Debate around the web

The Daily Telegraph has said that it paid £110,000 for the data about MPs expenses. Assistant editor Andrew Pierce said:

“So far the taxpayer has been reimbursed by MPs £500,000, and there will be more” and described it as “money well spent in the public interest

Harry’s Place has criticised an interview on 5Live with a reporter from Press TV:

“The BBC are not telling their listeners that Press TV are a Iranian government funded operation, the station’s slavish support of the regime, and the problems they have had with impartiality.

According to the Guardian, the situation of Notts County shows the limits of the football league’s “fit and proper person test” for directors. It is an example of self-regulation. The Guardian says:

Lord Mawhinney, the League’s chairman, told the government this summer that he would be “happy to work with the FA and Premier League” to see how the rules could be “strengthened appropriately, including how they might be applied prospectively”.

Debate around the web

The Evening Standard has corrected a report from TUC conference about a motion concerning high heels in the workplace. Mark Pack writes:

“Credit where credit’s due: the Evening Standard was one of the media outlets which ran pieces wrongly reporting the TUC as wanting to ban high heels.”

The Daily Mail and the Evening Standard have paid damages to Ali Dizaei. The Guardian quotes the Black Police Officers Assocaition:

“The article suggested that Commander Dizaei was involved in a bigamous marriage to Mrs Dizaei. Bigamy is a criminal act which carries a sentence of seven years,”

Roy Greenslade reports the details of how Fabio Capello won his complaint against the Daily Mail and the News of the World:

“The PCC has been assiduous in the last couple of years in dealing with complaints made discreetly by people worried about their privacy being compromised . . . The PCC has also been eager to show that people do not need to seek redress from the courts.”

Alastair Campbell suggests that the press treat the Tories differently from Labour:

“If you read in a newspaper that ‘Unemployment could top five million if the Labour government continues with its economic policies, a leading economist warned,’ and if the leading economist turned out to be a former member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, Professor David Blanchflower, do you think that you might read more than two sentences in a couple of broadsheets?

The editors’ code committee has announced a revision of the code of practice. Of particular interest is the revision to the definition of the public interest:

“Whenever the public interest is invoked, the PCC will require editors to demonstrate fully how the public interest was served that they reasonably believed that publication, or journalistic activity undertaken with a view to publication, would be in the public interest.

BBC News reports the Independent Police Complaints Commission has announced an 8% increase in complaints in the last year. Chairman Nick Hardwick says:

“At a time when politicians and the police are debating public confidence in the police and how to make them more accountable, the complaint figures published today give a strong indication of what the public want sorted out. Complaints about rude and late officers consistently top complaint categories and work to address this can have a positive impact.

Debate around the web

Alasdair Palmer in the Telegraph writes:

“The BBC is the only public body whose accounts aren’t checked by the National Audit Office. No wonder its bosses have no concept of value for money

Iain Dale takes James Macintyre of the New Statesman to task for an article accusing the Tories of racism. The following exchange is particularly interesting:

Q. Why was the article removed, and was it done with your knowledge?
A. No comment.

Pickled politics says that a shortage of junior doctors is partly due to tabloid newspapers:

“Thanks to the tabloids and the EU, we now don’t have enough people to heal the sick. The incompetence is striking.

Tom Watson MP criticises a news report from Cathy Newman of Channel 4 which inaccurately said that the Tories were responsible for the Westfield shopping development:

“Either the Tories hoodwinked Cathy Newman when briefing her or she’s willingly broadcast a misleading story.

Debate around the web

Media Guardian reports that the government is to conduct a review of libel laws, particularly as they relate to online content:

“Existing defamation law needs to be updated so it is fit for the modern age, and it is important we listen to views on the best way to achieve this”, said Jack Straw, the secretary of state for justice. “Freedom to hold and express opinions is a right that is vital to democracy.”

Press Gazette report a poll of journalists which found that more than half across Europe fear a decrease in standards as a result of the economic pressures in the industry:

Almost two in three of all respondents believed that the number of printed media will shrink dramatically in the near future and 32 per cent of journalists in the survey thought that their print publication or broadcast could be taken off the market altogether.

Culture secretary Ben Bradshaw has attacked the BBC Trust:

“I know of no other area of public life where – as is the case with the Trust – the same body is both regulator and cheerleader.”

The Guardian has sprung to the defence of one of its correspondents who attracted the attention of Quentin Letts:

“Sources close to Miss Slinky point out that during the PM’s speech . . . Miss Slinky wasn’t, by then, actually in the auditorium, as her website deadlines meant she was busy in the newsroom filing copy.

Debate around the web

There’s some controversy over a Daily Mail story reporting the protests in Washington DC against Barack Obama’s healthcare plan. The number of protestors in attendance is in some doubt. The page title of the article suggests that the article originally claimed “up to two million” attended whilst the headline currently reads “a million march”. Some of the most popular comments suggest that there were only tens of thousands. The debate has been taken up on the Wardman Wire.

The Daily Mail has apologised today for an article which originally appeared on 25 May 2007.

Tim Toulmin is to step down as the director of the PCC. Roy Greenslade writes:

“Toulmin has no immediate plans to obtain another job. He is taking on some unspecified “projects” and, in the short term, is looking forward to a restful period that includes “having a lot of fun. His job will now be advertised in national newspapers. Interviews, due to take place in October, will be conducted by a panel appointed by the PCC’s board. The capable deputy director, Stephen Abell – widely known by his nickname, Stig – is my tip for the job.”

The Guardian reports that Michael Palin is “very angry” and “very let down” after being censured by the BBC Trust.

