The war between the government and the press over section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, or rather between the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) and Impress, is artificial and wholly unnecessary. Read the rest of this entry »
Arbitration for the press is necessary, but it must cover all media – Alastair Brett
24 01 2017Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: Alastair Brett, Arbitration, Consultation, Early Resolution, Section 40
Categories : Leveson Inquiry, Media Regulation
YouGov Poll: Public supports section 40 and the independent audit of press regulators
16 01 2017
The month long press campaign against section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 has failed to make any impact on public opinion with nearly half the public thinking that section 40 is a good idea, with only one in ten against. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: Hacked Off, Section 40, YouGov Poll
Categories : Leveson Inquiry, Media Regulation
Don’t believe what you read: section 40 will protect the local press, not kill it – Paul Wragg
14 01 2017
Anyone interested in journalism who has been reading the UK’s national press over the past week or two could be forgiven for thinking press freedom is in serious jeopardy. It’s one of those rare occasions when Fleet Street seems to speak as one. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : 6 Comments »
Tags: Consultation, Local Press, Paul Wragg, Section 40, The Conversation
Categories : Leveson Inquiry, Media Regulation
The Section 40 debate shows just how much our press needs a proper regulator – Simon Carne
13 01 2017
In recent weeks, the press has bombarded its readers with warnings that the Government is threatening to impose financial penalties on publishers if they do not sign-up to the regulator, IMPRESS. This is utterly misleading on so many levels. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: Consultation, Section 40, Simon Carne
Categories : Leveson Inquiry, Media Regulation
Where press regulation is concerned, we’re already being fed ‘post-truth’ journalism – Brian Cathcart
4 01 2017
The Times newspaper greeted the start of 2017 by warning: “The freedom of the press is under direct and immediate threat.” Its Murdoch stablemate, The Sun, went further by identifying the “sinister zealots behind regulators [who] want to destroy the popular press”. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: Brian Cathcart, Section 40
Categories : Government and Policy, Leveson Inquiry, Media Regulation
Consultation on Leveson: the Press has no case at all – Brian Cathcart
6 12 2016
The Government has launched a public consultation on ‘The Leveson Inquiry and its Implementation’. You might think that when they consult in this way it must be a thorny issue with strong arguments on both sides, but in this case you would be wrong, because one side has no arguments at all. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: Brian Cathcart, Consultation, Section 40
Categories : Leveson Inquiry, Media Regulation
Hacked Off: The Government’s Consultation on the Press: Amber Rudd and Karen Bradley are trying to deceive the public
16 11 2016
Home Secretary Amber Rudd and Culture Secretary Karen Bradley have launched a public consultation on the press, but in flagrant breach of the spirit of honest consultation they are twisting the truth and loading the odds. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: Consultation, Hacked Off, Leveson 2, Section 40
Categories : Government and Policy, Legal
The Press and Section 40: Roy Greenslade and the Nightmare Scenario – Brian Cathcart
28 10 2016
In the long history of special pleading by our corporate national newspapers, the nightmare scenario has played a distinguished role. Few ideas entailing even the slightest change or inconvenience for proprietors and editors have escaped this end-of-civilisation-as-we-know-it treatment. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: Brian Cathcart, Roy Greenslade, Section 40
Categories : Leveson Inquiry, Media Regulation
Another one-eyed fable from the corporate press – Brian Cathcart
24 05 2016
The corporate papers that are determined to resist Leveson-based reform are currently playing what they evidently consider to be their strongest card, and it is this: “If the changes are implemented as promised, a publication that is sued for libel and wins its case will be forced to pay the costs of the losing side”. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Brian Cathcart, Costs, Section 40
Categories : Leveson Inquiry, Libel, Media, Media Regulation
