Why media conglomerates should be broken up

based on a WEF photo of Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch addresses a session of the World Economic Forum in DavosThe hacking trials aren’t even half the issue. The hard, unavoidable fact remains that the power of the Murdoch press – the real unspoken stain behind the Brooks-Coulson trials – is undiminished and has still not been broken. It is best illustrated by the run-up of events to the long-planned Murdoch campaign to take over BSkyB, a scheme that would have added some £8bn to the Murdoch empire as well as giving him a virtual stranglehold over the British media.

It began with Murdoch’s calculation in 2009 that a switch of the Sun to the Tories would make them indebted to him – perhaps even outlined in an informal deal – over his BSkyB objective. The game plan then began with James Murdoch meeting Cameron at a hotel in London in September 2009 to tell him that the Sun was switching sides. Continue reading →

How far is too far when it comes to the freedom of the press?

rupert-murdochI believe in freedom of the press. It’s a seemingly obvious statement for the vast majority of people in this country. And yet it’s a caveat many opposed to the Paul Dacre and Rupert Murdoch position on press regulation feel compelled to make.

Listening to the hysterical reaction of most UK newspapers as regards the new Parliamentary backed Royal Charter; you’d think John Stuart Mill, John Wilkes and George Orwell were spinning in their graves. They would have us believe the new reforms throw up a question for which there is only a binary answer: Either we have a “free press” free of political interference or we do not and we risk the very end of democracy. But I’m afraid the reality of this debate is that it’s about shades of grey. Continue reading →

Doctors don’t regulate themselves, so why should the press?

newspapers, pic by 123rf.comFor eight months now the press have been allowed to pursue every finagling twist and turn to avoid being held to account after the horrors of the hacking scandal in the hope that memories of their illegal behaviour will gradually fade and they can then return yet again to business as usual, like the banks.

The outstanding issue is not about the details of the Leveson proposals (which have been almost universally accepted) so much as about the nature of press freedom. If press freedoms are to be preserved (and nobody dissents from that), then, it is argued, the regime must be genuinely voluntary. That immediately raises two questions. What is press freedom? And if the regime is ‘genuinely voluntary’, doesn’t that give those newspapers who have broken the law (and nearly all newspapers engaged in hacking on a big scale) a veto on anything they dislike?

Continue reading →

Cameron forced to backtrack over Leveson

ameron has just, shortly before 1pm today, conceded a deal over the Leveson proposals for press regulation which provides for everything that the Labour & LibDem parties were demanding. He did that, not because he believes it, but because he knew he would lose the vote and will do anything to avoid the humiliation of a parliamentary defeat. It is a triumph for Ed Miliband and his Labour team who have (rightly) not tried to rub his face in it – however much he might deserve it, given his back-room cabals with the newspaper publishers to block a new democratic settlement at any cost – but have consented to tease out an all-party agreement as being the best solution, so long as it contains all the elements needed to ensure that an abusive press can be effectively held to account. And this agreement does contain that. Continue reading →

Leveson should not apply to the not-for-profit blogosphere

Mark Ferguson raises an important issue which has been neglected in the last minute deal-making and it is important albeit not what most politicians are currently hacked-off about — on the important question of whether the deal meets the requirement of adequate statutory backing see the Spectator or Labour List, although be warned that they broadly reflect the (convenient) stance of the Leaders of their own side. Nor is it the question of media ownership, which politicians fail to raise but Mark Seddon does so here.

The issue is the internet – to which Leveson devoted just one page in his very lengthy report, though he has since spoken about the issue. In the long run, when the importance of print mdeia diminishes, it is what matters most and it concerns not only the so-called freedom of the press (aka the unregulated freedom of the rich press barons) but the more important freedom of speech. Continue reading →