The Leveson Report

[Watercress]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20543936

Leveson report: New body 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.

But the report's recommendations have divided the coalition government.

David Cameron said he had "serious concerns" over statutory regulation but Nick Clegg said he supported some form of legal underpinning.

And Labour leader Ed Miliband urged the government to accept the report in its entirety.

Speaking in the Commons, Mr Cameron said he broadly welcomed Lord Justice Leveson's principles to change the current system.

But he said: "We should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and the free press.

"The danger is that this would create a vehicle for politicians whether today or some time in the future to impose regulation and obligations on the press."

Mr Miliband described the report as "measured, reasonable and proportionate" and said Labour "unequivocally" endorsed its conclusions.

After the first of cross-party talks, a senior Labour source said Mr Cameron had agreed to ask the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to draft a bill to implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations.

The source added Labour would push for a Commons vote on implementing the recommendation in principle by the end of January.

The Hacked Off campaign, which represents victims of phone hacking said Mr Cameron's "failure" to accept the full recommendations of the report was "unfortunate and regrettable".

I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread about this already. Anyway, the Leveson Report was published yesterday, all 2,000 pages. Labour and the Lib Dems are supportive of implementing of all Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations, but David Cameron seems rather reluctant indeed.

So, what are your views on the Leveson Report? Do you agree, or disagree - and why?

[agunter999]

I am fence sitting
David has had the nicest things ever said about him today
You can tell what the papers want

[The Alcotroll]

I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread about this already.

This is probably why.

I'm apathetic personally. The media are a bunch of self-serving sharks who print sensationalised and over-simplified designed to shift copies and generate revenue- they cater to the lowest common denominator and pander to some quite flagrant editorial biases. It would have been nice to see the greasy little parasites taken down a peg or two.

On the other hand, confronting a complex issue with a raft of even more complex legislation is a very Labour solution, not to mention expensive and usually futile, so I'm not surprised Cameron didn't go with it. I don't much like the Tories, but I rather feel sorry for him on this one; if he'd adopted the reccomendations he'd have been accused of reactionary nanny-stateism (is that a word?) and roundly slated in the press anyway.

[Pielstick]

This is probably why.

I'm apathetic personally. The media are a bunch of self-serving sharks who print sensationalised and over-simplified designed to shift copies and generate revenue- they cater to the lowest common denominator and pander to some quite flagrant editorial biases. It would have been nice to see the greasy little parasites taken down a peg or two.

On the other hand, confronting a complex issue with a raft of even more complex legislation is a very Labour solution, not to mention expensive and usually futile, so I'm not surprised Cameron didn't go with it. I don't much like the Tories, but I rather feel sorry for him on this one; if he'd adopted the reccomendations he'd have been accused of reactionary nanny-stateism (is that a word?) and roundly slated in the press anyway.

Spot on. Cameron is in a lose-lose situation. If he adopts the Leveson recommendations he will be accused of undermining a free British press. If he rejects them (as he has) then he will be accused of ignoring the victims of tabloid journalism and allowing the press to run riot over peoples' privacy and destroy reputations.

Funny to see yet again Miliband and Labour jumping on the populist bandwagon.

On the other hand, the free press has gone too far. I'm lucky to live in a country where some amount of objectivity in reporting still exists, even if public news is rather left leaning, but if I look the Rupert Murdoch media empire I can only shake my head in disgust. Fox News is arguably the worst news channel in the history of news channels, and its existence has provoked MSNBC into radical partisanism aswell, so now you've got a press environment where people are as divided as the senate and house floors. Obviously Britain isn't in the same sort of place, not yet anyway, but a law that keeps it from getting there might seem like a good idea to some.

The problem in Britain isn't that the media is politically partisan. The problem is there are sections of the media who will run headlines and publish stories that are utterly false and cause great distress/destroy reputations for those involved.

The challenge is how to stop irresponsible newspapers publishing such stories whilst still allowing the really important stories to be published.


My gut feeling is that the problem is the tabloids (the Sun/Mirror/Star and probably to a lesser extent the Mail and Express too). Newpapers which publish sensationalist headlines and stories which - as Alcotroll says - appeal to the lowest common denominator. These are cretinous little who will publish anything to sell more papers. Unfortunately as long as there is a demand for papers like this they will still exist...

