As an alternative, wouldn’t it be better to end the self-regulation of the press by setting up an independent press complaints authority with real powers, supported by legislation. This would require editors and journalists to think more carefully before they print. It would also have a knock on effect in other areas such as the coverage of the McCann family. Oh and lets not forget the other big money spinner for the papers, asylum and immigration.

The chilling effect that such an authority would introduce would be to freeze the stories that should never be published while allowing the media to continue to public interest stories.

It has to be remembered that while some of the published stories were absurd creations of the press, some of them were the absurd creations of our security services. If the media doesn’t have the freedom to highlight these types of story then innocent people may also be effected.

So what you’re saying Sunny is, instead of government and police working to end the culture of anonymous briefings, leaking and spin, we should introduce legislation which will be open to massive abuse. What are ‘national security interests’? They’re whatever the government says they are.

Well thats annoying I agree with that from start to finish .

Wot Justin said.

Your argument might be a little stronger had the “alleged” plot to kill a Muslim soldier not in fact been a real one.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1412639620080129

What are ‘national security interests’? They’re whatever the government says they are.

Exactly. A dangerous road to go down.

What Justin said.

What Question That and UK Liberty said about what Justin said.

What are ‘national security interests’? They’re whatever the government says they are.

Indeed, hence my agreement with the disquiet expressed by yourself and others on this thread.

Sunny, endorsing the move for the government to advance its powers in this manner seems incredibly illiberal. First they come for the newspapers, next the bloggers?

The answer to bad speech isn’t no speech – it’s more speech.

What a nonsensical view to justify Stalinist press restrictions. Sunny, are you a liberal or a Labour Party stooge?

I can’t take any of you seriously.

Anyone remember the idiotic rumours in the national press when Forest Gate raids took place?”

Or the Wood Green ricin plot…

Oh, no, they were fed those idiotic rumours.

Ben

Don’t forget the Old Trafford ‘bomb threat’, when Iraqi asylum seeekers were given free tickets by the State!

Okay.

I agree with both Sunny and Justin.

It’s hard to argue that tittle-tattle about future security enforcement can possibly be in the public good. It’s right that newspapers realise their need for a scoop does not trump national security.

All that said, I wouldn’t trust this government not to abuse anything. Anti-terrorism laws are often used to lazily put down public dissent, and you know that comes from the top.

I wonder, what will suddenly be deemed an issue of national security?

If these new powers were going to be used properly, it’s hard to argue with them. I’d like to think if judges, even government ones, are involved, we can be sure of some rigour. But the entire extended-Whitehall establishment has been indoctrinated by Labour’s illiberalism and its abuses of power. Why will it be any different this time?

Given that most of the initial absurd scaremongering about the “terror in the skies” plot came from the Home Secretary (“mass murder on an unimaginable scale”), I somehow doubt that the government would have clamped down on its being reported. This legislation doesn’t stop crazy theories, it just gives the Prime Minister / Home Secretary a monopoly on them.

What Justin said.

What Justin said. There has to be a better way of dealing with this:

Newspapers sell more when terrorism is on the front page, even if a few weeks or months after the event they quietly declare on page 37 that it amounted to very little.

Punitive damages to the victims of newspaper fabrication anyone?

What Justin, ukliberty, cjcjc, QuestionThat, BenSix, Leon, Andrew Ducker, Dan and douglas clark said. C’mon, Sunny, this is supposed to be a site for _liberals_. The clue’s in the title…

Yes, Sunny, you’ve got it wrong this time.

This is the critical point (from #13, Aaron Heath):

“All that said, I wouldn’t trust this government not to abuse anything. Anti-terrorism laws are often used to lazily put down public dissent, and you know that comes from the top.”

This is a dangerous development for journalistic freedom, and no liberal should back it.

“voted blogger of the year by the Guardian” What was the prize? A week at Polly Toynbee’s Tuscan villa?

When you sack Sunny for dubious articles, can you consider upgrading me to contributor status. Thanks.

While Sunny is usually right – he’s dead wrong here.

Justin is entirely correct that “national security interests” could be extended to mean pretty much anything barring the Prime Ministers choice of pet food for his cat. Any story on ID cards for example is of course about “national security” – aren’t ID cards there to stop terrorists?

