Monthly Archives: November 2012

Did Leveson adequately cover sexism in media?

News

A wide coalition of women’s groups were among those who lobbied Lord Justice Leveson to address sexism in the media.

In September they submitted a letter to the inquiry and the Prime Minister arguing that newspapers ‘sexualised violent crimes against women’ and helped to ‘normalise rape’.

In a report, the coalition of groups said:

We found numerous instances of violence against women coming across as sexual and titillating.

We call this ‘rape culture’ because this reporting of violence against women and girls not only trivialises the abuse, but it further contributes to an increasingly conducive context for rape and sexual abuse to take place with impunity.

The submission to Leveson was from the End Violence Against Women Coalition, Eaves, Equality Now and Object.

So how did Lord Justice Leveson respond? He certainly acknowledged their concerns, stating that the tabloid press often failed to show consistent respect for the dignity and equality of women generally.

Of greater potential concern to the inquiry is the degree to which the images may reflect a wider cultural failure to treat women with dignity and respect and/or a practice which, intentionally or not, has the effect of demeaning and degrading women.

The report also endorsed their recommendation that the new watchdog should take complaints from representative women’s groups, and said that the new body should be able to intervene in discriminatory reporting and reflect equalities legislation.

EVAW have sent out a release today saying they were “delighted” that the Leveson report reflected their concerns and took on board their recommendation.

They added:

There is wide debate right now about #mediasexism and we believe we are in a watershed moment for instituting change in the way our press portrays women. Just ahead of the Leveson Report working with other women’s groups we published a two-week study of the prejudicial way the national press reports on women.

See the new online project #everydaymediadsexism, in partnership with everydaysexism, where people are sharing their experiences of media sexism.

The Leveson report also acknowledged that Muslims were not being treated fairly by the press. It stated that sections of the press “betray a tendency,” which it add is far from universal, to “portray Muslims in a negative light”.

Most of the press has of course ignored these points. The question now is whether anything comes out of these recommendations.

Lord Justice Leveson was right to ignore the internet in his report

Blog, Media, Our democracy

Lord Justice Leveson’s report has attracted criticism from some who say only one page out of 2000 is dedicated to ‘The relevance of the internet’ (pg 736).

I think such criticism is misplaced. He did absolutely the right thing by not focusing much on the internet.

Firstly, and obviously, it wasn’t in the remit.

Secondly, it’s a topic he doesn’t know much about and if he had tried to offer suggestions on regulation, he would have faced much more ridicule. It would have backfired massively.

Third, Lord Justice Leveson is actually much more nuanced than press reports suggest. He writes that the internet works within an ‘ethical vacuum’, but this too has been misinterpreted. He clarifies this:

This is not to say for one moment that everything on the internet is therefore unethical. That would be a gross mischaracterisation of the work of very many bloggers and websites which should rightly and fairly be characterised as valuable and professional. The point I am making is a more modest one, namely that the internet does not claim to operate by express ethical standards, so that bloggers and others may, if they choose, act with impunity.

The press, on the other hand, does claim to operate by and adhere to an ethical code of conduct. Publishers of newspapers will be (or, at least, are far more likely to be) far more heavily resourced than most, if not all, bloggers and websites that report news (as opposed to search engines that direct those on line to different sites).

This is absolutely right, and I fully agree with it.

David Banks tells the Guardian: “Leveson is referred to as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and by ignoring the internet, it’s missing an opportunity.” – but there couldn’t conceivably be any regulation that Lord Justice Leveson could demand of bloggers.

I’m not opposed to a voluntary code of conduct that blog editors could sign up to. There could even be a kitemark that blogs could display to signal this to readers. But this wasn’t within his remit and a new regulatory body could easily draw this up if it so wished. In fact, British bloggers could draw up such a code themselves. There was no reason for the Leveson report to interfere.

Lastly, there is criticism that the internet itself makes press regulation obsolete. I don’t agree with it and the Leveson report addresses this too:

In my view, this argument is flawed for two reasons. Putting to one side publications such as the Mail Online which bind themselves voluntarily to the Editors’ Code of Practice (and which is legitimately proud of the world-wide on line readership that it has built up), the internet does not claim to operate by any particular ethical standards, still less high ones.

This then refers to the earlier point about an ‘ethical vacuum’, and Lord Justice Leveson rightly says that it would be impossible to get regulation going on the internet. But that doesn’t make press regulation redundant.

The second reason largely flows from the first. There is a qualitative difference between photographs being available online and being displayed, or blazoned, on the front page of a newspaper such as The Sun. The fact of publication in a mass circulation newspaper multiplies and magnifies the intrusion, not simply because more people will be viewing the images, but also because more people will be talking about them.

