Media

From WikiCorporates
Revision as of 16:15, 17 September 2020 by GrayanOne (talk | contribs) (IPSO)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Media Policy, Power and Politics

  • See openDemocracy Investigating press freedom
  • See also The Bureau of Investigative Journalism Fake News
  • Feb.14.2018: Local newspapers play a key role in our democracy and their decline is concerning. Regional papers are in declines, but there are massive increases in visitors to the websites; however, there is widespread concern within the industry about the quality of journalism being published online, with 'clickbait' often ruling the roost and the performance of reporters being judged solely on visitor numbers as opposed to the standard of their copy. Just as concerning is the growing inability of local newspapers to properly scrutnise decisions being made by councils. But declining incomes (because of declining circulation) have placed huge strain on the resources available. "The decisions made by councils affect every aspect of people's daily lives, from the roads they drive on to the services that collect their rubbish. If those decisions are not scrutinised by a local newspaper, then who is going to do it?" Electoral Reform Society, Robert Cox
  • Oct.17.2005: We need to be told. When journalists report propaganda instead of the truth, the consequences can be catastrophic - as one largely forgotten instance demonstrates. At the height of the slaughter known as the First World War, prime minister David Lloyd GeorgeWikipedia-W.svg confided to C P Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian: "If people really knew [the truth], the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of course they don't know, and can't know". (...) What happened in Indonesia, and continues to happen, is almost a mirror image of the attack on Iraq. Both countries have riches coveted by the west; both had dictators installed by the west to facilitate the passage of their resources; and in both countries, blood-drenched Anglo-American actions have been disguised by propaganda willingly provided by journalists prepared to draw the necessary distinctions between Saddam's regime ("monstrous") and Suharto's ("moderate" and "stable"). The New Statesman, John Pilger
  • Also see May Ministry, Articles, Feb.07.2018
  • See also Leveson Inquiry
  • See also Media Manipulation

Press Recognition Panel (PRP)

  • Press Recognition PanelWikipedia-W.svg
  • Created in 2013, the Panel's function is to carry out activities relating to the recognition of press regulators. In Oct.2016, IMPRESS became the UK's first recognised press regulator after its application was approved by the PRP Board.
  • Oct.30.2013: Press regulation royal charter given go-ahead by the Queen. Government's plan receives royal seal of approval after court of appeal rejects attempt by newspapers to block charter. Newspapers have promised to continue their legal challenges and will press ahead with setting up their own new regulator #IPSO. But in one of many last-minute changes to the system of regulation, the govt has said the new system will come into force until a year after establishment, taking it beyond the 2015 general election. The Guardian, Patrick Wintour

As a result of the implementation of recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry into the UK press, which was established by David Cameron in mid-2011, a Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press was granted in 2013, which established a Press Recognition Panel responsible for approving, overseeing and monitoring a new press regulatory body or bodies. Once approved by the Press Recognition Panel, the new press regulatory body or bodies would be responsible for overseeing participating publishers. In addition to the Royal Charter and establishment of the new Press Recognition Panel, legislation has been passed that provides that publishers who are not members of an approved regulator may be liable for exemplary damages in certain cases where such damages are not currently awarded and, if Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 is enacted, the payment of costs for both parties in libel actions in certain circumstances. In late 2013, publications representing the majority of the industry in the UK, including News UK, entered into binding contracts to form an alternative new regulator instead, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO). IPSO, which began operating in September 2014, currently has no plans to apply for recognition from the Press Recognition Panel. IPSO has an independent chairman and a 12-member board, the majority of which are independent. IPSO oversees the Editors' Code of Practice, requires members to implement appropriate internal governance processes and requires self-reporting of any failures, provides a complaints handling service, has the ability to require publications to print corrections and has the power to investigate serious or systemic breaches of the Editors’ Code of Practice and levy fines of up to £1m. IPSO has also introduced a pilot arbitration scheme to resolve claims against publications. The burdens IPSO imposes on the print media, including the Company’s newspaper publishing businesses in the UK, may result in competitive disadvantages versus other forms of media and may increase the costs of regulatory compliance. Link

News Media Association (NMA)

  • x

Press Standards Board of Finance (PresBof)

  • The funding body for the existing industry regulator, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC).


Newspaper Publishers Association (NPA)

  • x


Newspaper Society

  • x


Professional Publishers Association

x

Media Standards Trust

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Standards_Trust#Hacked_Off (out of date)
  • http://mediastandardstrust.org/about/
  • An independent registered charity which aims to foster high standards in news media on behalf of the public. We’re a "think-and-do-tank", conducting research on important media issues but also running projects (eg. building websites, running prizes and organising events) to promote quality, transparency and accountability in news. We are committed to the freedom of the press, and are not aligned with any political party or particular media company (though we work with a variety of news organisations and individual journalists and developers).

