Daily Mail Editor And The Press Complaints Commission

[Gromit]

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?

[Svejk]

I'm glad you brought that up,mikey. People break the law, get taken to court and get punished. Where does a regulatory body come into it.
If MPs get to decide the remit and make-up of the regulator, Fred, that would seem to be interference to me. Isn't that exactly what this row is about.

[FredPuli43]

Well, brionon, why have any regulation at all, even by the press itself? Does not freedom of speech demand that? A worse restraint on freedom of speech already exists. It is our law of defamation. Not a law of defamation; for some other countries, notably the US have a fair and just one; but ours , which has been need of reform for a long time.

[mikey4444]

I agree Brionon. But the difficulty here is that the Press have interpreted that right to free speech as a licence to whatever THEY think fit, and damn us all into the bargain....like hacking into Milly Dowler's Mobile phone.

Putting them in charge of their own regulation hasn't worked...the Leverson Enquiry proved that. That is why those leeches will be in court on the 28th of this month. If it had been left to the Press Complaints Commission, Rebekah and Co would have still be paid huge sums of money by Murdoch, instead of wondering if its worth it to book any holidays after the end of October.

The Sunday Mail sent a undercover reporter to spy on a private memorial service to Milliband's Uncle. They only apologised when they got found out. Turkeys are not notorious for voting for Xmas, so if they can't be trusted to regulate themselves, who can we trust to do the job properly ?

Leveson recommended an independent watchdog... I am not sure just what is wrong with that ?

[mikey4444]

Svejk...what is your alternative to an independent watchdog, as recommended by Leverson. The PCC has shown itself to be, at best inept and at worst, corrupt. If they can't be trusted to regulate themselves, who would YOU recommend that the job is done by ?

[FredPuli43]

We accept regulation elsewhere. The Bar Council, the General Medical Council, the Solicitors' own regulatory body, and Parliament itself, through the Speaker and a whole lot of established rules, are all regulated. The problem is that the current regulator is far too close to the people it regulates. The Bar Council may be staffed by professionals, the Solicitors body by a majority of professionals, the GMC by professionals, but the members are so distant from the people they regulate that they can judge impartially what is, and what isn't , proper behaviour. Whether the body is set up by Parliament or not, the members of it can still be independent in that regard.

[mikey4444]

Well said Fred...some sense at last !

[Svejk]

Our 'honourable' members spent years and £millions(of our money) to suppress the expenses scandal. I'm afeared, rightly or wrongly, that such a story would never have/will never see the light of day if the Gov. gets a say in regulation.

[mikey4444]

Svejk...with respect, that is nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that the MP's expenses scandal would not have been investigated by the Media if an indepepndent watchdog had been in place. Regulation of the Press doesn't have to mean that an MP is standing behind every Editor's desk, on a daily basis, nor should it. If an independant commission is set up, than it should be allowed to get on with its job, with minimal interference from Parliament. The Leverson Enquiry was brought about by the mess that our Press had got itself into.

What is the answer to my question of 12.13 today ? Nobody is suggesting that the Press Complaints Commission is any way capable of continuing in its present form. So what would YOU put in place of it ?

[FredPuli43]

"If the government gets a say in regulation" means what, exactly, in practice ? What is ' a say' that you, svejk, contemplate ?

The expenses scandal would still have come to light. Even if the whole regulatory body of the press had been statutory and staffed by current MPs; which would be much like it is at present,unstatutory, being staffed by current newspapermen; somebody would have gone to court and argued for judicial review of the decision

[LazyGun]

I am not sure I quite understand the vision that those arguing against greater press regulation have. It seems they think that the politicians themselves will be on the regulatory board, loftily able to gag any paper that dares to print anything remotely controversial about themselves.

This is not even remotely correct. Do you think that the ASA, for instance, is hopelessly corrupted by virtue of having been set up by statute and hence polticians? How about OFGEM, or OFWAT, or OFCOM? What about Doctors and their professional regulatory body, the GMC? This is the type of regulation that is being talked about.

And for all that new regulation might be brought in, papers/media ultimately have the public interest defence, which remains sacrosanct - If they can demonstrate that a story is in the public interest, no regulatory body in the world, no court, is going to stop them printing it.

If you are really concerned about politicians having undue control over the press, you really should be looking more into D notices and National Security Concerns, through which the government can suppress pretty much anything it wants, even now, when we have this "free" press.

[mikey4444]

Lazygun...the voice of common sense !

[anotheoldgit]

mikey4444

/// 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. ///

I see you were careful not to include the Mirror in your list of tabloids, and although you praised The Telegraph, The Sunday times, and even the Daily Mirror, for their investigative journalism, why did you not equally praise the Daily Mail for their campaign to jail the killers of Stephen Lawrence?

[jno]

the Lawrence campaign was just that, a campaign. The Distillers business, like that regarding MPs' expenses and Pilger's reporting (and I'd add the Guardian's exposure of Jonathan Aitken), involved actual journalism - finding out things and publishing them. (The Telegraph was in fact sold the initial list of MPs' expenses but put in a lot of work sorting out the details.)

[mikey4444]

AOG...I had forgotten the role that The DM played in the Lawrence affair and a very good job it made of it, for which we should be all grateful.

Its not easy to remember all the good things that the British papers have done over the years, and it would be tedious to list them all. But the DM has not covered itself on glory over the current dispute, something it admits itself, in the apology issued to Millband, at least in part.

I don't think Dacre is suitable for being a member of the current toothless tiger that is self regulation, in the same way as I don't any of the press are suitable, because they are not capable of being in judgement of themselves.

[seadogg]

How can Paul Dacre be in charge of any independent body? At the end of the day he is responsible to his Board and shareholders.

[FredPuli43]

The Mail on Sunday has a full page comment piece by Peter Hitchens "Like Ralph Miliband, I was a Marxist" with the featured quote from it "Our opponents may well be wrong. But it does not make them bad". There! A fine example of journalistic balance. Fair play to the M o S.

Mind, he does say that the people who really do hate Britain are those who inter alia " [are] burying our traditions under a bland pile of metricated political correctness " while " feeding slices of our kingdom into the Euroblender" and some of the worst are some Blairites. So, a dead Marxist loved Britain but some Blairites hate Britain

[FredPuli43]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2446210/Like-Ralph-Miliband--I-Marxist-A-personal-perspective-Labour-leader-row-MoS-columnist-Peter-Hitchens.html

Here's the piece.

[LazyGun]

@Fred - Interesting piece from Hitchens. I would usually disagree with pretty much anything Peter Hitchens says,and I would not entirely agree with all of his comments here, but overall a rather more balanced perspective of the whole sorry mess that the Mail have stirred up.

[FredPuli43]

Does rather suggest who he hates as " the people who hate Britain" and who, by extension, Mail readers should hate and the Mail should encourage them to hate. I wonder whether the Mail does do that?

Answering people by saying that they are 'un-American' or don't love their country,are unpatriotic, is a common feature in the US. Thank goodness the like is not found on AB.