Or to put it another way – the front page of Reddit doesn’t break stories about Westminster policy proposals or scandals like the Daily Mail or The Guardian. The newspapers have diminished power but they are still very powerful in their own right. And a lot of BBC News is driven by the press agenda, which strengthens their influence.

The internet has eaten away at newspaper sales and the rise of social media makes it harder for newspapers to push lies. But for some it also means their stories go further as people share that information. Arguably, the internet has strengthened newspaper brands (especially that of the Guardian and the Mail) than diminished their power.

Mark Twain’s famous quote, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes” applies even more with the internet. In that sense the internet makes the Leveson report even more relevant and necessary.

UKIP *crush* Tories in two by-elections

News

The Conservatives got *crushed* by the UKIP vote in both Rotherham and Middlesbrough by-elections results last night.

Rotherham
Sarah Champion (Lab) 9,866 (46.25%, +1.62%)
Jane Collins (UKIP) 4,648 (21.79%, +15.87%)
Marlene Guest (BNP) 1,804 (8.46%, -1.96%)
Yvonne Ridley (Respect) 1,778 (8.34%)
Simon Wilson (Cons) 1,157 (5.42%, -11.32%)
David Wildgoose (Eng Dem) 703 (3.30%)
Simon Copley (Ind) 582 (2.73%, -3.58%)
Michael Beckett (Lib Dems) 451 (2.11%, -13.87%)
Ralph Dyson (TUSC) 261 (1.22%)

Rather extraordinary that the Libdems came in 8th, and the UKIP and BNP vote exceeded that of the Conservatives.

Middlesbrough
Andy McDonald (Lab) 10,201 (60.48%, +14.60%)
Richard Elvin (UKIP) 1,990 (11.80%, +8.10%)
George Selmer (Lib Dems) 1,672 (9.91%, -10.00%)
Ben Houchen (Cons) 1,063 (6.30%, -12.48%)
Imdad Hussain (Peace) 1,060 (6.28%)
Peter Foreman (BNP) 328 (1.94%, -3.90%)
John Malcolm (TUSC) 277 (1.64%)

Tories stayed ahead of UKIP in the Croydon North by-election but Labour held that seat.

I don’t think there’s any doubt now that the rise of UKIP is seriously eating into the Conservative vote. The question is, how bad will it bleed at the next election?

This was my favourite tweet of the night.

Amusingly, the EDL leaflet in Rotherham quoted Martin Luther King Jr.

The key line in Ed Miliband’s retort on Leveson report

News, top

This is the key line from Ed Miliband’s speech that the media is quoting, and is central to his speech today:

The press must be able to hold the powerful, especially politicians, to account, without fear or favour.

That is part of the character of our country.

At the same time I do not want to live in a country where innocent families like the McCanns and the Dowlers can see their lives torn apart simply for the sake of profit.

And where powerful interests in the press know they won’t be held to account.

This is about the character of our country.

It is the bolded line that is key, and I suspect will resonate with the public much more than Cameron’s line.

Miliband excelled himself again today in Parliament.

Lord Leveson report: key points and link

News

HERE IS THE REPORT IN FULL

Some of the key findings

• Not convinced phone-hacking was confined to one or two individuals.

• Newspapers have recklessly pursued sensational stories

• Families of famous people have rights to privacy

• There has been “a willingness to deploy covert surveillance, blagging and deception in circumstances” without public interest justification

• Failure of compliance and governance at the News of the World

• Phone-hacking complainants not taken seriously enough

Key Recommendations

• An independent self-regulatory body underpinned by statute. It should be free of “any influence from industry and government”. Should have the power to fine newspapers up to £1m or 1 per cent of turnover for breaching a new code of conduct

• A First Amendment-style law to protect the freedom of the press

• New body should have the powers, be able to offer remedies and hit with sanctions. New body will not have power to prevent publication of any material

• A new watchdog should have an arbitration process in relation to civil legal claims against subscribers. The process should be fair, quick and inexpensive.

• If companies do not join the independent regulator, they should be policed by the watchdog

(hat-tip Guardian and the Telegraph)

Update: Ed Miliband’s (very good) statement is here.

The dilemma: how to get more girls in developing countries to go to school

Africa, Blog, Foreign affairs

It’s been 50 days since 15 year-old Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head by the Taliban for advocating for the rights of girls to go to school in Pakistan. The country has the second highest number of out-of-school children in the world, after Nigeria – and two thirds of them are girls.

In fact, girls are less likely to be enrolled in primary school compared to boys in virtually every country in the developing world. (pdf)

While the international community has been actively trying to address this problem via the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), it has failed to tackle one of the core reasons girls are out of school: violence.

Research by ActionAid and the Institute of Education in Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria and Tanzania found that up to 86% of girls had reported some form of violence against them in the previous 12 months. This violence in turn was found to directly affect whether girls attended or completed school.