[Condottiere 40K]

It's the usual suspects.

Media does have to act responsibly, and that includes second guessing itself, otherwise the BBC would have been more careful on allowing wild speculations about Welsh pedophiles.

A lot of the global media is going to study how the British solve this conundrum without direct government legislation.

[justicar5]

It's the usual suspects.

Media does have to act responsibly, and that includes second guessing itself, otherwise the BBC would have been more careful on allowing wild speculations about Welsh pedophiles.

A lot of the global media is going to study how the British solve this conundrum without direct government legislation.

The BBC are already regulated, by OFCOM. The newspapers are screaming bloody murder about being held to the same standards and TV and Radio channels already are, and have been for years.

I'd mandate the press to report factual events after the fact,. We could all live with a few days delay on the News so it can be ironed out properly. Information disseminates through other channels to the people who need to know. The press should record what actually happened in an in depth way, not try to mix reports and speculation as quickly as possible and get it out. If all the Mainstream outlets were held to the same standards it wouldn't harm their business.

Or perhaps limit how much news is being released. Perhaps limit them to a lengthier weekly edition?

not sure if serious.... If serious their is the germ of a decent idea their

The problem in Britain isn't that the media is politically partisan. The problem is there are sections of the media who will run headlines and publish stories that are utterly false and cause great distress/destroy reputations for those involved.

The challenge is how to stop irresponsible newspapers publishing such stories whilst still allowing the really important stories to be published.


My gut feeling is that the problem is the tabloids (the Sun/Mirror/Star and probably to a lesser extent the Mail and Express too). Newpapers which publish sensationalist headlines and stories which - as Alcotroll says - appeal to the lowest common denominator. These are cretinous little who will publish anything to sell more papers. Unfortunately as long as there is a demand for papers like this they will still exist...

Wouldn't call the Mail a 'lesser practitioner'. We need to make the journalists and editors accountable. So it's not 'The Sun' getting sued for defamation , it's the Journalist who wrote the story, and the editor who signed off on it, named and shamed.

[Bobz]

The BBC are already regulated, by OFCOM. The newspapers are screaming bloody murder about being held to the same standards and TV and Radio channels already are, and have been for years.

You're right on that point, an Ofcom type body for the press is hardly going to curb press freedom. The BBC may have come under fire recently, but it does show that they have no problem reporting on any story - and most being held accountable should they be found wrong.

Wouldn't call the Mail a 'lesser practitioner'. We need to make the journalists and editors accountable. So it's not 'The Sun' getting sued for defamation , it's the Journalist who wrote the story, and the editor who signed off on it, named and shamed.

They should both be held accountable. The Sun or any other paper is ultimately responsible for what they publish after all.

[justicar5]

You're right on that point, an Ofcom type body for the press is hardly going to curb press freedom. The BBC may have come under fire recently, but it does show that they have no problem reporting on any story - and most being held accountable should they be found wrong.



They should both be held accountable. The Sun or any other paper is ultimately responsible for what they publish after all.

True, but the point of this is to regulate the behaviour of people, so they can't do the 'we would sell x more papers bringing in y more cash from sales and advertising so could afford to pay z in fines and come out ahead'

[Sharpe's Company]

The BBC are already regulated, by OFCOM. The newspapers are screaming bloody murder about being held to the same standards and TV and Radio channels already are, and have been for years.

Radio!

Name me a nationwide Station that is independent from the BBC and covers current affairs!

Since talkSPORT went 24 hour sport last March, we haven't got one.

Now this maybe because people don't like talk radio, which i dispute or there isn't any money to be made from it, which i also dispute, therefore it must have something to do with being able to secure a licence from Ofcom/BBC to be allowed to have free-speech radio, unlike the vetting process that is the BBC.

It's bizarre, crazy, that we in the UK don't have any nationwide talk radio stations, the ones we do have are all controlled by the BBC.

The BBC lets not forget that is openly boastful about it's bias and it's liberal-left agenda.

If people want to go down the road like TV and Radio, then we may as well take down the Union Jack and hoist the hammer and sickle.
Something I'd imagine Leveson, the openly jewish fanatic would enjoy.

