For the better part of the last century, the media landscape was governed by a basic information asymmetry and the journalistic logic of control over content. As a result, mainstream news organizations were in a leading market position to decide which news reached the audience. While the public has always displayed differing levels of interest in stories the media provide, the classic and linear twentieth century format of news delivery exposed the public to more content than what it preferred. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Tag: LSE. Media Policy Project (Page 8 of 8)
In the coming weeks the new press regulator IPSO will unveil it’s board and officially launch. We can also expect an announcement about the Recognition Panel established under the Royal Charter to audit the new system of newspaper self-regulation. Those expecting to finally see the implementation of Leveson’s reforms are likely to be disappointed however, argues Damian Tambini. Continue reading
The LSE Media Policy Project has today unveiled the Media Policy Planner, a new website and tool offering a free and accessible way for anyone to understand and participate in the decisions politicians make about the media. Continue reading
The rationale for public intervention on media ownership is twofold: to prevent excessive media concentration and the accumulation of power in the hands of a few, and to promote media pluralism (the presence of a number of different and independent voices) and diversity in the media (different political opinions and representations of culture within the media). Continue reading
Based on his latest research that examined civil society proposals for media plurality measures and models their suggested ownership limits against current market conditions, Justin Schlosberg of Birkbeck, University of London argues that such limits and thresholds could limit media power with minimal impact on the market. Continue reading
The PressBof request for a Royal Charter was rejected by the privy council, but it seems that some form of Royal Charter on press regulation will be approved by the end of the month. William Dutton of the Oxford Internet Institute whose work focuses on the emergence of a Fifth Estate, warns that the Royal Charter route could mean the end of the Fourth. Continue reading
When Leveson published his Report at the end of November our research showed that the press presented the story as one mainly about freedom of the press and the struggle by hacking victims for vindication and protection in the future. Slightly less prominent but also present was a narrative of the politico-media complex or ties between big media and politicians. Our latest study of newspaper coverage before and after the Royal Charter agreement for implementing Leveson’s recommendations showed that the struggle of the victims of press wrongdoings has all but disappeared from the story. Continue reading
Setting up a judge-led inquiry into press standards had a number of advantages when compared to previous government-appointed Royal Commissions on the press, government appointed reviews such as Calcutt, and Parliamentary Committee Inquiries. Lord Justice Leveson’s Inquiry enjoyed genuine operational independence from both press and government, and legitimacy from all sides of the debate. This was hugely important at a time when there was widespread loss of trust in the ability of politicians to deal with powerful media interests. Continue reading
‘Twas ever thus’ was the response of Michael Gove to Leveson’s suggestion back in May that the reputations of politicians and the media had been sullied by the phone hacking scandal. And the phrase has been on or close to the lips of many of the leading politicians giving evidence this month. Continue reading
As the Leveson Inquiry considers proposals for a replacement for the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), research published by LSE finds that the model proposed by UK Newspapers would diverge from international norms.
Most journalism councils are founded by journalist’s associations together with publishers and can involve some state role without undermining freedom of expression. In the light of this international research, the PCC proposals seem to re-introduce the basic flaws that undermined the previous UK model, namely that the the body exists – or is percieved to exist – to protect the interests of owners and editors, rather than those of journalism and the public. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