“The complaint was upheld. That, I believe, brings the BBC into disrepute. I think it was a stupid decision. I felt very, very angry and very let down,” Palin told a Royal Television Society veterans’ lunch.

Debate around the web

Former Chancellor Nigel Lawson has called for stricter regulation of banks but a light touch regulation of other financial institutions – a sort of variagated regulation – via ConservativeHome.

Harry’s Place covers the account of someone who worked inside Press TV:

“There are a number of instructive vignettes concerning life at Press TV. You will enjoy reading about the horror of channel director, Mohammad Sarafraz, at finding photograph of a Press TV employee in a bikini on a Facebook page. His response: to circulate a photograph of the employee within Press TV, while issuing an injunction against ‘friending’ other employees.

There’s an interesting submission to the media select committee about the BBC’s complaints process:

“The procedure is extraordinarily lengthy and bureaucratic. . . At each stage of the procedure, BBC personnel defending the coverage are given the last word and use it to raise new points which the complainant does not get an opportunity to address.

George Monbiot has published correspondence with The Spectator about climate change:

“There are thousands of people out there making crazy and demonstrably false claims, about everything from the shape of the earth to seven-foot lizards, but none of them are worth staging an event for. Why him? It reinforces my observation that otherwise-sane editors take leave of their senses when it comes to climate change.

Debate around the web

Matt Wardman writes about how self-declared terrorism expert Glen Jenvey, acting as an agent provocateur under the name of Abu Islam, created a false story by posting allegations on an Internet forum, and then passed that story to the national press on his own behalf and made the front page of the Sun.

“There is also a more potentially sinister aspect – that of gung-ho coverage of anti-Islam stories in the British media provoked and seeded by commentators whose political attitudes are sympathetic to such stories. A good example of this style of coverage was the inflammatory coverage of the demonstration by approximately 20 extremists during a parade of soldiers returned from Basra in Luton, in March this year. By contrast, a far more balanced report was published by the Nofolk Unity blog.

This is another story which asks serious questions of the quality and professionalism of the processes of journalism in our national media

Anton Vowel reports:

“The Mail don’t skew everything, and very often their straight reportage is insightful . . . The sadness for me comes that after a rather good piece of news reporting from the Mail, there’s a predictable response in the comments.

The owner of the Guardian and the Observer has rebutted inaccurate reporting of the future of the Observer:

“It is not accurate to characterise GNM’s review of operations as a plan to shut the Observer. The review is an ongoing examination of all GNM’s operations, ruling nothing in and nothing out, with the full endorsement at all stages of the group board and the Scott Trust

Judith Townend writes about 4IP backed website Timetric. Boss Andrew Walkingshaw says:

“If you look in a newspaper, an entire sports section, the weather section, the City section: all those are data driven. What’s really interesting is that data confined to these areas is beginning to bleed out into editorial and opinion, where [normally you'd only see] polling and opinion surveys.

Alex Brummer of City AM, writing for Journalism.co.uk about journalism’s role in the financial crisis says:

‘Far from scaring people, the press were providing readers with reliable information’

Ofcom has announced that the BBC iPlayer and 4OD will be regulated by the Association for Television on Demand in the first instance – and the Advertising Standards Authority for advertising – with the regulator retaining backstop powers – in a system of co-regulation.

Guy Black (former director of the PCC) has been appointed the chairman of the Press Standards Board of Finance which determines the PCC’s annual budget.

Ofcom has criticised the Jeremy Kyle show for failing to edit out swearing.

Debate around the web

Tara Hamilton Miller’s article ‘How cool are David Cameron’s Conservatives?’ has attracted criticism around the web, particularly from Hopi Sen. However, the comment section of the article itself was particularly critical.

Picked Politics criticises the coverage of the ‘most popular names’ story which reported (again) the growing popularity of Muhammad and its variations.

The Guardian reports a judge in Portugal has banned sales of a book about Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

Dr Silcock, Tweeting from the Future of Journalism conference suggests that the PCC develops a more proactive capacity (which it would probably argue it already does very well) and also:

• John Horgan’s comments: Journalism needs regulation like the Titanic needed deck chairs
• 97% of PCC complaints concern trivial matters

Tim Ireland disputes Julie Moult’s understanding of Twitter after an article suggested Sarah Brown was given the cold shoulder by Demi Moore on Twitter.

And finally, in the corrections column of today’s Guardian, the newspaper mis-spells management.

Debate around the web

MUmBRELLA asks:

“Is there any journalist in Australia who isn’t currently endorsing a product, organisation or PR agency?”

The Guardian reports that bcap, the body which governs the rules relating to broadcast advertising has:

“delayed publication of the results of a controversial review of the UK advertising code, which includes proposals that could allow abortion clinics to run TV commercials, until next year after receiving around 4,000 submissions.

Michael Kinsley, of the Washington Post, says of the New York Times corrections column:

“Although the purpose of this column is to demonstrate the Times’s rectitude about taking facts seriously, the facts it corrects are generally so bizarre or trivial and its tone so schoolmarmish that the effect is to make the whole pursuit of factual accuracy seem ridiculous.

Judith Townend is complaining about an article in The Independent which criticises online media for passing on inaccuracies. The article itself repeats an inaccurate story from uncorrected newspaper clippings.

“The irony is this: the inaccuracy repeated by Smith occurred as a result of stubborn mainstream journalism habits. Why don’t the newspapers correct the copy? Responsibility isn’t always taken by named and supposedly accountable writers either.

