Teresa May is right to say the government would introduce legislation to underpin an independent regulation of the press if the press itself does not come up with a suitable plan, and soon. That’s a good negotiating tactic. Her legions of critics will say: “But it’s not Government policy, listen to the PM.” But there
Here’s my marks on Leveson’s report on the 10 issues I said he must not fluff in my blog on Tuesday. 1 Regulation must have legal backing: we can’t have the publishers opting out. Got this one right. Good start. One mark. 2 Editors and publishers, including owners, should have responsibility for what their employees
Ten things Leveson must not fluff 1 Regulation must have legal backing: we can’t have the publishers opting out. 2 Editors and publishers, including owners, should have responsibility for what their employees do, as in corporate manslaughter. 3 Newspapers need to establishe internal compliance operations to implement a newly written code. 4 Clarify what is
Don’t expect that we will ever have total freedom of speech in content. It is an object of libertarians. But unobtainable. On the eve of Leveson’s report next week keep this in mind. He will propose restrictions on the freedom of speech of the press. And many will criticism him for restricting freedom of speech.
We are debating the relationship politicians and the media in the Leveson Inquiry. What, then, is the role of the media in the development of America’s most important political development, the rise of the Tea Party (TP)? Anthony DiMaggio has a startling answer in his book: The Rise of the Tea Party. Far from being
The Leveson inquiry has to join up three major criteria in the regulation of the press: each with a contradiction in them. They are: How should the public be involved? How can it be independent of both the press itself and the government of the day? And How can it be voluntary