Just a few days after the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, the Secretary of State for International Development, Justine Greening, announced a new pot of funds specifically focused on tracking what works in responding to violence against women and girls. The £25 million fund will operate over five years in ten countries in Africa and Asia and will have a priority emphasis on prevention – stopping violence in the first place.

This new investment is critical. Up to 70% of women face gender-based violence at some point in their lifetime. This violence affects women of all cultures and classes in all countries, and is one of the core reasons women are more likely to be living in poverty. It denies women choice and control over their lives and is one of the most widespread human rights violations in the world.

And yet change is possible. A five year ‘Stop Violence Against Girls in School’ project by Action Aid running in Ghana, Kenya and Mozambique for example has seen consistent – and in some cases dramatic – improvements in girls’ enrolment in school. From 2008 to 2011, the percentage of girls enrolled went up by 20% in Ghana, 60.7% in Kenya and 59.5% in Mozambique. Dropout rates have likewise improved across the life of the project.

In Afghanistan, ActionAid trained women paralegals to provide legal and psychological advice to other women. With this training, they successfully brought 480 cases of violence through the justice system; only eight cases had ever been previously reported. And in Zanzibar, ActionAid set up four shelters, providing survivors of violence a safe place to stay where they can access legal support services. Previously, there were none.

The key to this work being successful is ensuring there is adequate investment in the necessary ingredients for change. As this Theory of Change (pdf) explains, there are four ingredients:

1. Empowering women and girls
2. Changing the social norms that condone violence against women and girls
3. Building political will and legal and government capacity to prevent and respond to violence against women and girls
4. Providing comprehensive support services to survivors of violence – including appropriate medical help

It is past time to acknowledge how violence is undermining progress on all of our development and social justice ambitions and yet is not included at all in our targets for change.

We need now to hear the Government confirm that it will fight for a dedicated target on how to eliminate violence against women and girls in the framework that comes after the Millenium Development Goals too.

Counter-productive Hatchet Job at the Daily Mail

Blog, Media, Reform, , ,

The Daily Mail have published a rather odd hatchet job on Gavin Freeguard, Harriet Harman’s culture advisor. Gavin formerly worked for the Media Standards Trust, who are part of the Hacked Off Campaign.  This fact, and some year-old tweets from Freeguard where he (shock! horror!) criticises David Cameron allow Mail journalist Richard Pendlebury to paint Gavin as some kind of Manchurian spad.

We desperately need to hear strong arguments against state-regulation and ‘licensing’ of the press.  Left-wingers love to loathe the Daily Mail, but it is a hugely influential newspaper with one of the most visted websites on the Internet.  There is no better platform for the arguments against statutory regulation to be presented.

And yet, on the eve of the Leveson Inquiry report publication, there is nothing in today’s editorial on #Leveson.  Instead, the Daily Mail editors choose to run a piece which appears to be little more than an ad hominem attack on someone who previously worked for the Media Standards Trust.  The pro-regulation camp will spin this a more evidence that the press is unserious about the regulation debate, and more interested in attacking individuals in order to sell newspapers – precisely the sin that (the critics say) makes the case for regulation!

As someone who is very wary about the prospect of state regulation of the press, I find it very is frustrating that the newspaper that could be the most powerful voice for press freedom is pursuing such a short term agenda, squandering its platform, and undermining the case for press freedom at such a crucial moment.

Why is Labour ignoring the biggest issue of our generation?

Blog, Economy, Environment

Last week when the government was in complete conflict over the Energy Bill, Ed Miliband was applauded for calling on them to stick to de-carbonisation targets. But it was a low-key speech, made in Scotland, only covered by the usual suspects.

Soon after, Ed Balls visited a wind farm with John Sauven of Greenpeace. Once again very little was made of it and the press barely informed when green energy was on top of the news agenda.

This has become a pattern. Last month, the private sector ruined Osborne’s party conference speech with a Times splash that said – “Go green or we quit Britain, energy firms tells Osborne.” How did Ed Balls greet the ensuing media interest? With silence.

There’s no doubt Labour has trouble getting attention for much of the noise they make around the NHS Bill. But they’re not new to the art of picking a fight (usually with Jeremy Clarkson) to get a story going in the press.

Along with many of their allies in the sector, I get the distinct feeling that the Labour leadership is shying away from the battle over renewable energy, green jobs and the Energy Bill.

For over a year, we have been letting the Tories get away with murder. On a vital issue, the Conservatives have moved away from the general public in order to promote and anti-science, anti-clean energy and anti-growth Tea-party wing of the party.

Why isn’t Labour making more noise about this? Some shadow ministers have claimed the media doesn’t cover these stories, but even if green investment and energy has been clogging the front pages for months now, Miliband is at his best when he sets the agenda.

It may be that the industrial policy followed by Ed Balls is still stuck in the past and sees the environment as separate to the economy. If so, he should have attended the TUC’s conference on the green economy only last month.

The public is on-side despite the attempts by the right wing press – every poll shows Britons preferred the UK to push for renewables over fossil fuels. A YouGov poll by Sunday Times last month found that 64% of UK want more wind or solar; only 14% want more oil or gas.

Perhaps Ed Miliband is worried the environmental credentials he inherited from pushing the Climate Change Act make him look too soft. But there’s nothing soft about the impact of Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey and New York. There’s nothing soft about the economic figures the CBI are bandying about. There’s nothing light-hearted about accusing the Chancellor of letting ideology rip our economy apart.

Climate change isn’t a soft issue – it’s a sledge hammer. The Tories are crazy for letting the environment slip from their fingers, all to appease their ideologically extreme backbenchers.

Cameron must be grateful that Labour is asleep at the wheel in calling him on it.

How Early Action would help improve services

Blog

By Will Horwitz

The Ministry of Justice does ‘not propose to devote these limited public funds to less important cases on the basis that they could indirectly lead to more serious consequences for that person’ said Lord McNally, Justice Minister in the House of Lords, as he piloted the Legal Aid Bill through the House earlier this year.

‘Let’s not waste money on minor problems when we could spend more once they’ve become extremely serious’ doesn’t sound like a promising mantra by which to reduce public spending, but is the default option for a department forced to make short-term spending cuts with little room for manoeuvre. Meeting this year’s budget target is the only target (and is well-rewarded), irrespective of the impact on your own, or others’ budgets in years to come.

These powerful public spending incentives to act for the short term in government are a significant barrier to the kind of investment in prevention which would transform public services. In a report published today the Early Action Task Force estimate as much as 40% of public spending goes on dealing with problems that could have been tackled earlier. Only 20% goes on early, preventative action. The Task Force, chaired by Community Links’ David Robinson spans the sectors, a disparate group united in their shock at the wasted potential these figures represent.

Programmes involving significant long term investment are exceptions proving the rule. Take the Olympics, a 15 year commitment honoured and delivered by successive governments and local administrations. They couldn’t have happened any other way, and indeed little else is happening that way.

Youth offending costs the nation just as much as the Olympic games every year,. £11bn. Successive short term programmes have shown how the costs, social and financial, could be significantly reduced with earlier action yet year after year the overwhelming majority of the budget is spent on imprisonment, less than 10% is invested in prevention. Here is just one challenge that can only be met with long term collaboration and sustained commitment. There are many more.

Ed Balls recognised this in his party conference speech earlier this year when he said that an incoming Labour government would not “duck the hard long-term issues we know we haven’t properly faced up to and which transcend parties and parliaments and where we badly need a cross-party consensus.’

He proposed ‘… a long-term plan to support the most vulnerable in our society – looked-after children and adults needing social care.’ The underlying rationale he said ‘is not just about policy, but about the kind of country we want to be and the way we do our politics.’

Of course this option will always look more attractive from the opposition benches than it will from No 11 whoever occupies those seats but the Canadian experience of sustained cross-party support for a consistent approach to criminal justice shows that it is neither naïve nor impractical for the major parties in a parliamentary democracy to collaborate on the kind of agenda that cries out for sustained commitment to long-term goals and strategies.

We could do better earlier. This is a practical proposition but it calls for a different kind of politics, one that values sustainable solutions above short term goals, and a different kind of leadership, one that builds on common sense, in opposition and in government. Understand this and grip the challenge and in the coming years there will be more to make us proud than one glorious summer.

Starbucks being hurt by not paying Corporation Tax

News

Coffee company Starbucks’ unwillingness to pay Corporation tax in the UK is starting to hurt the company, shows research.

An in-depth piece of research shows that Starbucks suffered a huge backlash online after it was revealed piece of research shows paid no corporation taxes last year.

Worse still:

Satisfaction scores worsened further after Troy Alstead, the brand’s chief financial officer, appeared alongside representatives from Amazon and Google at a House of Commons Select Committee earlier this month.

‘Negative conversation has indeed increased, outweighing positive discussion,’ said Yomego chief executive Steve Richards. ‘Although Starbucks continues to attract followers on Facebook and Twitter, about 95% of comments contain references to the tax issue.’

No doubt some people will scoff at that but it shows that news of Starbucks’ tax avoidance has broken through to the public, in addition to the usual suspects, and they don’t like it.

What’s more worrying for Starbucks is that its tax avoidance may be used against it by competitors.

Since former Costa marketing director Jim Slater was promoted to managing director, it has shied away from ads attacking Starbucks. However, it is understood to be considering marketing activity that positions it as a business that ‘does the right thing’ in the UK.

It’s only a matter of time for tax avoidance to become part of someone’s marketing campaign to hit at competitors.

That’s when it will really hurt.