Philip Stevens writes about the Murdoch view of Ofcom:

“News Corp should not be immune. It wants Ofcom emasculated, supposedly in the cause of competition. But that sits uneasily with its own behaviour. Mr Murdoch senior, some will recall, did his best to use his pricing power to drive out competitors from the newspaper market during the 1990s. A current investigation into BSkyB’s monopoly in the pay-television market may explain some of his son’s antipathy towards Ofcom. Mr Murdoch wants regulation when it suits him – hence BSkyB’s request that Ofcom rein back the expansion into new media of the telecommunications company BT.

Iain Dale reports an apology from the Daily Mail who confused David Davis MP and David Davis of the Libertarian Alliance. The original article, highlighted by Dale appeared on Friday 4 September.

Anton Vowel noticed on Twitter:

“Today’s Star: JACK ‘RAPE’ CAUGHT ON TAPE. Story: “Cops are desperate to find out if the alleged incident might have been filmed…”

Debate around the web

David Hencke has criticised the lobby system in parliament suggesting that the close relationships between ministers and journalists prevent proper scrutiny of the government.

“One glaring example was the planned part-privatisation of the Post Office. All newspapers reported that the government was legislating to sell off a third. Had anyone checked the parliamentary bill, they would have found that the legislation gave the government the right to sell half of it.

Roy Greenslade reports a mea culpa from Michael Parkinson over his abilities as a columnist:

“When I became Mirror editor in 1990 one of my first acts was to relieve Mr Parkinson of his hapless, hopeless and terrible column . . . I am delighted that almost 20 years later he has had the honesty to own up to his shortcomings.

Jon Bernstein reports on misleading media articles regarding the government’s social media strategy:

“There were some obvious inaccuracies, not least the job title, worthy of correction. As yet, scanning the print and online versions of these publications, no corrections have been made.

TechCrunch reports inconsistencies between the New York Times’ principles and the position of columnist David Pogue:

The one thing the NY Times has is its brand and its people. They aren’t first to stories but they generally get things right. Trying to hide conflicts of interest hurts that brand, particularly when they hide, hypocritically, behind an ethics statement that prohibits the behavior they’re hiding. It’s far better to keep everything in the open. Transparency is what’s important, not appearances.

Danny Baker talks to Media Guardian about his return to Five Live:

“The encroaching, suffocating layers of management who are surrounding all of it now will probably stop that just for the hell of it. Health and safety, I don’t know, but it probably will get stopped. I don’t think the public care one way or another as long as the show is any good.

Manchester United are threatening to sue Le Havre after widely reported allegations regarding the tapping up of one its youth players. The club deny the allegations which were widely reported in the British press this morning.

“In response to the wholly unfounded comments widely reported in the media of Le Havre AC President, Jean-Pierre Louvel, Manchester United wish to categorically confirm that as a matter of club policy and in accordance with the applicable football regulations, we do not offer inducements to the parents of players who sign for the club such as monetary payments or the purchase of houses,”

Debate around the web

Mark Pack has found that The Sun’s claims over the significance of its August poll are a little over exaggerated.

SNP Tactical Voting reports “a fascinating discussion this evening titled “Is this the end of newspapers?”, organised by the Association for Scottish Public Affairs.”

Roy Greenslade reports of British newspapers’ attempts to buy interviews with Jaycee Dugard.

The Guardian reports the latest hearing of the culture media and sport select committee inquiries into tapping and hacking.

Hadley Freeman asks when a slavering press brands kidnap victims such as Jaycee Lee Dugard ’sex slaves’, it shames them. Why don’t abducted and abused girls get the same anonymity as other rape victims?

Letters from a Tory welcomes the Advertising Standards Authority’s decision to ban a provocative ad from American Apparel and sees distinct benefits in self-regulation.

Michael Massing, writing for New York Review of Books, finds a ‘new horizon’ for news.

Debate around the web

The media select committee will take evidence from Rebekah Brooks (nee Wade), Colin Myler and Tom Crone next week as part of its investigation into the phone tapping allegations – according to the Snowblog.

A magazine for former MPs has urged sketchwriters to be less rude to MPs and says that the parliamentary standards committee should consider banning those who engage in personal abuse. The idea appears to be a clear infringement of the freedom of expression of sketchwriters – via the Londoner’s Diary.

The Lord Chief Justice has called for less lawmaking. He said that the government had created too much legislation framed in too many words creating too many crimes – via the Daily Mail. The argument supports the theme running through the debate on regulation that creating new rules does not necessarily foster a spirit of compliance.

Sarah Ditum examines the Telegraph’s business model, suggesting that it is wrong-headed to pay Boris Johnson £250,000 for a weekly column whilst inventing journalists – via Judith Townend.

Mick Fealty writes about the phonetapping story:

“the blogging phenomenon has prospered through the huge gaps left by the conventional media, this may be an opportunity to press home the advantage bloggers have of being multiple and mostly unattached to larger interests, to take up a task so unsurreptitiously being dropped by all but one of Britian’s big national newspapers, and dig around in the background to find out just what’s really been going on.”

Debate around the web

City commentator Jeremy Warner believes that the City doesn’t need more regulation. His remarks in the Telegraph are interesting to consider for anyone proposing a change in regulatory structures:

“The establishment of the FSA led to an unprecedented flood of rules and regulations. If all that was required to protect the public from the folly of bankers was more rules, codes of conduct and statements of principle, then the FSA would have been a champion several times over . . . The origins of the banking crisis lie in the very human characteristic that if you take away from people all sense of responsibility for their own actions and instead make conduct enforceable through an externally imposed, all-seeing system of monitoring and rules, then you remove the element of choice that enables organisations and individuals to behave decently as a matter of conscience.

