I Think I've Found P Ps True...
Society & Culture0 min ago
Daily Mail Editor And The Press Complaints Commission
The already hugely discreditted PCC, the supposedly self regulating Press Watchdog has Paul Dacre, the Daily Mail Editor as its chairman of the editors' code of practice committee.
In view of this weeks events, the Ralph Milliband debacle, and his failure to defend his paper or apologise, surely he must resign from his position at the PCC.?
Failure to do so will just lend even more ammunition to those supporting Leveson's recommendation for a completely indepentent watchdog.
Should he removed asap?
In view of this weeks events, the Ralph Milliband debacle, and his failure to defend his paper or apologise, surely he must resign from his position at the PCC.?
Failure to do so will just lend even more ammunition to those supporting Leveson's recommendation for a completely indepentent watchdog.
Should he removed asap?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have made a balls up. The Editors' Code of Practice Committee is independent of the PCC but it advises it.
http://
So I'd like to amend the question. The Editors' Code of Practice Committee cannot have Dacre as its head after this weeks antics? Surely he has brought it into disrepute.
http://
So I'd like to amend the question. The Editors' Code of Practice Committee cannot have Dacre as its head after this weeks antics? Surely he has brought it into disrepute.
Dacre should not be within a million miles of any regulatory function of the press.
As far as the media goes, self-regulation is not working. It does not provide sufficient redress for those harmed by a story which wrecks their reputations- rather like Chris Jeffries over the Bristol murders episode. People rarely get a right of reply, and when they do, the paper in question often hides it away, or ,like with Miliband, use it as an opportunity to simply repeat the baseless allegations that prompted the request for a right of reply in the first place.
Some change is long overdue, since the Press have shown themselves incapable of restraint, repeatedly crossing the line when publishing stories.
A regulatory framework truly independent of the Press and with the power to enforce and direct things like where the paper must publish a prominent apology, for instance, or a right of reply, or that can act as a arbitrator to assign damages payments etc is necessary.
The press whine that with greater regulation, they will be handcuffed, muzzled, unable to report on contentious stories for fear of the regulator, but that is complete rubbish; Papers will always have the public interest defence where appropriate.
As far as the media goes, self-regulation is not working. It does not provide sufficient redress for those harmed by a story which wrecks their reputations- rather like Chris Jeffries over the Bristol murders episode. People rarely get a right of reply, and when they do, the paper in question often hides it away, or ,like with Miliband, use it as an opportunity to simply repeat the baseless allegations that prompted the request for a right of reply in the first place.
Some change is long overdue, since the Press have shown themselves incapable of restraint, repeatedly crossing the line when publishing stories.
A regulatory framework truly independent of the Press and with the power to enforce and direct things like where the paper must publish a prominent apology, for instance, or a right of reply, or that can act as a arbitrator to assign damages payments etc is necessary.
The press whine that with greater regulation, they will be handcuffed, muzzled, unable to report on contentious stories for fear of the regulator, but that is complete rubbish; Papers will always have the public interest defence where appropriate.
Brenden (Apologies for getting your name wrong last time, it was accidental).
A jury made the mistake of finding in favour of Liberace in his Libel action against the Daily Mirror. Making the press accountable to an independent regulator will not stop newspapers getting things right and it will not stop juries getting libel verdicts wrong.
Or I'm a banana.
A jury made the mistake of finding in favour of Liberace in his Libel action against the Daily Mirror. Making the press accountable to an independent regulator will not stop newspapers getting things right and it will not stop juries getting libel verdicts wrong.
Or I'm a banana.
Just to re-clarify, Paul Dacre is not Chair of the PCC, he is chair of the Editors' Code of Practice Committee.
Though independent of the PCC, the committee is a grouping of newspaper editors writing their own rules. The PCC has adopted those rules and is supposed to enforce them.
Sorry for the Confusion, I blame the Guardian.
Though independent of the PCC, the committee is a grouping of newspaper editors writing their own rules. The PCC has adopted those rules and is supposed to enforce them.
Sorry for the Confusion, I blame the Guardian.
mikey4444
/// Bring on proper regulation of the Press, without any further delay. ///
Want the politicians to rule the press do you?
*** The power of the press, meanwhile, is draining away. In the two years since Sir Brian Leveson started preparing his report, newspaper sales have slid by a further 17 per cent. Earlier this week the Guardian’s chief executive declared that his title cannot survive in Britain and its editor said he could imagine it morphing into a digital-only feed in five to 10 years’ time. This perhaps explains why that newspaper is quite relaxed about regulation by politicians: it may not have a print edition by the end of the decade. ***
http://
http://
/// Bring on proper regulation of the Press, without any further delay. ///
Want the politicians to rule the press do you?
*** The power of the press, meanwhile, is draining away. In the two years since Sir Brian Leveson started preparing his report, newspaper sales have slid by a further 17 per cent. Earlier this week the Guardian’s chief executive declared that his title cannot survive in Britain and its editor said he could imagine it morphing into a digital-only feed in five to 10 years’ time. This perhaps explains why that newspaper is quite relaxed about regulation by politicians: it may not have a print edition by the end of the decade. ***
http://
http://
LOL ...the Press are completely incapable of regulating themselves...they have proved it time and time again.
A serious court case is just about to start, concerning phone hacking, with Rebekah Brookes, Andy Coulson, et al, in which, if convicted, they face a real chance of going to prison. These people are representative of the Press in Britain today. Its only when the Press go too far, that anybody sits up and takes notice.
The only reason that the DM used this story about Ed Milliband's dead father, was to smear Ed and in turn, the Labour Party. This wasn't any type of investigative journalism in any form whatsoever...just the normal gutter press. There have been good examples of investigative journalism in our newspapers, notably the Telegraph in its exposure of MP's expenses, and the very noble campaign of the Sunday Times in the 1960's to force the Distillers Group to compensate the children affected by Thalidomide. I also remember John Pilger making rather a good job of reporting from the Vietnam War, for the Daily Mirror.
The DM is no Telegraph...its just a tabloid newspaper that people buy that have a slightly higher reading than required for The Sun.
Just because the DM used to be a broadsheet, doesn't make a decent paper. It has shown its true colours this week.
A serious court case is just about to start, concerning phone hacking, with Rebekah Brookes, Andy Coulson, et al, in which, if convicted, they face a real chance of going to prison. These people are representative of the Press in Britain today. Its only when the Press go too far, that anybody sits up and takes notice.
The only reason that the DM used this story about Ed Milliband's dead father, was to smear Ed and in turn, the Labour Party. This wasn't any type of investigative journalism in any form whatsoever...just the normal gutter press. There have been good examples of investigative journalism in our newspapers, notably the Telegraph in its exposure of MP's expenses, and the very noble campaign of the Sunday Times in the 1960's to force the Distillers Group to compensate the children affected by Thalidomide. I also remember John Pilger making rather a good job of reporting from the Vietnam War, for the Daily Mirror.
The DM is no Telegraph...its just a tabloid newspaper that people buy that have a slightly higher reading than required for The Sun.
Just because the DM used to be a broadsheet, doesn't make a decent paper. It has shown its true colours this week.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.