Missing Milly Dowler's voicemail "hacked by News of the World"

[Citizen66]

hang on, don't get too hung up on the idea of a free press. Just like the free market - the free bit only applies to those who benefit most from it ie the very rich and the very privileged.

If you see newspapers simply as big business products owned by bigger corporate interests the opinions of their leader writer (or indeed the opinion columnist) means absolute shit. As does the threat of being censored.

As with those who defend the concept of a free market, those who defend the concept of free press ususally have the most to profit from it.

And the concept doesn't carry over to what happens on here in any way shape or form then?

 

[butchersapron]

hang on, don't get too hung up on the idea of a free press. Just like the free market - the free bit only applies to those who benefit most from it ie the very rich and the very privileged.

If you see newspapers simply as big business products owned by bigger corporate interests the opinions of their leader writer (or indeed the opinion columnist) means absolute shit. As does the threat of being censored.

As with those who defend the concept of a free market, those who defend the concept of free press ususally have the most to profit from it.

Like smokedout you mean?

 

[frogwoman]

hang on, don't get too hung up on the idea of a free press. Just like the free market - the free bit only applies to those who benefit most from it ie the very rich and the very privileged.

If you see newspapers simply as big business products owned by bigger corporate interests the opinions of their leader writer (or indeed the opinion columnist) means absolute shit. As does the threat of being censored.

As with those who defend the concept of a free market, those who defend the concept of free press ususally have the most to profit from it.

erm .......

 

[frogwoman]

hang on, don't get too hung up on the idea of a free press. Just like the free market - the free bit only applies to those who benefit most from it ie the very rich and the very privileged.

If you see newspapers simply as big business products owned by bigger corporate interests the opinions of their leader writer (or indeed the opinion columnist) means absolute shit. As does the threat of being censored.

As with those who defend the concept of a free market, those who defend the concept of free press ususally have the most to profit from it.

I agree with you to some extent, but you don't see a problem with tighter press regulation under the guise of "preventing" incidents like this (actually they always would happen, possibly even more so?) When they talk about greater regulation of the press they don't just mean greater regulation of Murdoch's newspapers ... "the press" could mean anything, even what people write on here

 

[Citizen66]

Exactly. He's arguing for a regulated internet.

 

[frogwoman]

I want to see a body that I can go to if I'm traduced in the press and get some sort of response even if I'm not a celebrity or a billionaire. Currently journalists get to completely screw ordinary people's lives up with absolutely no possibility of recompense. The simple fact is that a newspaper can print anything it bloody well likes about you and unless you can afford to fund an expensive libel action there is nothing at all you can do about it. If you are lucky with an extreme incident you might get the PCC to force a newspaper to print a tiny apology at the bottom of an inside page that almost nobody reads.

I'll give you an example of how toothless the regulations have been over the last thirty years.

In the late 80s one of the Lambeth Tory councillors sent out a press release to all the national newspapers stating that two Labour councillors were claiming more than twice the expenses of any other councillor. He gave their names, addresses and phone numbers. Within a few hours both were pretty much under siege at home with reporters and photographers camped outside their flats demanding interviews and photographs. We (the local Labour Party) had to smuggle them both out to "safe houses" when one journalist starting poking chocolate bars through the letter box of one flat and asking the councillors children to say something for some sweets. For two days there was a shitstorm of stories about these two "freeloading" councillors. At no point was it mentioned that in fact the reason they claimed more in expenses was that one was blind and the other was a disabled divorcee with three kids, and that both attended pretty much every meeting they were able to get to.

We tried to get some balance in the press coverage. No newspaper was even vaguely prepared to discuss it. Two hard working disabled councillors is not a story. No action was taken by the the PCC despite some heavy duty representations to them. No apologies were ever recieved and no correction ever printed. No action for libel was possible as what the papers had printed as fact was genuinely true, but misleading without all the facts.

That shouldn't be the case. Journalists shouldn't be able to deliberately distort the truth in order to make a more interesting story without at least having to fear some sort of sanction. Journalists should not be allowed to behave like bullying thugs without facing the same sort of action from the police that the rest of us would get if we bahaved that way.

I want a free press, but only to the extent that the rest of us are free. I don't believe that a free press necessarily involves having journalists who show no responsibility at all and who allow no moral scruples to prevent them messing up other people's lives in order to sell a few more papers.

I'm not disagreeing with you but is there not a contradiction here in the fact that britain has one of the harshest libel laws in the world, to the point where rich and powerful people explicitly can decide to sue in britain, and where the law to be tightened up even further under the current set-up then the rich and powerful would be able to basically have even fewer restrictions on what they can and can't do with impunity ...

have we all forgotten the superinjunction scandal where the problem was people NOT being allowed to report certain facts? IMO you can't be against premiership footballers being able to cover up affairs by paying people millions of pounds, and at the same time, argue for a draconian restriction of the press, which will actually prevent scandals like the phone-hacking scandal coming to light in the first place ...

 

[Divisive Cotton]

I agree with you to some extent, but you don't see a problem with tighter press regulation under the guise of "preventing" incidents like this (actually they always would happen, possibly even more so?) When they talk about greater regulation of the press they don't just mean greater regulation of Murdoch's newspapers ... "the press" could mean anything, even what people write on here

oh come on there's massive jump between regulating a national newspaper and an internet discussion board

it's easy to qualify what a daily national newspaper is

 

[killer b]

first they came for the gutter press
but i did not speak out, as i read the guardian...

 

[revlon]

I agree with you to some extent, but you don't see a problem with tighter press regulation under the guise of "preventing" incidents like this (actually they always would happen, possibly even more so?) When they talk about greater regulation of the press they don't just mean greater regulation of Murdoch's newspapers ... "the press" could mean anything, even what people write on here

Of course, regulation and censorship are two different beasts. And the thin end of the edge argument is a powerful one. I'm not advocating a need from greater regulation btw, just the idea of a free press (like the idea of a free market) is a little erroneous.

Should for example Johann hari's opinions be regulated? And does this come under censorship:

 

[frogwoman]

What does "the press" mean anyway?

does it mean something like - the news of the world?
The guardian?
The BBC?
Sky News?
A trot paper?
Trev's fanzine?
Someone's blog?
A leaflet about car park charges someone knocked up in their garden shed?
Posts on a messageboard?
A private email?
Someone saying something to someone else in a pub?

of course i'm not arguing that people shouldn't have the right of reply etc, and that blatant lies and plagiarism (like in hari's case) shouldn't be prevented and a mechanism put in place to punish such people, but what the news of the world did and the phone-hacking etc shouldn't be confused with the overall right of freedom of speech should it?

 

[butchersapron]

Of course, regulation and censorship are two different beasts. And the thin end of the edge argument is a powerful one. I'm not advocating a need from greater regulation btw, just the idea of a free press (like the idea of a free market) is a little erroneous.

Should for example Johann hari's opinions be regulated? And does this come under censorship:

Whose arguing for Hari's opinion to be censored? Why confuse proper attribution of quotes with censorship in such an OTT way? And why do it in the name of regulation?

 

[frogwoman]

oh come on there's massive jump between regulating a national newspaper and an internet discussion board

it's easy to qualify what a daily national newspaper is

How would you regulate it? And do you not think that a certain amount of "regulation" could prevent scandals like this coming to light in the first place?

 

[Citizen66]

Why has this shifted onto regulation any way? What the NOTW were doing was already regulated by criminal law. All that needs to happen is for that law to be applied.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Why has this shifted onto regulation any way? What the NOTW were doing was already regulated by criminal law. All that needs to happen is for that law to be applied.

In short, yes.

 

[frogwoman]

Of course, regulation and censorship are two different beasts. And the thin end of the edge argument is a powerful one. I'm not advocating a need from greater regulation btw, just the idea of a free press (like the idea of a free market) is a little erroneous.

Should for example Johann hari's opinions be regulated? And does this come under censorship:

It doesn't come under censorship no

i know what you're saying, it's just that (at the risk of being called a liberal or whatever) i feel pretty uncomfortable with the idea of censorship itself (and that doesn't mean kicking hari out for plagiarism and the phone hacking etc)



But should the news of the world be closed down for being "scurrilous" and reporting rumours about some celebrity's divorce or whatever? IMO no

 

[revlon]

Whose arguing for Hari's opinion to be censored? Why confuse proper attribution of quotes with censorship in such an OTT way? And why do it in the name of regulation?

so what's to be done with hari? He lied, he made stuff up, he misled the reader about the people he was interviewing and he benefited greatly from that - freedom of the press.

No-ones stopping anyone having an opinion. I'm not for greater regulation, but if you don't see newspapers as an expression of 'free speech' rather as a business to make money then the idea of a free press makes little sense.

 

[butchersapron]

so what's to be done with hari? He lied, he made stuff up, he misled the reader about the people he was interviewing and he benefited greatly from that - freedom of the press.

No-ones stopping anyone having an opinion. I'm not for greater regulation, but if you don't see newspapers as an expression of 'free speech' rather as a business to make money then the idea of a free press makes little sense.

What's to be done about hari? He should be made a laughing stock. Why have you tried to confuse this with censorship? And censorship with regulation? And why are you saying that no one is stopping someone having an opinion and simultaneously asking what 'we' would do about someone's opinion? Why are you arguing for and against regulation whilst saying that you're not? You're all over the shop here.

 

[frogwoman]

see ya point, but I don't think that's quite the same thing ...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Why has this shifted onto regulation any way? What the NOTW were doing was already regulated by criminal law. All that needs to happen is for that law to be applied.

With the corollary that the reasons for the law not being applied effectively are the matter most urgently in need of public scrutiny and corrective action.

That the police have a dodgy relationship with certain sections of the media was always evident every time the cops fucked up and killed people and the gutter press came running to tell cynical lies on their behalf (Hillsborough, JC Menezes 'suspicious behaviour', Ian Tomlinson and the 'hail of bottles' etc. )

This whole story has provided almost daily insights into just how corrupt that relationship had become and I see nothing to convince me that this corruption will be effectively addressed and rooted out.