But there is a much worse dimension to this – it could badly impede public knowledge even of issues which genuinely ARE matters of “national security”. Sunny says it will wipe out smears and speculation from “anonymous sources”.

But the fact is that the irresponsible speculation and smears often come themselves from official sources (think Iraq War), and voices of reason may come from elsewhere – often from anonymous leakers, or members of the public who might not (on a matter of national security) wish their name to appear in print. Anonymous leaks, over the years, have exposed government wrongdoing – both major and minor – time and time again.

To take the example of Forest Gate: the net effect of this would probably not have been to stop the accused being wrongly smeared, since it was the police who were doing that, and no paper would feel too threatened by reporting what the police were saying. The actual effect would be to gag those ‘dangerous’ unofficial voices contradicting the police, who would inevitably often wish to remain anonymous rather than be publicly associated with terrorism (friends, family, neighbours etc).

These rules really would make it impossible for a newspaper to rely on anything but official sources on any story deemed to effect “national security”. If the official sources lied, so what? No-one can contradict them, since that’s a violation of “national security”.

This legislation gives carte blanche for government to openly lie to the press, and ban contradictory leaks, on any matter of national importance.

When you sack Sunny for dubious articles, can you consider upgrading me to contributor status. Thanks.

Yeah we’d sack Sunny, if it weren’t for his 6 kids. They rely on Liberal Conspiracy’s very generous healthcare coverage and other benefits.

“independent press complaints authority”

Who will appoint the members/judges of this “independent” authority? I find these calls for independent authorities without describing how these institutions will be set up highly suspect as they seem like a license for government to appoint “the right” people to make these decisions. I suppose you could have them appointed by a select committee of MPs which hardly avoids the political nature of their appointment, while avoiding SOME of the party political bias.

I think we are better off sticking to the laws of libel which are pretty risky for media outlets as it stands. Perhaps offer legal aid to people who feel they have been libeled by the press and are not rich enough to take the risk personally? Expensive but at least keeps these sort of decisions where they ought to be: within the still independent(ish) judicial system.

Nick @ 21,

Your point about legal aid in (specific) libel cases is perhaps the best suggestion on this thread.

Chavscum

Polly Tuscan-Toynbee actually has a delightful abode near me as well as a smart pied-à-terre for when she is town decrying privilege . Mary Louisa , niece of the 9th Earl of Carlisle and lefty aristocrat (as are the Millibands), has done her self pretty nicely for a girl who failed her eleven plus .She had to be pitch forked via connections into the elite and along tenure editing social affairs at the Biased BBC. Amazing
Harperson is a niece of Elizabeth, Countess of Longford . Today she was talking about how awful it was that the HOP does not reflect the country. With a straight face she said that , I kid you not …

Come on Sunny get back to your whiny ways . This post is no fun its pretty sensible

On the general issue of press regulation and libel, I think there’s scope for some independent ‘regulation’ of the industry in the form of some form of statutory tribunal to deal with small scale complaints and provide for a limited form of easily accessible redress.

Something equivalent to the small claims court or employment tribunal where the public could obtain redress without having to resort to a full scale libel action could be a way forward and such a body, which would deal with issues after the fact of publication would not have a chilling effect on press freedom, just make it easier for ordinary folks to set the record straight without the need to lawyer up.

One thing I would be inclined to put in place as a statutory obligation is a rule of equal prominence for publishing apologies and retractions under which newspapers would be required to publish their mea culpas in the same location and with the same prominence as the original offending article. After the first few occasions where the Daily Mail or The Sun have had to splash an apology on their front page rather whatever story it they think will flog the most newspapers that day, their editors might start to have second thoughts about disregarding basic journalistic standards, not to mention that I’d reall quite enjoy the sight of the Mail constantly having to admit that they’re a bunch of bullshitters.

I’d also open up complaints on factual errors to everyone, not just to those who’re directly involved/affected by an inaccurate story.

As for the DA-Notice thing, I can see where Sunny is coming from.

Yes, there have been rather too many conveniently time leaks – and rather too many conveniently timed arrests for that matter – all of which, by a complete coincidence, seem to happen around 48 hours before a Home Office announcement or ministerial speech.

