Leverson report

15 messages
30/11/2012 at 17:55

an independent regulatory body like the FSA?

fat lot of good they did.


30/11/2012 at 18:19

ok thanks for clarifying. it's newspapers and not financial services. i understand that the point being that an independent regulatory body (established in 2000) didn't stop rampant financial mismanagement in our banks.

and unethical behaviour in the banking sector wasn't even done in secret...it was done in plain sight. at least News International had the decency to be sneaky.

i'm not opposed necessarily (and I signed your petition)...i just don't want another toothless regulator. I would like more details as to how it would work.

the Daily Telegraph illegally obtained the information on MPs expenses and published them in the public interest. that is not the type of journalism I would like this proposed body to discourage.


Edited: 30/11/2012 at 18:21
30/11/2012 at 18:22

and there's no need to roll your eyes mr cheeky pants.

30/11/2012 at 19:22

We live in a society where only a minority cares about politics, and an even smaller minority understands the implications. On this basis any government elected today will succeed or fail based upon the support of the major papers, it would be a political suicide to support curbs to their behaviour. If you were Prime Minister would you agree to the recommendations?

30/11/2012 at 19:34
The free press such as in Saudi or Kuwait ? Or a free press that oversteps the mark sometimes and needs to be slapped sometimes ?
30/11/2012 at 19:41

EKGO - if I were a politician I'd be totally in favour of a more closely-regulated press.



30/11/2012 at 20:51
In an ideal world where politicians worked for the people, I'd agree Dude, id love to see politicians act in a responsible way, but we're not in that situation and Cameron will use his instinct for self preservation, as it is inevitable that whichever Government regulates the press they will lose their support and will be unelectable for maybe two elections at least. Don't expect altruistic actions.
02/12/2012 at 13:52

I think we, as consumers also have a responsibility.  Don't buy the papers that print the rubbish you don't want to read.  Complain if your normally respectable paper prints something you think is wrong.

The regulators are only going to be able to enforce what we as the public want.  We can lobby the politicians to get them to create the sort of regulator that we want, but how do the politicians know what that is?

The trouble is that lots of people are willing to criticise and agree that the current situation isn't ideal, but not many people actually get off their arses and do anything about it

02/12/2012 at 14:05

I agree that people who buy filth like The Sun are just as corrupt as the people that write it.

02/12/2012 at 15:29

There will be many reasons people read the Sun, some for the sheer comic reasons, then there's the Tits or whatever, live and let live.

I could describe it's readers as disinterested or lacking understanding in real politics, and maybe that would be a little crass, but to call them corrupt is not reasonable

02/12/2012 at 15:32

I intentionally didn't name any specific papers as everybody will have their own idea of what a good paper is.

You might buy a paper for a specific section - for example a lot of people claim to buy the Sun because it has a good coverage of sport.  That doesn't stop you from complaining to the paper if they also write stuff you find offensive or if you feel that their tactic for getting stories are immoral

02/12/2012 at 16:28

I was reading a fishing magazine a few years back at break time at work. A lad sat next to me held up a copy of The Daily Sport and said "You should read a proper paper like this mate. It's got loads of tits in it." 

Says it all about some people, doesn't it? 

04/12/2012 at 10:44

ok, here's my sixpenneth

Leverson looks in depth at an industry that has allowed many to bring it into disrepute. He listens, considers, clearly decides that some are abject liars. He suggests a range of solutions to improve things - accepting that it is never going to be perfect.

It is clear that the current self-regulation is ineffective.

I cannot actually see what is wrong with what he is proposing. I understand Cameron's lack of courage. But why instigate the review in the first place?

In the words of Midnight Oil, I think it was, ' We have Captains not courageous..'

Cheerful Dave    pirate
04/12/2012 at 14:00

But then Leveson went and ruined his report into standards in the media by copying bits of it from that well-known infallible source of information, wikipedia.

The current situation does seem to be ineffective, but it's not really self-regulation.  Hacking into phones is, and was, illegal, and despite what some journalists may have believed, you're not allowed to self-regulate when it comes to the law of the land.  I don't really see how any new regulator would be any more effective than the police in such things - they're all open to bribery & corruption, or simply turning a blind eye.

05/12/2012 at 09:15

Look at what they have in Italy, A loony who owns a media empire decides to make himself prime minister, and by using the power of the media, he can!

We'd love you to add a comment! Please login or take half a minute to register as a free member
15 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums