The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Month: March 2016 (Page 3 of 4)

Case Law: Lachaux v Independent Print, Injunction in libel proceedings to protect legal privilege – Emma Cross

Afsana-and-Bruno-Lachaux-280460On 18 December 2015, Sir Michael Tugendhat, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, granted injunctions restraining the Defendants, Independent Print Limited and Evening Standard Limited, from using information that was subject to legal professional privilege (“LPP”) after a private hearing (Lachaux v  Independent Print Limited). Continue reading

EU General Data Protection Regulation Article 8: Has Anyone Consulted the Kids? – Joseph Savirimuthu

J.Savirimuthu-150x150Europe Could Kick Majority of Teens Off Social Media, and That Would Be Tragic‘. This is just one of many headlines that struck a chord when agreement was reached on theGeneral Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The headline refers to a provision inserted in the GDPR, which, in one swift move on 15 December 2015, turned the clock back to the days when decisions about children were firmly placed in the hands of adults. Continue reading

The Trumpification of the US media: why chasing news values distorts politics – Stephen Cushion

Outside the US, the prospect of Donald Trump being elected president is typically met with a mixture of amusement and alarm. After all, how can a billionaire reality TV star become the most powerful leader in the world when he proposes building a giant wall to prevent Mexican immigrants coming to the US and banning all Muslims from entering the country? Continue reading

‘The Sun’ Misleads the Nation on Its Front Page About the Queen’s Views on the EU Referendum – Jonathan Coad

Labelled “EXCLUSIVE: BOMBSHELL CLAIM OVER EUROPE VOTE” the Sun in letters more than 6cm high exclaims: “QUEEN BACKS BREXIT”. This startling revelation is then followed by the Sun sub-heading “EU going in wrong direction, she says”. The Sun is however guilty of a grotesque deception not only of its own readers but of millions who have not bought the paper or visited its website. Continue reading

More spin from IPSO, Part 2 – Jonathan Coad

IPSO-is-a-shamThe irrefutable evidence that IPSO is and was always intended to be the same kind of sham regulators as its three un-illustrious predecessors emerges clearly from how it administers its primary remedy. If IPSO had any intention of actually uncovering any wrongdoing on the part of the press it would not have instigated a 28 day period in which the press can cover up its wrongdoing. If it had any intention of deterring the press from breaching even its self-written code of practice then it would permit it to publish corrections and apologies which are a fraction the size of the offending article. Continue reading

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