That said, beefing up DA-Notices comes a very poor second to tracking down those doing the leaking and prosecuting the hell out of them, and its that side of this issue that the Indy and others should be majoring on, not the censorship thing.

chavscum @ 18,

The reason Sunny Hundal was voted ‘blogger of the year’ in 2006 is because he was, and still is, a great blogger.

Largely down to him, and the team he has assembled, this is now the third most popular political blog in the UK. Let’s just all assume he was jet lagged!

What Justin, ukliberty, cjcjc, QuestionThat, BenSix, Leon, Andrew Ducker, Dan, douglas clark, sanbikinoraion and jungle said.

C’mon Sunny, you must know you’ve got it wrong when you’ve got Newmania agreeing with you.

The Government will have its own view on what constitutes national security, but personally I believe that it is a free press that is one of the elements that gives us balance from an over-zealous state.

The Government deciding on what can and cannot be reported? Tell me how this would be different from “reporting restrictions” in Zimbabwe?

One thing I would be inclined to put in place as a statutory obligation is a rule of equal prominence for publishing apologies and retractions under which newspapers would be required to publish their mea culpas in the same location and with the same prominence as the original offending article.

Indeed, I like the sound of this too.

Let’s just all assume he was jet lagged!

Haha, good call!

Unity,

That said, beefing up DA-Notices comes a very poor second to tracking down those doing the leaking and prosecuting the hell out of them, and its that side of this issue that the Indy and others should be majoring on, not the censorship thing.

It’s Government, Parliament, the security services and the police that should be ‘majoring on’ this too, considering the origins of many leaks, rumours and unsubstantiated allegations.

What a surprise that fingers are being pointed in the wrong direction – again.

Unity,

I hesitate to ask, but I would think that your fans – me included – would like to hear more on this:

Yes, there have been rather too many conveniently time leaks – and rather too many conveniently timed arrests for that matter – all of which, by a complete coincidence, seem to happen around 48 hours before a Home Office announcement or ministerial speech.

I seem to recall tanks at Heathrow at a vaguely convenient time, but that’s about it. Could, would, you care to elaborate?

It’s merely an observation that on a few occasions high profile anti-terrorism operations have taken place in close proximity to policy announcements and ministerial speeches relating to anti-terrorism measures.

If you look at the pattern of arrests for terrorism-related offences, very few arise out of either an actual incident or under circumstances in which some kind of attack was imminent – most arrests are actually on conspiracy-type charges and for inchoate offences and in those cases that have gone to court its rare that the police even try to suggest that those arrested were actually on the point of executing whatever it was they were alleged to planning, let alone produce evidence to that effect.

In intelligence-based police operations of this kind, the police will very often not move in even when they’ve got enough evidence to justify an arrest, as long as its clear that there little of no risk of those under surveillance actually going ahead with their plans.

The justification for this in policing terms is that by keeping possible terrorists under surveillance but not moving in for an arrest straight away they may gain some more useful intelligence or identify other contacts which will lead them other possible terrorists – but that also places the police/security services in the position of being able to pick and choose when to mount an operation and make a few arrests…

From there is not too difficult to figure out the rest if, say, the police and/or security services find themselves in a situation where they feel that upcoming policy announcement will include proposals that they consider to be in their interests.

The idea that this is about suppressing rumours is a red herring. The DA notice system is about keeping secrets, i.e. suppressing true information. In fact, allowing rumours to flourish is a standard way of protecting security, Churchill’s ‘bodyguard of lies.’ From that point of view it is at best unnecessary and at worst actively self-defeating to target journalists who are spreading rumours.

It is the journalists doing their jobs who properly who will be targeted by this, not those putting out official disinformation.

Look, I don’t disagree with Justin here – but its not that simple.

So what you’re saying Sunny is, instead of government and police working to end the culture of anonymous briefings, leaking and spin, we should introduce legislation which will be open to massive abuse. What are ‘national security interests’? They’re whatever the government says they are.

Its difficult to end the anonymous briefings mostly because the press use hardly anyone as a source. I’ve sat on meetings where people from the security services AND police have complained that the press reporting is getting out of hand.

Furthermore – it destroys any chance of the people being arrested getting a fair trial.

I’m not denying there is an opportunity here for abuse. And no, I don’t trust the govt either. But the current situation means not only that bizarre rumours get made up, but also that innocent people get framed.

All I’m saying is, the self-regulation doesn’t work. So I can’t accept the Indy argument at face value, nor its comparison to 42 days.

The answer to bad speech isn’t no speech – it’s more speech.

Well, it depends on the context. Here are the front pages from the Forest Gate raid

In this context – when everything is rumour and more rumour, what exactly is the truth? How do you ensure the press coverage doesn’t get out of hand? How do you ensure the press doesn’t smear innocent people?

And no, I don’t trust the govt either.

But you plainly do by the fact that you endorse this move. Or am I missing something here?

‘How do you ensure the press coverage doesn’t get out of hand?’

We don’t. If they lose the trust of their readership, their audience shrinks and their influence will fall… oh wait…

Now, if more people would take the screaming headlines in the press with as big a pinch of salt as we do those of the National Equirer this wouldn’t be an issue, but the fact that the dead woods still retain such high levels of credibility (and audience credulity) enables them to be used for partisan astro-turfing in the same way as often seen on the web.

The papers do still contain some news and information, but separating out the messages and the spin from the reporting and commentary is becoming increasingly difficult as the media environment evolves.

We don’t. If they lose the trust of their readership, their audience shrinks and their influence will fall… oh wait…

Except that people have short memories, and that the “apology” are usually buried when it comes (if it comes).

Perhaps a better system of regulation, as Unity suggests above, is the best way forward. I’m saying that I don’t buy the Indy comparison to 42 days though.

How do you ensure the press doesn’t smear innocent people?
Better libel laws. Holding people responsible for their words. Changing the law so that retractions have to be equally sized and placed as the original story.

People remember when they’ve been lied to and conned – no apology makes up for that.

If the people who publish have their own long-term best interests at heart they’ll know that it is a thousand times easier to alienate someone than it is to patch up differences created by deception or manipulation.

I’m saying that I don’t buy the Indy comparison to 42 days though.

Are you saying you no longer welcome the move? Looks a little like you’re moving the goal posts with the above if you compare to your closer below:

The Indy’s attempt to compare it to 42 days is a joke. This move should be welcomed.

Sunny,

Long, long time ago, I remember when….

I would still be up for supporting you into Parliament.

Seriously.

But this, sir, is so arse for tit, that your only honest option is to climb down.

You said, up above the bloody line,

The secret service, police and Home Office are supposed to have established a protocol in publically talking about terrorism related raids and arrests. This came after criticism that various agencies were leaking information about raids to the media to further their own agenda. Anyone remember the idiotic rumours in the national press when Forest Gate raids took place? There have been more since, “terror in the skies” etc, and the alleged plot to kill a Muslim soldier. Various papers including the Telegraph and Sun have even had to pay out for calling people terrorists when they weren’t.

What is the problem, exactly? I have no idea whether leaked data on, say, “terror in the skies” is right or wrong. Whether it was ‘released’ by the security services’ or a Sun sub is neither here nor there. It seems to me that it is up to us to judge such statements on their merits, rather than have them suppressed.

I thought I knew you.

Frankly, you ought to see this for the drek it is. Which would be the Sunny Hundal I used to know.

Lets take an Obamican moment here. He was elected, partly on the fact that people thought they knew what they were buying into. I’d be incredibly upset if Sunny Hundal wasn’t the real deal.

Sunny, this is shit, and you (ought to) know it.

This is an attempt at a Rachel Maddow “Talk Me Down”…….

I was agreeing with Sunny 100% here until I read newmania’s endorsement. I like the ideas about legal aid and equal coverage apologies. I do think there’s a role for the state in this though – the government isn’t one monolithic entity and it should be possible for the bit of government doing the censoring to be separate from the bit of government that wanted its ass covering.

“So the government is finally getting its act together and putting forward legislation that would stop the media from pouncing on unsubstantiated rumours based on “anonymous sources” when it relates to terrorism related threats.”

I don’t see any evidence for this interpretation. This is about making the DA notice system compulsory. Is the DA Notice committee in the habit of putting out notices designed to suppress false statements? I don’t see how they could be.

The issue in Birmingham seems to have been the publication of details about the timing of the arrests and other details that were given away to the suspects. That wouldn’t have prevented the press reporting anything they wanted about the suspects once they had been arrested.

As Andrew Ducker says the remedy for that is defamation, “publish and be damned” not trying to control what the press reports before the fact.

Its difficult to end the anonymous briefings mostly because the press use hardly anyone as a source. I’ve sat on meetings where people from the security services AND police have complained that the press reporting is getting out of hand.

So who is inventing / leaking these stories then? The press? Or the Home Office?

Sorry, but the implicit notion that the press invents all these stories itself is frankly laughable.

Who told the Sun, for example, that Mohammed Kahar, arrested in the Forest Gate ‘terrorism raid’ (and what a ridiculous event that was), was under investigation for child pornography? And that he and his brother refused to tell the police where the £38,000 found had come from? (in fact the police were told very shortly after this was found).

Who told the media that de Menezes vaulted the ticket barrier, had cocaine in his system, was an illegal immigrant, and was being investigated for rape?

Why wasn’t Andy Hayman raked over hot coals for telling the media that de Menezes was believed to be one of the 21 July 2005 attempted murderers when he in fact knew otherwise?

The press will tend to report whatever is given to them if it’s going to help sell papers. Giving the Government the power to restrict reporting will only aid them in propagating falsehoods and putting obstacles in the way of the truth. They cannot be trusted! Don’t you get this yet?

Far better to have fair mechanisms that punish irresponsibility, as Unity and Andrew have suggested.

What BenSix said.

‘Anyone remember the idiotic rumours in the national press when Forest Gate raids took place? There have been more since, “terror in the skies” etc, and the alleged plot to kill a Muslim soldier. ‘

Sunny, there was no ‘alleged’ plot to kill a Muslim soldier, nor was it an ‘idiotic rumour’ (as the Forest Gate rubbish certainly was). Parviz Khan was convicted in February of plotting to abduct and kill a Muslim soldier, and his conviction was not terribly surprising since he had pleaded guilty to all charges.Link here.

I think you need to get into the habit of checking your facts.

‘Its difficult to end the anonymous briefings mostly because the press use hardly anyone as a source.’

Case of example: a Daily Express journalist wanted to quote a blog post by me as an ‘inside police source’. The only time I’ve been inside a police station is to pay a fine…

A scrupulous journalist is someone who will insist on their source being a random person who works in a police canteen and heard someone say something, as opposed to picking something from the first 3 pages of google search.

As Andrew Ducker says the remedy for that is defamation, “publish and be damned” not trying to control what the press reports before the fact.

So is that an argument for more stringent libel laws – because I doubt there would be much support for that here either.

I’m in favour of a non-governmental system to ensure that the press don’t become the judge, jury and trial during and after a terrorist raid. I’m open to hearing ideas on that. Just don’t expect the press to praise such an attempt either.

Dan Hardie – I should have explained that better. There were several people arrested during that plot. Some of them were let go not long after the trial despite having their names published everywhere as guilty people.

http://www.carter-ruck.com/Newsletters/2007winter-False_Terror_Allegations.html

In another case, Amjad Sarwar, from High Wycombe, accepted libel damages totalling more than £225,000 (understood to be the highest total for a libel Claimant in recent years), following the settlement of complaints brought against a number of national newspapers as well as Sky News, ITN and Channel 4 News. They had falsely suggested that Mr Sarwar was a suspect in the alleged plots to blow up a number of British aircraft using “liquid bombs” in the summer of 2006. These attacks would, if successful, have constituted the worst terrorist atrocity in British history. The newspapers all published full apologies to Mr Sarwar. In addition, a number of apologies were broadcast on ITV, Channel 4, Sky News and other television channels.

While the essential ‘sting’ of the libels – false allegations of involvement with terrorism – was similar in all of these cases, the precise nature of the complaints varied. For example, in Mr Sarwar’s case a large number of media outlets chose to publish his name and photograph, thereby falsely linking him with terrorism. By contrast, in another case the complaint was brought on behalf of an entire family against Sky and Channel 5 news, which had erroneously broadcast footage of the family home in the context of a story concerning a police investigation into an alleged plot to kidnap and behead a British soldier. Despite the fact that none of the family themselves was named or even shown in the broadcast, the news channels were forced to broadcast very full apologies and pay substantial damages and costs to each of them.