On a similar theme, Guido Fawkes reports that the House of Lords has criticised the bill to create the parliamentary standards authority. He writes:

just as the Queen wanted ’sentence first – verdict afterwards’, Gordon in Blunderland wants ‘legislation first, consideration afterwards’.

The new chief executive of the ASA has given an interview to Media Guardian. These remarks were particularly interesting for their applicability to the PCC:

“the consequences of not applying the code in such situations would, he says, see “a bit of an arms race between some, although not the majority, of advertisers to run more and more contentious, risque ads”.

Enemies of Reason follows up on the PCC’s adjudication against the Scottish Sunday Express:

“In a judgement that’s particularly stinging even for the PCC, the Express is hauled over the coals. But what punishment has it actually received, other than a pretty stingy smack across the back of the legs? Er, none. Nothing whatsoever. Hooray for an accountable British press!

Roger Cohen has written eloquently in the New York Times of the importance of journalism, drawing on a lecture from Max Weber:

“It’s more fashionable to denigrate than praise the media these days. In the 24/7 howl of partisan pontification, and the scarcely less-constant death knell din surrounding the press, a basic truth gets lost: that to be a journalist is to bear witness.

Angry Mob has compared and contrasted the different reports of national newspapers of the report, released today, by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission into the allocation of housing:

“they use the report to beat immigrants and still insist that they are taking too large a share of social housing.

Update: some interesting comments on Iain Dale’s blog about complaining to the BBC.

Debate around the web

The PCC has upheld a complaint against the Scottish Sunday Express for an article about survivors of the Dunblane massacre. It ruled:

“Even though the images and information were available freely online, the way they were used – when there was no particular reason for the boys to be in the news – represented a fundamental failure to respect their private lives.”

The thinking of the PCC in relation to social networking is set out in its adjudication. This blog commented on Facebook and privacy challenges for the press earlier today.

David Cameron has called for the abolition of Ofcom, saying that its policymaking functions will be brought into the DCMS. The future of its regulatory role is unclear but presumably it would mean ministers have a closer relationship to broadcasting issues such as harm and offence.

Ofcom has ruled that Jonathan Ross  did not breach its code when he said that “if your son asks for a Hannah Montana MP3 player then you might want to already think about putting him down for adoption in later life, when they settle down with a partner”. The ruling is similar to a ruling by the BBC when it found that Chris Moyles was not in breach for using the word “gay” to mean “not very good”.

The Press Council of Ireland is in dispute with two of its members who failed to publish an adjudication:

“Failure to do so not only flies in the face of the articles of association under which the Press Council has been established, but also may fall to be considered under the Code of Practice, to which all newspaper editors have signed up,” warned Mitchell (the chairman of the council).

Monica Seles has spoken about her battle with an eating disorder in The Guardian. She says that the British press were particularly cruel:

“My heaviest ever was 1997 Wimbledon: my father was very sick, the outfit I had to wear that year didn’t help, I was 35lb overweight. . . . The British press was so unbelievably cruel. And then at press conferences I would have to sit there while these guys who had written about how fat I was asked me questions. And you know sports writers are not necessarily in the best shape themselves. These enormous guys, asking me if I could be in better shape – I mean, look at yourself in the mirror! Don’t be so brutal!”

The Guardian readers editor has written about the Alfie Patten story and its impact on The Guardian in light of the Julie Meyerson report:

“The Guardian’s editor has since agreed to update the paper’s editorial code to cover journalists who write about their children. Among other things, the new provisions contain the advice that, where children are old enough, their consent to publication should be sought, and suggest that editors consider whether children’s identities should be obscured online to protect them from embarrassment or harm as they grow older.”

SepticIsle reports on the PCC’s investigation of the Alfie Patten story:

“Is the PCC a regulator or is it not? A regulator with any teeth would have demanded that the newspapers themselves reveal what was promised, and just how, if the reports of the Sun setting up a trust fund for the child are accurate, it was intending to deliver the payment.”

Alan Duncan MP has criticised some of the journalism around the MPs expenses story – via SkyNews. He calls it: “deceitful journalism of the lowest sort”

http://blog.matthewcain.co.uk/blogging-circle-is-developing/

Debate around the web

The Independent reports that Barack Obama is ‘trying to have it both ways’ in relation to his children’s privacy. “If Mr Obama wants to protect the children from being exploited by a voracious modern-day media, he may find himself treading close to being accused of exploiting them himself, with such a controlled drip-drip of images designed to extract maximum political advantage at the lowest parental cost.”

The producer and director of a TV show has hit back at a TV review in The Guardian. He writes: “If an opera is reviewed, you get someone reviewing it who knows about opera. The same is true if dance, art, architecture is reviewed. Why is it, then, that newspapers give the TV reviewer’s job to someone who clearly doesn’t know anything about TV?”

The parliamentary debates about the new regulator has revealed some of the challenges of moving from self-regulation to statutory regulation – in particular the constitutional questions around the imposition of sanctions – The Guardian and John Rentoul.

Web advertisers are proposing a system of self-regulation, according to Reuters. Enforcement would be done by the Better Business Bureau and DMA, with non-compliant firms publicly reported, according to an advocate of the scheme. This would result in a lot of companies refusing to do business with them.

Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called the principles “almost meaningless” and predicted that congress would pass legislation hemming in information collection by advertisers. “There’s very little appetite in Washington today for self-regulation,” he said Rotenberg.

