Murdoch Scum

[Gringo]

There may be a cross-party consensus that now is the right time to rein back the massively damaging power of the media. In that situation, there's protection for all in moving together, and being out of step with that popular mood, as Cameron so clearly has been, is actually more damaging.

22 years ago there was a similar cross-party consenus that the beast needed taming

Ali"]Back when I was a journalist, I can remember then Culture Secretary David Mellor warning the press they were ‘drinking in the last chance saloon.’ The Press Complaints Commission was born, a body of the press, by the press, for the press, and one of the reasons self-regulation has failed, and the press have been drinking away merrily in many saloons since.

self regulation for the media ==> corruption

self regulation for the MPs ==> corruption

self regulation for the police ==> corruption

self regulation for the bankers ==> corruption

[peterms]

Rusbridger's point on this is a good one. It's basically that there are dangers in statutory regulation of a sector whose role is to challenge the makers of statutes, but that what the PCC calls regulation is quite far removed from real regulation. So we have neither one thing nor the other.

The PCC is a very good mediator and does a lot of valuable backroom work on privacy and on settling complaints. The trouble is that it sails under the flag of "regulator."

Real regulators (think lawyers, doctors, utility companies) have real powers. The PCC was quite unable to get to the truth of what was going on because it's not remotely equipped to do so. Essentially, in 2009, it wrote to the present NoW editor asking if everything was all right, and accepted Myler's assurances that they were (even though he wasn't around at the time). That's not regulation.

So the PCC should either get itself the powers to investigate (compel witness, call for evidence etc), or it should rebrand itself as a mediation and arbitration service.

What he doesn't address though is how these powers could work if they were non-statutory. How might a more powerful PCC compel Glenn Mulcaire or James Murdoch not only to attend, but to disclose information? And what sanctions could it have? In the end, only sanctions which cost the media very large amounts of money, backed by the threat of withdrawing their licence to operate, will work. Something like the GMC might work - independent of government, but backed by statute and with power to withdraw registration.

[Anthony]

Rusbridger's point on this is a good one. It's basically that there are dangers in statutory regulation of a sector whose role is to challenge the makers of statutes, but that what the PCC calls regulation is quite far removed from real regulation. So we have neither one thing nor the other.

The PCC is a very good mediator and does a lot of valuable backroom work on privacy and on settling complaints. The trouble is that it sails under the flag of "regulator."

Real regulators (think lawyers, doctors, utility companies) have real powers. The PCC was quite unable to get to the truth of what was going on because it's not remotely equipped to do so. Essentially, in 2009, it wrote to the present NoW editor asking if everything was all right, and accepted Myler's assurances that they were (even though he wasn't around at the time). That's not regulation.

So the PCC should either get itself the powers to investigate (compel witness, call for evidence etc), or it should rebrand itself as a mediation and arbitration service.

What he doesn't address though is how these powers could work if they were non-statutory. How might a more powerful PCC compel Glenn Mulcaire or James Murdoch not only to attend, but to disclose information? And what sanctions could it have? In the end, only sanctions which cost the media very large amounts of money, backed by the threat of withdrawing their licence to operate, will work. Something like the GMC might work - independent of government, but backed by statute and with power to withdraw registration.

Make it part of OFCOM or report into it or something. Not quite sure how it would work though.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

I quite like this picture.

What would you call it, if you were giving it a title? Haunted? Nemesis? Karma?

A title, a question is better I think.

"Still got some voice mails to deliver to Dave?"

[islingtonclaret]

I quite like this picture.

What would you call it, if you were giving it a title? Haunted? Nemesis? Karma?

A title, a question is better I think.

"Still got some voice mails to deliver to Dave?"

Surely a caption competition for this photo?

"That bald bloke in the car behind had better not be Ian Hislop"

[snowychap]

Make it part of OFCOM or report into it or something. Not quite sure how it would work though.

Neither am I. We've spent much of the last three decades (and maybe more) moving away from the idea of checks and balances in our system to 'self-regulation' is best, the executive screwing more power for itself, 'rebalancing a system in favour of...' and all that jazz.

The minor manoeuvres away from this, politically, in the coalition (backbench business comittee, fixed terms, &c.) are but sops and, in the case of fixed terms, a badly managed one.