Douglas – I’m not arguing for censorship here. But we also complain when newspapers publish and smear innocent people without any real evidence. How do we stop that and force the press to be more accountable?

I’d like to hear more about this move before I think its a bad idea. It is open to abuse, no doubt. But the current system of “self-regulation” doesn’t work and is being abused.

I would love to hear alternative suggestions.

There was no ‘plot to kill a Muslim soldier’ – there were merely the rantings of a lunatic about how he wanted to kill a Muslim soldier. A plot would’ve required /some/ degree of actual, err, plotting. I’d agree it’s good that Khan was taken off the streets before he got anywhere close to a plot, sure…

I was agreeing with Sunny 100% here until I read newmania’s endorsement.

Yes, I’m not to happy about that either. Can we just disregard what newmania said and stick to what I’m trying to say? I’m the last person to try and defend this government’s record on civil liberties and human rights.

I’m merely arguing that the current system of press reporting of terrorism related cases is badly broken. It is riddled with false information. The system of redress is also riddled with problems. How do we fix it?

So is that an argument for more stringent libel laws – because I doubt there would be much support for that here either.

I don’t have a problem with people being able to hold others to account if they feel they have been defamed. After all, if there is actual defamation that is where freedom of the press has unreasonably infringed on one’s freedom from the press. The press should not be free to harm people, regardless of freedom of speech. The issue in this country lies with the burden of proof.

I’m merely arguing that the current system of press reporting of terrorism related cases is badly broken. It is riddled with false information. The system of redress is also riddled with problems. How do we fix it?

Can you substantiate your assertions that it is “badly broken” and that more legislation / the government is the answer?

Please see this paper and release:

08 May 2007

Following the comments of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke of the Metropolitan Police that there were a “small number of misguided individuals who betray confidences” in irresponsible off the record briefings to the media during anti-terror operations and who, by doing so, “put lives at risk,” Liberty today will call for new protocols for civil servants and police who provide off the record media briefings during anti-terror raids.

Supported by the Shadow Home Secretary David Davis, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary Nick Clegg, and the Home Secretary’s appointee to the Metropolitan Police Authority Lord Toby Harris, Liberty called for the protocols to be established with immediate effect. The human rights group warned that off the record briefings during terror raids can prejudice fair trials, undermine community support and unfairly politicise anti-terror efforts by the police.

On February 6 2007, Liberty submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Home Office seeking information about calls between its officials and the media during an anti-terror raid in Birmingham after news reports indicated that leaks may have originated from Whitehall. The Home Office response clearly reveals that existing procedures for media briefings are inadequate.

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2007/foi-response.shtml

Sunny,

The very least that folk who are caught up in a media witch hunt deserve is the right to extract punitive damages for libel. If that means that, in exceptional circumstances, their libel action should be funded through the public purse, then so be it. The relatives of Jean-Claude de Menezes for example, who don’t appear to be particularily rich, should have this recourse. Despite the putative fact that the claimant, in that instance, is dead.

As ukliberty has pointed out at 44, the slurs on a dead man are beyond parody.

Who told the media that de Menezes vaulted the ticket barrier, had cocaine in his system, was an illegal immigrant, and was being investigated for rape?

That was our secret state at its’ worst. Shower of incompetent, murderous, liars.

It is that that you would allow to be covered up. They would still be able to tell lies, get them into the media and be safe in assuming that contrary evidence would not be forthcoming. Is that what you really want?

A leaky state is a better state…..

I think it’s incredible that we cannot find this “’small number of misguided individuals who betray confidences’ in irresponsible off the record briefings to the media during anti-terror operations”. Particularly because these are issues of national security and therefore require the highest level of attention.

But of course it isn’t in the interests of journalists, their sources, or the Government, for us to discipline those individuals, is it?

“Yes, I’m not to happy about that either. Can we just disregard what newmania said and stick to what I’m trying to say? ”

Yes, I wouldn’t like to give newmania the impression he can change people’s views by agreeing with someone.