John Redwood MP has written about financial regulation: “The issue is do the regulators have a leader or top officials with both the judgement and the confidence to use that judgement to control bank balance sheets sensibly? It does not require more people or new armies of number crunchers. You can do it by just examining the balance sheets of the top half a dozen UK based large banks.

Dave Hill has suggested that the Evening Standard’s allegations against Ken Livingstone advisor Lee Jaspar are not standing up to scrutiny.

Press Gazette has published part of its series of best ever newspaper scoops and it contains some fantastic examples of why journalism matters.

Debate around the web

Two regional editors have joined the board of the Press Complaints Commission.

A celebrity couple are arguing for their divorce proceedings to be held in secret – via Media Guardian.

Some media lawyers said the way in which the celebrity family had conducted the case was “scandalous”, because the ban had been imposed without notifying the press or providing them with information to challenge it.

Facebook is hiring lobbyists to promote its views on internet privacy to governments.

Fake David Milibands on Twitter are calling time on their hoax:

“I’m not happy about duping the media, but they learned something,” said one of the hoaxers. All journalists had to do to realise the account was fake was to read one or two of previous updates”

Sarah Ditum asks why the Daily Mail is supporting Simon Singh in his libel case.

Nick Ferrari has quit Press TV in protest at its coverage of the Iranian election – via Press Gazette.

Debate around the web

William Rees-Mogg has written of concerns to the plan to create a statutory regulator for parliament. He writes:

“the Bill could disturb the existing balance of the relationship between Parliament and the courts . . . It might damage the freedom of speech of both Houses.”

The Press Complaints Commission has published a report of its open day last week.

A civil servant has been cleared under the Obscene Publications Act after content on his Girls Aloud blog discussed kidnap and murder of the group. His barrister, Tim Owen QC, argued:

“He had written what he had described as an adult celebrity parody and was only meant to be for an audience of like-minded people . . . This type of writing is widely available on the internet in an unregulated and uncensored form. In terms of its alleged obscenity, it is frankly no better or worse than other articles.” – via BBC News.

Judith Townend has summarised the debate on Media Guardian following its report of the BBC expenses story. From what I could see, the majority of readers did not agree with the Guardian’s prominence of the story or its subsequent explanations.

Paul Waugh uncovers that Michael Gove MP is paid £1250 per hour for his regular column in The Times.

Guido has caught out lots of large media organisations for reporting – and failing to check – a Tweet from David Miliband that was a hoax.

Sarah Ditum on Liberal Consipracy writes about Justice Eady and his reputation in the media:

In an ideal world, privacy law and libel would never have come into these decisions. A robust Press Complaint Commission, for example, might be able to force all newspapers to look on the right to a private life as a default and demand that any breach of that right should fulfil the highest standards of public interest.

But while the PCC is what it is, Eady’s decisions have formed the best line of defence against intrusion, and newspapers are incentivised to go after only those who don’t have the means to sue.

Tom Harris MP writes of the challenges for the print media in covering Michael Jackson’s death.

The Rochdale Observer is publishing a frontpage correction following its coverage of Paul Rowen MP’s expenses – via Press Gazette.

Metro is publishing an apology and costs to a Doctor – via Press Gazette.

Gabriele Marcotti has written of the challenges of Cesc Fabregas responding to questions about Pep Guardiola (one of his idols) without being misrepresented:

“What are you supposed to say? No, screw him, he’s a weirdo with an ugly leather tie? That’s why you either get players saying things which are anodyne, boring and predictable (see Owen above) or players getting themselves into trouble. ”Yes, I’d like to play for Guardiola” becomes “Fab: I’m off” and “No, I’m happy at Arsenal” becomes “Fab Snubs Pep”. It’s a lose-lose, unless you hide behind empty cliches.

Debate around the web

Guardian readers have reacted angrily to the newspaper’s coverage of the BBC expenses story – in particular the claim from DG Mark Thompson for breaking off a holiday to deal with Sachsgate.

Andrew Mackinlay MP is seeking damages of £100,000 from Newsnight – via Press Gazette.

A senior judge has expressed concern at the lack of court reporting – just days after PCC chair Baroness Buscombe made similar remarks at the PCC open day.

Glen Johnson is suing Mirror Group newspapers for a story that (may have) implied that he might be joining Liverpool in December 2008 and acted inappropriately in doing so. Glen Johnson is expected to become a Liverpool player in the next few days.

Peter Tatchell has expressed concern at the decision on Pink News to no longer produce a physical version of the newspaper.

Peter Oborne is concerned that the move away from the self-regulation of parliament will reduce the accountability of MPs.

The BBFC has received complaints about Judi Dench swearing in a James Bond film and its classification of Batman.

The Daily Telegraph has paid libel damages to an intelligence expert it claimed had leaked information to the media before the Iraq war.

UPDATE: Alastair Campbell has blogged about how an inaccurate claim about him (and Lord Butler) from John Kampfner led to a donation from the Spectator to leukemia research.

Debate around the web

The Guardian Readers’ Editor explains that the newspaper decided not to publish the origin of Tweets it used to support its reporting of the Iranian protests in order to protect the Twitter users’ identity – even though it was readily available on other websites.

“The ethical obligation journalists have to protect confidential sources is included in the UK Press Complaints Commission’s code of practice. In addition, section 10 of the 1981 Contempt of Court Act provides a legal shield: a court cannot force authors and publishers to disclose confidential sources unless it is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.”

Lilly Allen is suing The Sun for an article claiming she called Victoria Beckham a “monster” and The X Factor judge Cheryl Cole “stupid and superficial – via Media Guardian.

