the detail – will inevitably cost local papers money, resources and time they can ill afford.
T HE most effective way to ensure that newspapers behave in a responsible and proper fashion is to enforce existing criminal laws. This, after all, is what has exposed phone-hacking and illegal payments to police officers. However, the sins of the national tabloid newspapers mean that there is a public mood for a new press law. So we must make the best of a bad job. This means supporting the plan which is least restrictive of free speech. At the moment this is a watchdog underpinned by Royal Charter rather than by laws drawn up by politicians with vested interests. Putting politicians in charge of our media regulator – which is what full enforcement of the Leveson Report would entail – is a dangerous move down the road to State censorship. Very soon, Britain will have the toughest press regulation in the Western world. The only question is whether that regulation will be enforced independently or by the state. Placing MPs in control of such a draconian set of rules may be something that we would all live to regret.
GET READY FOR SUMMER WITH A GOLDEN SPRAY TAN .
WHETHER YOU WANT A NATURAL GLOW OR A DEEP BRONZE, COME AND GET YOUR TAN AT KEIDO HAIR AND BEAUTY.
£17 OR 2 FOR £25.50
Terms: QUOTE SPRAY TAN WEB OFFER WHEN BOOKING IN
Contact: 01782 917918
Valid until: Saturday, August 31 2013
2 Comments
by Oakenbear
Sunday, March 24 2013, 11:34AM
“All this started on 9/11 when them planes smashed into the WTC,(how convenient) since then we have had the make believe "war on terror" rammed down our throats for the last decade because it serves agenda, our freedoms have slowly been taken, then we have the "orchestrated economic collapse", the peoples trust has been taken, it serves agenda.
Now be very careful what you wish for, anyone with half a pound of intelligence can see where this is heading, it is the criminals who operate in the press who need to be monitored, not the free press. Think about this, our government can draw up plans to control the free press, yet the same powers that be cant take control and totally eradicate paedophile activity on or internet? Its all about agenda. Welcom to the New World Order.”
by KevinRaftery_
Tuesday, March 19 2013, 10:01AM
“It appears that new regulations covering the press have pleased all sides. As in there is going to be no statutory underpinning of the press, but an independent regulator in the form of a Royal Charter backed up by law.
The proposals must be accepted by the major players in the paper industry (not forgetting the public outcry regarding phone hacking and corruption) whereas the press must thing long and hard about walking away from the new proposals bearing in mind the outcry regarding News Corporation hacking the phone of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler.
The argument for the statutory underpinning of the British Press (which would have been the first in 317 years) was in essence argued to prevent MPs (under pressure from Media Moguls) tampering with any prospective new regulations.
However, Hacked Off (the victims of phone hacking) are happy with the charter saying the new charter implements the Leveson recommendations.
What this means is that now we could see huge conglomerates like News Corporation (who had too much power and abused that power for sick titillation stories regarding murdered children) answerable to a governing body.
The Leveson recommendations do have implications for local papers like the Sentinel because the culture of newspapers was also examined by Leveson. The Press Complaints Commission was also exposed by Leveson as those that participate in 'Superficial Desk-Top Reviews when investigating.
The elitist culture prevailing in the industry includes cronyism which is inherent in all papers including local ones.
It seems Labour politicians like Tristrum Hunt do not just get parachuted into a safe Labour seat in Stoke on Trent. They get parachuted into a safe writing column at the Sentinel.This is in light of the fact that there are better local writers out there.
Not to mention the Sentinels unnatural bond with Stoke on Trent City Council.
The Staffordshire Sentinel is overseen by the big Northcliffe Media Group in any event isn't it?
So can it really be classed as a local newspaper bearing in mind this group has 18 daily titles in Britain and numerous subsidiaries all over Eastern Europe?
Which begs the question: who is in charge at the Sentinel?
It makes one wonder what newspapers barons were really scared of regarding the statutory underpinning of the British Press? That they would not be able to do anything they wanted to do? And they might, just might, be held accountable for inappropriate behaviour as seen by News Corporation.
The notion that the free press is to be curtailed by any new regulations is as preposterous as it is effete.
This article has been posted on here because Northcliffe Media refuse to publish it. How's that for a so-called free press?”