I agree the current system needs improvement (even if you just take Liberty’s point about the danger of prejudicing trials) – for me it doesn’t matter much whether it is state censorship or an independent regulator, it’s what the rules are and it’s making sure the body doing the regulating/censoring is accountable that matters. Independent regulators can be legalist, elitist, stuffed with people from the sector they’re meant to regulate and undemocratic so I might actually prefer the state to be involved. It all depends on the detail, though. Clearly if it’s the state doing it it needs to be more sophisticated than just letting the Home Secretary decide, or whatever. It needs to be done by people who have no direct interest in hiding truth from the public.

‘Who told the media that de Menezes vaulted the ticket barrier, had cocaine in his system, was an illegal immigrant, and was being investigated for rape?’

I think you might have a point if the answer wasn’t overwhelmingly likely to be ‘some guy down the pub who has a cousin who heard something from the woman who cleans the office where they maintain the police website’.

‘Journalistic standards’ would be one of those phrases like military intelligence, save for the complicating factor that every so often you will find a colonel with some smarts.

I doubt central government are the best people to regulate journalists, but someone needs to: the amount of unnaccountable unregulated power they hold dwarfs that of even bankers, let alone ministers.

Sucking up to that level of unelected power, defending the privileges of the powerful as if they were universal rights, should go against the instincts of any liberal.

I think it’s incredible that we cannot find this “’small number of misguided individuals who betray confidences’ in irresponsible off the record briefings to the media during anti-terror operations”.

How are you going to do that? Which journo who wants to retain any credibility is going to reveal their sources even if the government wants to know who revealed identities.

It’s unrealistic to expect anyone to reveal sources. It’s also unrealistic to expect that journalists aren’t going to try anyone to fish out information that will fill papers. They’ve done it before.

Douglas / ukliberty: As I said – I completely realise the danger for abuse. But people are being prejudiced in the media without even having any charges pressed. How would you resolve it? I doubt the government would go overboard on this simply because the media outrage would be too much.

I’ve been making noise about this for a while – speaking to journos and saying they need to be more responsible. The only response I get is that while people need to sell papers, sensationalism will over-ride the need to wait before all the facts are available. And this is a Guardian journalist, not a Daily Mail one. And I don’t see the PCC doing anything.

So I’m open to alternatives, as I said, but the system right now prejudices a lot of people and makes life more difficult for the intelligence services to gather evidence on terrorism.

I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. If the government really wanted to find out who is leaking, they could. It is a question of will. Everyone involved has a vested interest in the status quo except when it comes to matters of so-called ‘national security’. Here the Government only wants us to know that which is politically expedient for us to know. That is what this latest move is really about. It isn’t for our health.

As regards the issue of individuals being traduced by the media, I think this has already been addressed in this thread. Some improvement in defamation law, state-subsidised defamation actions, preliminary hearings for just cause, equal or greater prominence for apologies… I’m sure there is plenty of room for refinement here.

There is a common theme running through all this: it is never the fault of the Government. It isn’t the fault of the Government when Ministers make a statement first to the media instead of Parliament. It isn’t the fault of the Government when a Home Secretary makes a propagandising speech one day and then the next day there are tanks in Heathrow or someone’s house is raided and someone is shot. It isn’t the fault of the Government when innocent people are defamed in the media and little to nothing is done about it. It isn’t the fault of the Government when Home Secretaries and police officers bang on about mass murder plots to blow up aircraft but subsequently juries deliver only verdicts of conspiracy to murder and so people start saying we should get rid of juries.

I don’t know where the fault lies but it certainly doesn’t lie with the organisation at the heart of all this and the only one that has any real power to do something about it.

It’s a tough one, we all know we want rumours and hearsay to no longer be reported, the press should be based ideally upon factual happenstance. But realistically I think a combination of having an accountable independent complaints body and ensuring punishments for infringements and glorifications of falsehoods are such that they can’t escape them with any integrity. Someone here said that apologies are timed and published in a way easily missed…if you’re going to legislate then make sure anyone can easily get an apology for the libel committed upon them, and then legislate to force those apologies to take up the entirety of their front page.

Except, of course, this site seems to actually be against greater ability for libel action, strange.