Projects

The Transparency Initiative

Journalisted

Hacked Off

Hacked-Off-2020.png
See main article: Leveson Inquiry

Media Regulation

IMPRESS

  • Independent Monitor for the PRESS = IMPRESS
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMPRESS
  • http://www.impress.press/
  • IMPRESS is the UK's only genuinely independent, Leveson-compliant press regulator.
  • Board: Walter Merricks CBE (Chair), Deborah Arnott, Iain Christie, Martin Hickman, Emma Jones, David Leigh, Máire Messenger Davies, David Robinson (Treasurer and Senior Independent Board Member), Patrick Swaffer, Andrea Wills.
  • Mar.01.2018: Media companies may quit regulator Impress. The state-recognised press regulator bankrolled by money from a Mosley family trust is facing a crisis as members consider cutting ties over the racist leaflets scandal. The Times, Matthew Moore
  • Feb.16.2018: Impress board member David Leigh: "I am against Max Mosley's attempt to put cat back in the bag... but press must tell whole story". The thing about stories – as any journalist knows – is that it depends how you tell them. Some newspapers tell a very good story about press freedom. They say that they protect it, whilst regulators, politicians and celebrities threaten it. They cast anyone who disagrees with them as a rogue or villain. The truth is more complicated. Big newspapers are gatekeepers. They control the information that flows through their pages. They decide which stories get told and how they get told. Some newspapers are strongly influenced by their commercial interests. They suggest, by association, that Impress is a regulator that will protect the interests of fascists or "press-"haters". They ignore every bit of evidence that points in the other direction. Press Gazette, David Leigh
  • Oct.15.2017: Mainstream Press Humiliated In Attempt To Silence Independent Regulator. Impress is the UK's only independent press regulator and claims to be the only one compliant with the Leveson Report recommendations. The attempt by publications that have reason not to want the existence of an independent, Leveson-compliant regulator to de-certify Impress is unsurprising. The NMA (News Media Association) represents the largest newspaper publishers in the UK and had asked the High Court to overturn the decision of the PRP (Press Recognition Panel) to recognise Impress as a standards-compliant press regulator. The court rejected the NMA's application in its entirety and confirmed that Impress meets the standards required by the Royal Charter of an independent and effective press regulator. The judge decided that aspects of the NMA's legal arguments rested on a "fallacy" and said of one important pillar of NMA’s case: "NMA's argument is hopeless on the facts". The judgement goes on to list other flaws in the NMA's legal argument. SkwawkBox, '
  • Jan.15.2017: Max Mosley denies money to fund new press regulator was put together by his fascist father. The Independent Press Regulation Trust agreed to a £3.8 million, 4-year funding deal for Impress and said this money has been guaranteed by the Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust. Newspapers could soon be forced to pay their opponents' legal costs linked to libel and privacy actions, even if they win in court, if they are not signed up to an officially-recognised regulator. Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which contains the provisions, has yet to be implemented - much to the frustration of victims of press abuse. Most newspapers have signed up to rival regulator IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation), the press-funded body which has not sought official recognition. Mosley said: "they want to go on marking their own homework, as they have ever since the war, despite seven investigations. The press do not want to make sure that life is fair. All I want is somebody who has got no money to be able to sue in just the same way as I can". Conservative former culture secretary John Whittingdale said he did not believe the govt will repeal Section 40. He said "What I'm arguing for is not to implement it, but it will remain on the statute book. And if it then became apparent IPSO was failing to work, not delivering effective regulation and the press were behaving in a way that was wholly unacceptable as they were 10 years ago, then there might be an argument at that time to think in that case we are going to have to take further measures, of which Section 40 might be one. The Daily Mail Online, Shari Miller
  • Oct.25.2016: Max Mosley-funded press regulator would be 'attack on free speech'. The #News Media Association (NMA) said it would be dangerous for approval to be given to Impress by the #Press Recognition Panel (PRP) because it could lead to the triggering of legislation that will expose newspapers not signed up to its regime to pay the costs of both sides regardless of whether a complaint is rejected. Lynne Anderson, the deputy chief executive of the NMA, said that Impress was "not independent, not funded by the industry but by a wealthy donor, it has no significant relevant publishers, it has no code of standards and it is not viable". Most major newspapers have their complaints handled by #IPSO, which has refused to accept recognition by the PRP, arguing it would amount to state regulation. Others, such as the Guardian and the Financial Times, have their own system of regulation – and none is a member of Impress. Anderson added: "Recognising Impress would not create an effective press regulator but it would be an attack on free speech, imposing on 90% of the newspaper and magazine industry who have joined an effective self-regulator, IPSO, a system of punitive costs and damages designed to coerce them into compliance with a state-sponsored system of regulation". Recognition of any press regulator is meant to trigger section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which would expose any newspaper not signed up to its regime to exemplary damages in libel cases and impose so-called cost-shifting. Supporters of the Section 40 legislation, which received cross-party support in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry, claim it will help those with limited resources take on newspapers that print false stories about them. It is also designed to protect newspapers from paying costs awarded by judges if those taking them to court do not try working through an arbitration process. IPSO's chair, Sir Alan Moses, said the UK press would be "doomed" if it signed up to state-backed regulation. The Guardian, Jasper Jackson