I think we need to see some cops going to jail along with all the dodgy private investigators and the likes of Rebekah Wade and Andy Coulson.

 

[Citizen66]

so what's to be done with hari? He lied, he made stuff up, he misled the reader about the people he was interviewing and he benefited greatly from that - freedom of the press.

Plagiarism is covered by intellectual property rights. It's a civil matter. Do you think it ought to be a criminal one?

 

[two sheds]

it's just that (at the risk of being called a liberal or whatever) i feel pretty uncomfortable with the idea of censorship itself

I'd not thought of it that way - great to see all these fucking liberals on urban arguing against censorship (and racism and sexism and the rest).

 

[AKA pseudonym]

wow.. this thread has grown epic...
havent been following for a wee while as busy with various groups, chasing all murdochs advertisers ets...
this could be mighty interesting:
#Church Of #England #Ethical #Investment Advisory Group has written to News Corporation: regarding shares worth $6m bit.ly/p0TQa9

CCLA Investment Management Limited
80 Cheapside
London
EC2V 6DZ

We have a dedicated Client Service Team to help with your enquiries.

Freephone

0800 022 3505

Fax

0844 561 5126

Email

clientservices@ccla.co.uk

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Why has this shifted onto regulation any way? What the NOTW were doing was already regulated by criminal law. All that needs to happen is for that law to be applied.

Because the debate has clearly shifted from being about just one rogue reporter to one rogue newspaper to what it is now: one rogue industry. It's more than about breaking the law but about a long-term culture of lies, misinformation and shady activity typified by Eric's previous experiences as he described in a previous post

 

[frogwoman]

It's just the old i despise what you say but i'd defend to the death the right to say it thing i guess, and if I want to read about a paedo with fifty legs or someone's dog earning 100,000,000 in benefits, or about which celebrities are shagging each other, why shouldn't i? and why does it make me a bad person?

the papers' views are often fucking despicable obviously, but i've never met anyone who believed exactly what was said in the sun, and if they did they'd be pretty confused because they often say different things on different days etc ... and i'd also think that a few of the people in liverpool etc who boycott the sun probably have views similar to the stereotype of it's readers ... as do many people who read the guardian etc !

I agree that the phone hacking thing is fucking despicable, im also not sorry to see the news of the world shut down, and its great that murdoch is being so irreperably damaged by it all, it's great that they are so fucked, and some of the developments are fucking beautiful ...... but the way that some people are using this (or beginning to use it) as an excuse to call for greater restrictions on the press as a whole ... it might be me but there's something a bit off about the whole thing ...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

if I want to read about a paedo with fifty legs or someone's dog earning 100,000,000 in benefits, or about which celebrities are shagging each other, why shouldn't i?

Because the process by which those stories are brought to you hurts people. That's why you shouldn't.

 

[love detective]

which tabloid was it you used to write for again lbj?

 

[agricola]

I'm not disagreeing with you but is there not a contradiction here in the fact that britain has one of the harshest libel laws in the world, to the point where rich and powerful people explicitly can decide to sue in britain, and where the law to be tightened up even further under the current set-up then the rich and powerful would be able to basically have even fewer restrictions on what they can and can't do with impunity ...

have we all forgotten the superinjunction scandal where the problem was people NOT being allowed to report certain facts? IMO you can't be against premiership footballers being able to cover up affairs by paying people millions of pounds, and at the same time, argue for a draconian restriction of the press, which will actually prevent scandals like the phone-hacking scandal coming to light in the first place ...

Exactly. The problem of a lack of access to dealing with a libel on a member of the public could be solved easily by setting an upper limit that could be charged in fees by the lawyers (personally a low set amount combined with a % of any award would be ideal), by not requiring proof of sufficient assets (to pay the winners' lawyers) prior to any action taking place, and by having a decent interpretation of the human rights act around the issues of privacy and libel. It isnt a problem that needs censorship to solve.

 

[killer b]

how about newspapers paying half of any libel payout into a 'libel aid' fund, which can be used in a similar way to legal aid was by people who can't afford to sue themselves?

 

[agricola]

how about newspapers paying half of any libel payout into a 'libel aid' fund, which can be used in a similar way to legal aid was by people who can't afford to sue themselves?

A nice idea, but it would just encourage lawyers to keep fees high.

 

[frogwoman]

Btw, I'm not a regular reader of the sun, I've bought the sun maybe once or twice over the last five years, but i've often read it at work or on buses D) etc ... i agree, and have made the point repeatedly, that what the phone hackers and the people telling deliberate lies (about Hillsborough etc) are fucking scum, that they need to be punished by the full extent of the law, or at least deprived of the opportunity to have a journalistic career ever again, and that my sympathy is limited for the journalists and others involved in the production of such bile, but to compare it to something (as others - tho not you - have done on the thread) like Der Sturmer or something? (and bear in mind that Der Sturmer etc emerged - and floursihed - in an environment where the very press freedom that people are saying should be limited due to scandals like this, or that isn't important cos its just another business etc, was even more restricted than it is now, or non-existent)

We've just had another fucking scandal because of the papers' INABILITY to report the facts (about a footballers divorce ffs) have people on here forgotten so readily about that??