“The disputed comments attributed to Allen first appeared in an article in French sports-themed magazine So Foot entitled “Les footballeurs courent après tout ce que je deteste” – which roughly translates to “I hate footballers”. Atkins Thomson has also issued proceedings against the French title.”

Leo Hickman has criticised the Daily Mail’s campaign against wheelie bins.

“The Daily Mail loves nothing better than leaving its readers apoplectic with rage by feeding them a daily drip-feed of stories about bin stealth taxes, computer chips hidden in lids and evil fortnightly collections, but the reality is that we are still producing a huge volume of waste domestically. While we continue to do so, we need a quick and efficient way to remove this waste from our streets. And until someone comes up with a better way of doing so, the wheelie bin remains the best method.”

Adam Boulton has apologised for swearing during a live broadcast on Sunday.

Joshua Kucera points out some of the inaccuracies that were repeated in the media as a result of Twitter reports from Iran.

Drugs charity Release has taken down adverts on London buses which said: “Nice people take drugs”.

A spokesman for CBS Outdoor told MediaGuardian.co.uk the ads were being take down because of an “oversight” by the company when it booked the campaign. He said CBS should have run the copy past CAP – the Committee of Advertising Practice – which offers advice on compliance with advertising codes of practice.

Alex Bainbridge writes about the challenges of reporting on a travel blog after Travel Rants came under pressure to remove various stories / comments about DialAFlight.

“According to Travel Rants a libel suit was launched in the UK high court claiming for considerable damages as a result of a comment that someone had written on a blog post.”

Debate around the web

The Conservatives have complained to the BBC Trust about Sir Alan Sugar’s role presenting The Apprentice and advising the government. The complaint would not be permissible under the PCC code which doesn’t require newspapers to be impartial. However, by way of comparison, the Conservatives would not be able to complain (as they are not directly involved in the story) and after the PCC  ruled that there wasn’t a problem, the Tories wouldn’t be able to escalate their complaint in this way.

As an adendum to the newspaper transparency debate over the last few days between Danny Finkelstein and various bloggers, Paul Waugh reports that David Miliband’s decision to end unattributable briefings lasted just seven days.

A judge has ruled that journalist Suzanne Breen can withold details about the Real IRA from the police – via Media Guardian.

The editor in chief of the Open Information Science Journal has resigned after it accepted a bogus science journal – via Media Guardian. “The journal, which claims to subject every paper to the scrutiny of other academics, so-called “peer review”, accepted the paper. Philip Davis, a graduate student at Cornell University in New York, who was behind the hoax, said he wanted to test the editorial standards of the journal’s publisher, Bentham Science Publishers.”

The Guardian has announced that several journalists will be taking voluntary redundancy as the newspaper responds to its financial problems – via Press Gazette.

A number of Twitter users have been organising participants for a poll in the Daily Mail which asks: Should the NHS allow gipsies to jump the queue? – via @pauloCanning.

Debate around the web

Closer magazine has been found in “serious” breach of the code after “distorting” an interview with a mother about her pregnancy then standing by its story and providing “incomplete” and “inaccurate” transcripts to the PCC.

Ofcom has announced a crack down on strong sexual content. Media Guardian reports that “In the past couple of years, the regulator has fined a number of babe channels for breaches of the broadcast code.”

Robert Peston comments on the lastest banking regulation debates. “Probably the best argument for giving the Bank of England much greater sway over big banks, in partnership with the FSA. Normally duplicating the activities of regulators is a recipe for waste and even possibly for confusion. But maybe in this case, it would be better to have two sets of big boots wielded by two regulatory bodies delivering swift blows to the tender parts of a mega-bank, to keep that mega-bank in line.

Danny Finkelstein has responded to Guido Fawkes‘ suggestion that Times leader columns are signed. Finkelstein argues “If the leader was signed by the person who wrote, say, the first draft, that would give the incorrect impression that the article reflected their opinion rather than that of the paper. And it doesn’t.” which may be correct, but also appears to be an argument in favour of no article in The Times carrying a byline.

Debate around the web

Anton Vowel asks whether the decision by The Times to ‘out’ the policeman behind Night Jack means that the newspaper should reveal its sources.

The Croydonian asks how the Telegraph claimed that “The Turks & Caicos Islands lie at the tip of the Bermuda Islands Chain” despite the 915 miles between the islands.

The Beckham’s have received an apology from a nanny who sold her story to a newspaper. They have also received a payment for an inaccurate article in The People – via BBC News

Robert Peston asks ’should we trust the regulators?’ in response to proposals by the British and American governments to strengthen the role of financial regulators in light of the credit crunch.

Journalism.co.uk asks if the Telegraph failed by keeping expenses process and data to itself whilst Paul Bradshaw calls on every news organisation to have a datastore.

The Mail on Sunday has apologised to Allan Peters after a complaint to the PCC. “Mr Allan Peters complained . . .  that an article inaccurately suggested that he had attended a skiing trip for Royal Protection Officers to Klosters paid for by the taxpayer. He made clear that he was in Klosters on a private skiing trip, which he had funded entirely himself. He retired from the Police service ten years ago.”

Debate around the web

The Guardian’s Readers editor has responded to a complaint that the paper ran a video production of Caryl Churchill’s controversial work Seven Jewish Children. The piece highlights the challenges of media convergence. The decision to broadcast the video comes under the remit of the PCC rather than Ofcom but the PCC usually only accepts complaints from people directly involved in the piece. Who would be a legitimate complainant in this case? And did The Guardian provide sufficient opportunity to reply as part of its production?

Stephen Glover has responded in the row over the Guardian’s role in the failed coup against Gordon Brown. The BBC hasn’t yet responded to the accusations over its role.