IPSO

IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) is neither "independent" nor "self-regulating", but is funded and run by the mainstream press to protect themselves.
  • Dec.10.2019: Why do I have to break an embargo in order to expose press lies about Labour? Two weeks ago, Ipso ruled against the Mail on Sunday, which promptly asked for a review, thus enabling it to delay a public retraction of its lies about Labour's scrapping of capital gains tax exemption on main homes. Thus the lie will stand until after the election; and "if elections are won by lies, we find ourselves governed by liars". George Monbiot, The Guardian.
  • Jun.14.2018: Another failure to tackle fake news about climate change. The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has today demonstrated again that it is unwilling to take action against fake news about climate change that appears in its member newspapers. It is the latest example of the difference between IPSO’s actions and its advertising campaign, launched in April, which claims “IPSO regulated publications are committed to high standards and accurate reporting”. In fact, its new ruling shows that newspapers are free to publish inaccurate and misleading information about climate change because IPSO treats facts as opinions. ... So with Mr Booker’s claims being so manifestly untrue, why did IPSO decide that there had been no breach of the Editors' Code of Practice? The answer lies in IPSO’s weird interpretation of the Code as it applies to climate change, where it consistently treats all information as just a matter of opinion. In this case, newspapers are permitted by IPSO to publish as much demonstrably inaccurate and misleading information as they like, as long as it is labelled as ‘opinion’. IPSO also told me that it does not need to consult scientists or any other experts before deciding on complaints about the misreporting of climate change. IPSO's consistent failure to act against fake news about climate change has many consequences. It confirms that the UK’s system of self-regulation for newspapers remains hopelessly broken. It is not surprising that many newspapers, including The Guardian, The Independent and the Financial Times, have refused to join IPSO. IPSO’s failure also helps to undermine the public's confidence in the integrity of journalists. Most importantly of all, IPSO’s actions are allowing newspapers to harm the public interest and putting people at greater risk from the impacts of climate change. It is the systematic misreporting by newspapers like The Sunday Telegraph that is contributing to public confusion about climate change. But IPSO’s ruling will delight Mr Booker and his fellow campaigners at the Global Warming Policy Foundation. In Feb.2018, the Foundation published an error-strewn leaflet by Mr Booker which accused climate scientists of "groupthink". Mr Booker neglected to mention that the Foundation has been sanctioned by the Charity Commission because it only promotes climate change denial. Mr Booker will no doubt continue to use The Sunday Telegraph to spread fake news about climate change, with the blessing of the newspaper’s editor, Allister Heath, and of the hopeless IPSO. CCCEP.
  • Feb.28.2018: Is IPSO fit for purpose? No surprises here. In 2017, the Daily Mail transgressed the press regulator's rules 50 times, meaning it was by far the biggest offender. It breached various clauses of the Editors' Code of Practice, including accuracy, harassment and privacy. The Daily Mail chalked up 50 offences. The Daily Express was second with 19, then The Sun with 17, the Daily Telegraph with 10, The Times with 9, the Daily Star with 6 and the Daily Mirror with 5. What these figures show more than anything is that the current IPSO sanctions are ineffective. (good graph here). Twitter, Reddit, IPSO Tabloid Corrections, '
  • Nov.15.2016: Why is IPSO not fining the right-wing press for their outright lies about Jeremy Corbyn? It was with loud Twitter-trumpeting that The Sun proclaimed Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to be dancing his way to the Cenotaph ahead of Remembrance Day commemorations. The Daily Mail's online section was slightly more circumspect, but again reported the same story. This one has also since been removed. IPSO has the power to issue fines up to £1m for failings. But repeat liars in the right-wing press somehow manage to evade punishment time and time again from a supposedly "Independent" press standards organisation. Evolve Politics, Robert Walsh
  • May.06.2014: The Men Behind IPSO, Part 2: PAUL DACRE. Dacre, more than any other individual, is responsible for the decision to reject the Leveson recommendations, ignore Parliament and – through the IPSO project – present an illusion of reform rather than its substance. Dacre bears a heavy personal responsibility for the failure of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). The Leveson Report: "It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the self-regulatory system was run for the benefit of the press not of the public." (more...) Hacked Off, '
  • Note: Hacked Off have done a whole series on this here: http://hackinginquiry.org/comment/the-men-behind-ipso-part-2-paul-dacre/
  • Search: https://hackinginquiry.org/?s=paul+dacre
  • Board: Sir Alan Moses (Chair), Richard Hill MBE (Deputy Chair), Anne Lapping, Sir Martyn Lewis, Mehmuda Mian, Charles McGhee, Keith Perch, Ruth Sawtell, Claire Singers, Charles Wilson.