[Bobz]

Radio!

Name me a nationwide Station that is independent from the BBC and covers current affairs!

Since talkSPORT went 24 hour sport last March, we haven't got one.

Now this maybe because people don't like talk radio, which i dispute or there isn't any money to be made from it, which i also dispute, therefore it must have something to do with being able to secure a licence from Ofcom/BBC to be allowed to have free-speech radio, unlike the vetting process that is the BBC.

It's bizarre, crazy, that we in the UK don't have any nationwide talk radio stations, the ones we do have are all controlled by the BBC.

The BBC lets not forget that is openly boastful about it's bias and it's liberal-left agenda.

If people want to go down the road like TV and Radio, then we may as well take down the Union Jack and hoist the hammer and sickle.
Something I'd imagine Leveson, the openly jewish fanatic would enjoy.

I notice you only pick on national radio, but ignore the large amount of TV news channels available despite them also being regulated by Ofcom.

[Col. Tartleton]

I'd mandate the press to report factual events after the fact,. We could all live with a few days delay on the News so it can be ironed out properly. Information disseminates through other channels to the people who need to know. The press should record what actually happened in an in depth way, not try to mix reports and speculation as quickly as possible and get it out. If all the Mainstream outlets were held to the same standards it wouldn't harm their business.

Or perhaps limit how much news is being released. Perhaps limit them to a lengthier weekly edition?

[Condottiere 40K]

I'll look forward to a weekly news show on Fox.

[The Dude]

Mixed feelings. One one and legislature like this will always enable those who wish to further curb free speech. Even if this particular piece of law is signed into action with the best possible intentions and the highest degree of moderation, that still doesn't change the fact that in the future someone less well-intentioned could use this law as foundation for a more malicious piece of legislation.

On the other hand, the free press has gone too far. I'm lucky to live in a country where some amount of objectivity in reporting still exists, even if public news is rather left leaning, but if I look the Rupert Murdoch media empire I can only shake my head in disgust. Fox News is arguably the worst news channel in the history of news channels, and its existence has provoked MSNBC into radical partisanism aswell, so now you've got a press environment where people are as divided as the senate and house floors. Obviously Britain isn't in the same sort of place, not yet anyway, but a law that keeps it from getting there might seem like a good idea to some.

[xcorps]

The Sun or any other paper is ultimately responsible for what they publish after all.

Aren't you responsible for what you believe? If a paper prints sensationlist (like the National Enquirer here) it's not the place of the government to protect you from that.

[Bobz]

Aren't you responsible for what you believe? If a paper prints sensationlist (like the National Enquirer here) it's not the place of the government to protect you from that.

I don't think you're following what I said. The government does have the responsibility to properly enforce the existing laws, and ensure innocent people are not the victims of malicious newspaper articles.

[Father Jack]

The abuses the Leveson Report highlighted were already illegal under English Law - corruption is illegal, phone hacking is illegal, libel is illegal etc. The problem is the newspapers totally ignored these laws, so if Leveson's recommendations are implemented then all it will amount to is a law forcing already existing laws which does sound overly bureaucratic. It would be nice to see the press come under the same scrutiny as television though.

[Thorn777]

I have mixed feelings because its trendy.

[Lord Baratheon]

I dont like this.Even the word 'ofcom' sounds like newspeak to me.Are things like 'Feedom of speech and Press' and 'English Liberty' to be considered oldspeak?If a paper acts illegally simply bring it to the Courts,as has always been.I love how the masses want this because they feel offended by tabloid actions.They however,cannot bring themselves to stop buying the tabloids in question.And when its all over the state will have indirect control of newspapers.

[♖The Balkan Sobranie♖]

As a Libertarian I shall fight this attempt of the tyrannical left to thwart our freedoms, with a spurt of gusto and bated breath! Our press has been free from state interference for three-hundred years and shall sip from the chalice of freedom for three-hundred more!

[Thorn777]

As a Libertarian I shall fight this attempt of the tyrannical left to thwart our freedoms, with a spurt of gusto and bated breath! Our press has been free from state interference for three-hundred years and shall sip from the chalice of freedom for three-hundred more!

Im curious how you are going to fight this tyranny?