There’s a dispute in the advertising world about whether Google should contribute to the Advertising Standards Authority. “Advertisers pay a levy – typically 0.1% of their annual marketing budgets – to fund the ASA’s system. However, while the ASA regulates all paid-for online search advertising – the sponsored links that pop up on the right-hand side of a browser window on Google, for example – no levy is paid on the cost of that advertising.”

BBC’s Panorama programme is examining privacy and the press but poses the current libel laws as a challenge for the press rather than its own broadcasts.

Debate around the web

The Daily Mail’s HTML refuses to clear Air France ‘terror suspects according to Martin Belam. Whilst it’s not clear that it’s the Daily Mail’s fault (or a result of an editorial decision) this story highlights the significant extra layer of editorial challenges that newspapers face online – via Currybet.

Hate it when pissed off PRs Cc in my editor – the equivalent of telling my mum when I’ve been naughty – according to Hannah Prevett, a business journalist.

Telegraph ‘didn’t tell any lies but was selective in its facts’, says Lib Dem Voice site editor – via journalism.co.uk At this debate Andrew Pierce, assistant editor at the Telegraph, claimed that the paper had only made one correction. “So far we’ve printed one correction: we got a house mixed up. I’d say in terms of journalism that ain’t a bad ratio.” Which of course is true, if they only made one mistake!

Prime Minister’s spokesman ‘tells off the Telegraph’ according to Nick Assinder. “If the Daily Telegraph has specific allegations about Shahid Malik please bring them forward. We would expect all government ministers to comply with the independent regulator and there’s no reason to believe that has not been the case with Shahid Malik – it’s not for the Daily Telegraph to be the judge and the jury about this.”

Debate around the web

Gordon Brown has said that “we should do more to spread the culture and practice of freedom of information” and instructed the Justice Secretary to set out further plans for “broadening the application of freedom of information to include additional bodies which also need to be subject to greater transparency and accountability”.  The Economist has suggested that the Press Complaints Commission is an “intriguing anomaly” given its exemption from FOI legislation.

Stephen Glover has suggested that the Scott Trust “should question whether the (Guardian) newspaper in general, and Polly Toynbee in particular, were acting in accordance with best journalistic practice in deserting their seats in the arena, and becoming part of the action on the pitch.” – via @arusbridger. Roy Greenslade has also added his thoughts on the row with an interesting contribution from Paul Linford.

Martin Belam suggests editorial confusion at the Daily Mail regarding the newspaper’s stance on energy saving lightbulbs. But does it matter if newspapers are inconsistent? Or should it be praised for its about-turn?

Peter Kirwan believes that more newspaper editors should live on streets like his because it would keep them more in touch with real life.

Debate around the web

Danny Finkelstein publishes an open letter to Roger Alton criticising The Independent’s use of polling data.

Gordon Brown’s brother has won a case against Scotland on Sunday for inaccurate claims concerning the handling of costs for the PM’s cleaner.

Roy Greenslade asks if the future of journalism is journalists as individual brands – which would presumably require a fundamental shift in regulation from the newspaper to the individual (more like the GMC?)

The Centre for Social Cohesion has asked whether some research from Cambridge University has been compromised by the university’s relationship with its funders.

Jon Slattery reports back on last night’s debate at the Frontline Club on journalism and MPs expenses. There appears to have been some controversy over the Telegraph’s payment for the data although overwhelming support for it being in the public interest.

This article suggests that newspaper reports about recovery in the housing market may not be all they seem.

Debate around the web

Kate Moss is threatening to sue IPC media over false reports that she is pregnant – via Media Guardian.

Peter Preston has praised the PCC for proactively taking action to defend the privacy of Susan Boyle.

Ben Goldacre writes about inaccurate press coverage of ‘the cost of illegal downloads’ following a press release (later corrected) which used inaccurate figures. He also tells of an extraordinary exchange with a press officer.

Anton Vowel looks at mainstream media attitudes towards the BNP suggesting that various commentators have echoed the BNP’s policy positions whilst rejecting the party.

Martin Belam blogs about the relationship between mainstream media and new media in perpetuating inaccuracies – particularly reports of Jonathan Spector’s Twitter account.

Joanna Geary’s post about Gareth Barry’s letter in the  Birmingham Mail is an interesting case study in accountability. Geary corrected herself in the article and the editor of the BM has engaged in the comments section.

The Frontline Club is hosting a debate tonight: ‘MPs expenses: a triumph for journalism?’ – via Stephen Tall.

Bryan Appleyard suggests that the lobby system should be scrapped because its protocols prevent members (political journalists) asking tough questions of politicians.

@GeoffLloyd of Absolute Radio has Twittered about having to undergo compliance training to learn about the BNP and radio issues. It appears as though he didn’t particularly enjoy it.

Jon Reed asks what a blogger’s terms of discourse should be. He asks: “How should I balance what I love about blogging: the immediacy and the (often) outspoken nature of an entertaining blog, with the need for intellectual and factual rigor?”

Debate around the web

Martin Belam has written about some of the inconsistencies facing media regulation on election days. The issue has had more attention from Ian Burrell in The Independent.

Sunder Katwala wonders if the Daily Telegraph went easy on Boris Johnson’s expenses claim.

Marc Vallee writes about the important case of Suzanne Breen which threatns press freedom.

We’ve just discovered Who Comments – a database of the opinions of commentators and columnists who write regularly for the national press in bylined, op-ed, or other columns or blogs.

Polly Toynbee has opened her Twitter account to apologise for a crass analogy at the start of her column today.

