Chilling assertion of government control.

Coming to America and soon By 02-14-2014 we the people will be silenced or so they believe 

Chilling assertion of government control.

UK Government tightens its grip on print and online media

Following in the footsteps of the infamous words of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, British politicians from all sides are set not to let a good crisis go to waste as they push what amounts to censorship legislation against the UK press.



The move comes following the News of the World scandal that revealed high level phone hacking leading to the paper’s closure. In response Westminster, with the leading three parties in agreement, has decided to introduce much more sweeping regulations to control stories, particularly ones that may be damaging them.

The move is a chilling assertion of government control. It is highly possible under the new Charter that recent major stories like the one about Ralph Miliband, Marxist father of the Leader of the Opposition, would not have seen the light of day. Likewise the scandals of parliamentary expense abuses may well have been nixed if this legislation was in place 4-5 years ago, had MP’s exerted pressure to silence it. (some had claimed at the time it was not in the public interest)

Indeed, the BBC reported Daily Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre as saying the row between Ed Miliband and his newspaper over an article about the Labour leader’s late father showed why politicians should not be involved in press regulation.

The problem is that proponents have argued for this based on journalistic malpractice in their methods of obtaining news, such as when one reporter dressed as a Doctor in order to access a car crash victim and take pictures. But the legislation, a Royal Charter, leaves the door open for an independent panel to penalize opinion, and not just in the print media but in online material as well including blogs with multiple writers.

The Royal Charter status of the new organization will codify it as a body with set values that can only be changed by parliament. This is the biggest sticking point for the British Press since it means MP’s will gain sway over Newspaper Editors, and whereas it will take a two-third majority for parliament to make changes, a majority vote can abolish the two-third requirement.

The new regulator is the result of the ‘Leveson inquiry’ (into the News of the World) and will replace the existing industry run watchdog, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). The guidelines in the Royal Charter are not very specific, the details will be created by the regulator itself, except that a ‘recognition panel’ would be set up to guarantee the regulator remains impartial. The new regulator, unlike the current PCC (7 of 17 members), will have no serving Newspaper Editors; and the majority of members must be non-journalists.

The new regulator’s code must protect freedom of speech. But it would cover how journalists behave in getting hold of information, their respect for privacy when there’s no public interest justification, and accuracy. These latter points contain the potential for abuse of free speech since ‘public interest justification’ can be used to veto all kinds of coverage as can ‘respect for privacy’.

Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors said: “You can’t have a new system of regulation which is drawn up by and imposed by politicians. The things which are being proposed at the moment would be totally unconstitutional in the US and other countries. People in other countries, not just journalists, are looking at what’s going on here at the moment with horror.”

The Industry Steering Group agreed in a statement that said: “This remains a charter written by politicians, imposed by politicians and controlled by politicians,” and it’s “impossible” to see that a regulator “imposed and controlled by politicians” could be “voluntary or independent”.

Deputy Labour Party Leader Harriet Harman tried to quell fears saying “(the) last thing” the government wanted was to create a situation “where politicians control the press” – and urged the newspapers to “try out” the proposed system. “It’s quite ironic” she said “because a system that’s quite like this operates in Ireland and applies to our UK press for their Irish editions - they sign up to it and it hasn’t caused any problems of politicians controlling the press.”

Ms. Harman may have hit the nail on the head with one of Rush Limbaugh’s ‘random acts of journalism’ by a politician trying to restrict the press. The fact that we don’t here of any scandal via the press in Ireland may be indicative of the fact that people are afraid to report anything controversial. The Irish Republic’s recent debt scandals went largely unnoticed until the financial bombs went off.

Then Ms. Harman suggests that the media should “try out” the programme. Maybe she would like to offer journalists a one year money-back guarantee, just in case someone hasn’t read and understood all the legislation properly.

The new regulator will function more like its broadcasting cousin OFCOM which regulates TV and radio content. Essentially anyone can complain to OFCOM that material broadcast is offensive in some way and there is an investigation. The Royal Charter broadly expands who can complain and who has to be taken seriously. As a result, writes Andrew Gilligan of The Telegraph “papers may still run the big scoops like MPs expenses. But investigations into a less accessible subject, such as Islamist extremism may not be worth the risk.”

As with OFCOM Newspapers will not have to sign-up with the new regulator! However, other legislation has already required the courts to view those that do far more favourably in libel cases. Most controversially, Papers not in ‘the system’ will usually have to pay a complainant’s costs even if they prevail in the case.

It is unclear at this point if the Newspaper Industry in Britain will sign-up and comply or not. They may pursue their own watchdog plans and try to use it’s memberships in the courts as evidence of industry accountability.

Hugo Rifkind, wrting in The Times, said: “When newspapers exist only online, when your daily print run has morphed into the daily broadcast of an iPad app, why not broadcast it from somewhere beyond regulation’s reach? Personally, I like the idea of pirate newspaper ships, beaming news from just offshore.”

Prominent political blogger Guido Fawkes, offender of many politicians, uses foreign servers and bases himself in his native Republic of Ireland. The government says the location of the servers is not relevant, but Fawkes (real name Paul Staines) is one of a number of writers using a publishing company in the bi-federation Caribbean state of Nevis where it takes an in-person appearance and US$10,000 to file a libel suit.

For now the industry is out of options as two judges today dismissed their application to seek judicial review of what they described as the Privy Council’s “unfair, irrational and unlawful” decision to reject the newspaper industry’s own proposals for a rival charter. The court said the merits of their legal case were “at best weak”.

According to Sky News, London’s High Court also refused the publishers an application for an injunction to stop ministers going to the Privy Council this afternoon with plans to seek the Queen’s approval for the cross-party charter, which is bitterly opposed by much of the industry. The Privy Council is a group of leading ministers who initiate much policy in the first place, hence they already agree with it, and then rubber-stamp it at the end of the process.

To really sock it to the Newspapers three former News of the World journalists pleaded guilty today to phone-hacking, the scandal that got this whole thing started in the first place. Ex-chief correspondent Neville Thurlbeck, former assistant news editor James Weatherup, and ex-news editor Greg Miskiw pleaded guilty to conspiracy to intercept communications.

The prosecution had opened its case “journalists are no more entitled to break the criminal law than anybody else”. This is true! And the journalists are being held accountable for their actions! But what has followed from the government is a far more reaching move designed to move power from the Editor’s desk to the halls of Westminster.