I don't believe there is the patience to deal with all of these things in a sensible manner nor the thoughtfulness to consider problems, solutions and their potential outcomes.

If we do anything, there will probably be some kind of reckless reaction to these event which will cause further problems down the line but, in all likelihood, the essence of things won't change because the defenders of the system will still rely on the claim that, as we periodically have the option to vote for Cerberus, the public has power.

[RunRickyRun]

Just in case you missed it:

[Gringo]

What he doesn't address though is how these powers could work if they were non-statutory. How might a more powerful PCC compel Glenn Mulcaire or James Murdoch not only to attend, but to disclose information? And what sanctions could it have? In the end, only sanctions which cost the media very large amounts of money, backed by the threat of withdrawing their licence to operate, will work. Something like the GMC might work - independent of government, but backed by statute and with power to withdraw registration.

You can't use regulation against voldemort, he's too powerful.

A cross-party committee of MPs abandoned plans to force the News International chief executive, Rebekah Brooks, to testify last year after they were warned that their private lives would be investigated, a former member alleged last night.

Adam Price, a former Plaid Cymru MP, told Channel 4 News that a group of committee members shied away from the "nuclear option" of issuing a warrant for Brooks to attend after a senior Tory warned that News International would "go for us".

Adrian Sanders, a Liberal Democrat member of the committee, said that the Tory chairman of the committee, John Whittingdale, had issued the warning. "The chairman himself had made some sort of allusion towards what could happen were we to go down this route. But there was no surprise in that because it was sort of, 'Well, yeh, we knew that from that beginning'."

News corp needs to be dismembered, then regulation may stand a chance.

[tonyh29]

Didn't Brown attend Brooks wedding... Not because he personally wanted so almost as if he was there in an official capacity .... Wonder if he was representing his party or his country ?

Glad to see Baldwin finally getting dragged into this now , should stop red Ed trying to act all holy

[blunther]

Very OT, but I can't imagine reading an intelligent debate like this on a SHA forum....

[Gringo]

Yes both punch and judy parties have been sucking murdoch for a long time. I think that's been well established and haven't seen anyone argue different. It's only the punch and judy supporters that are keen to see this from a punch vs judy perspective.

[peterms]

News corp needs to be dismembered, then regulation may stand a chance.

That's where the Ofcom position on whether someone continues to be a fit and proper person is interesting.

[tonyh29]

Sorry Gringo but the last few pages gave examples of where labour had tried to make out they didn't cosy up to Murdoch or even that it stopped with Blair.. So asking in what capacity Brown attended the wedding is a fair question

[bickster]

AH but thats the whole hilarity of this for me, the punch and judy parties giving it the "you were in bed with him too" line. Showing themselves up to be the odious pricks that they are. Neither red or Blue is coming out of this in any good light both were held to ransom by the Capitalist Stalinist.

[Gringo]

Sorry Gringo but the last few pages gave examples of where labour had tried to make out they didn't cosy up to Murdoch or even that it stopped with Blair.. So asking in what capacity Brown attended the wedding is a fair question

Nah, the last few pages gave examples of posters rubbishing claims of where nulabour had tried to make out they didn't cosy up to Murdoch.

[RunRickyRun]

Full Brooks Address the day after they announced the folding of NOTW

I wonder if David Brent gave her any tips?

[Awol]

Just in case you missed it:

Was I the only one thinking "Go on Steve, chin him!" The contempt on his slightly snarling face was fully deserved.

[Condimentalist]

This is quickly turning into my favourite news story in years. The situation with Brooks seems untenable to me. Having had both parties' leaders saying she should go, and with the BSkyB deal (which I still think will go through) on the table, I think she may be forced out.

[TheDon]

Full Brooks Address the day after they announced the folding of NOTW

I wonder if David Brent gave her any tips?

I really can't see how she could give that address with a straight face "we've had to close the paper because it's toxic to the core, but hey, I get to keep my job!"

She just rambles on for ever without actually saying anything as well, she'd make an awesome politician, guess that sort of thing rubs off on you when you spend so long associating with them.

[bickster]

Did the BBC just put on the kids film Holes with Sigourney Weaver starring as the evil flame haired boss who likes to bully people on with a glint in their eye? It did replace the advertised programme at short notice...