UPDATE: Rape Crisis Scotland has published a letter highlighting problems with inaccurate and misleading reports concerning the pregnancy of a 12 year old girl. “Media accounts of this particular case have lurched in their portrayals of events from reputation-destroying vilification of the child at the centre of it, to more recent revisionist accounts which have been forced to acknowledge that the real story is one of rape – and not, as was almost universally implied in earlier accounts, moral turpitude and sexual promiscuity.”

Debate around the web

The Public Accounts Committee has criticised the BBC for failing to open up detailed financial information to public scrutiny. The PAC found that the statutory arrangements in place for the BBC were insufficient to enable its value for money to be scrutinised. The PCC is not funded by the taxpayer – a significant advantage of self-regulation according to Buscombe - but it does perform functions in the public interest. The press review group found that the “PCC’s ability to perform its functions as a self-regulator also appear to be compromised by the way its funding is controlled”.

A respected group of scientists have signed a letter by Sense About Science calling for reform of libel law so that it is not used to surpress legitimate debate about science.

The Daily Telegraph has now sold one million extra copies as a result of its MPs expenses stories.

Michael Owen has received damages from the Express after an inaccurate story regarding the future of his career – via Media Guardian.

A group of media organisations has convinced a judge to lift reporting restrictions in a criminal trial – via Press Gazette

Baroness Buscombe will give the opening lecture at the Society of Editors’ annual conference – via Press Gazette.

Samizdata finds different standards in the media reporting of the death of an abortion clinic doctor and an Islamist who killed an armed forces recruiter in the US

UPDATE: @currybet Martin Belam has made some thought provoking remarks on Twitter about media regulation and election coverage.

Debate around the web

The culture media and sport select committee has published the (uncorrected) transcript of the evidence it heard from Sir Anthony Clarke, Sir Rupert Jackson and Jack Straw.

Barbara Follett, the minister responsible for the PCC, has given oral evidence to the committee today and the highlights are captured by journalism.co.uk.

Ofcom has no plans to investigate Britain’s Got Talent after Susan Boyle was taken to hospital – via Media Guardian.

Ed Stivala (@N3W_Media) says: “Bored with MP stories now when can we turn on the Media and publicly investigate all their grubby little secrets? What do you mean we can’t?”

The PCC has censured the Sunday World for two inaccurate stories regarding the partner of Gerry McHugh MLA headlined “Sinn Fein MLA dumps wife for Brit army general’s daughter” and “Love rat McHugh dumped by Brit lover”, published in the Sunday World on 27 January 2008 and 10 August 2008.

Mark Pack writes in support of a recent judgement by Justice Eady.

Debate around the web

Ian Burrell asks if the News of the World’s investigative reporting is losing its edge.

Dr Bart Cammaerts wonders ‘why the UK media ignores Europe’ on Charlie Beckett’s blog.

The Guardian apologises to Aung San Suu kyi after a polemic contained a number of inaccuracies.

Socialist Unity believes that English libel laws are a threat to free speech.

The BBC has apologised for remarks made by a guest on Question Time.

Anton Vowel takes a dislike to a Daily Mail article about the invasion of caterpillars.

Daniel Hannan opposes the case for an external regulator of MPs arguing that the electorate is sufficient.

Debate around the web

John Prescott on Comment is Free has written of the need for reform of the Press Complaints Commission and cited our first report as supporting evidence

The White House press secretary has suggested of the British press: “If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I’m not entirely sure it’d be the first pack of clips I’d pick up” – via journalism.co.uk

Don’t get mad – get accurate is a blog dedicated to complaining to the PCC

Headlines and Deadlines reports “Media cannot stick to one form. Text, photos, video, music, audio, animation, etc are a flow.” . . . which certainly poses challenges to different regulatory regimes.

@lobbydog on Twitter reports that a Sky News presenter has called the Daily Telegraph the Torygraph, live on air. Whoops.

Debate around the web

Mark Pack has noticed a Telegraph report on Baby Peter with a small note for the legal team which was presumably meant to remain private but made it into the online version.

Journalism.co.uk has summarised the response to the conference held last week by the University of Westminster: journalism in crisis.

Gordon Taylor of the PFA is taking libel action against the Daily Mail – via Press Gazette.

Anton Vowl wonders whether the Daily Mail has used a photograph of a peaceful protest to illustrate a story about a very different protest.

UPDATE: Journalism.co.uk also has a piece on Community Care’s campaign: Stand up now for social care.

Judith Townend reminds me of this piece she wrote about the challenges UK news regulation and convergence on BeatBlogging.

Debate around the web 22.05.09

Kelvin Mackenzie wants to know about Justice Eady’s private life, via journalism.co.uk

Media Guardian reports profits at the Daily Mail group, DMGT, are down 47%

Mediating Conflict reports on the regulation of BBC journalists’ Twitter accounts

Martin Moore’s post on the Alfie Patten story has generated a discussion about the role of the PCC

Media Guardian reports that the UKRD has ‘buried the hatchet’ with Ofcom after his previous criticisms

John Rentoul comments on the corrections and apologies received by Tony Blair. He suggests that they were too late to stop the damage being done.

The New Statesman asked ‘who guards The Guardian’ after complaints from other media organisations that its media reporting and commercial practices are unfair

Debate around the web 20.05.09

Tom Watson has published a press release from Carter Ruck regarding legal action against Associated Newspapers

The Sun – Tabloid Lies blog focusses on the newspaper’s reporting of the Alfie Patten case.

John Prescott praises new media for its ability to help people like him hold the media to account.