“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes”

The inspiration behind Sunny’s headlines?

The internet is a whole different ball game. The daily press can feed the internet but it can’t compete with the sheer speed of the internet and the internet will stay lawless unless draconian censorship technology is applied, as in China and Iran.

Btw I easily found the blogged “list” of alleged Conservative paedophiles on the internet and did absolutely nothing to increase the circulation either through blogging or by emails retailing gossip to friends.

As said before, the list instantly reminded me of the smearing techniques in the early 1950s of Senator Joe McCarthy, who would claim in a press conference to have lists in his pocket of Communists and Communist sympathisers embedded in high places. That was enough to ruin many lives. We now owe much to Sam Wanamaker who sought refuge in Britain:
http://www.shakespearesglobe.com/about-us/history-of-the-globe/rebuilding-the-globe

@ 1

A lie can travel halfway around the internet while the truth is still logging into Twitter.

Hi Sunny, although I’m quoted in one of those links I do agree that Leveson is more subtle than he’s given credit for, and his ‘ethical vacuum’ comment is strictly speaking correct. I also agree that it was outside his remit, and not his job to ‘regulate the internet’ (a phrase that itself demonstrates an ignorance of the difference between a platform and an industry, i.e. newspapers).

For all the hyperbole about the ability to publish online, the press still has a unique – albeit diminishing – power: mainly around access, and influence. We might all be able to read great reporting on Twitter, but ultimately the powerful pay more attention to what newspapers say, rightly or wrongly. Leveson’s report recognises that, doesn’t exclude web *publications* from regulation, but does draw an interesting line between organisations and *individuals* which again ultimately comes down to power: if I have the power of money, staff, and ‘stable audience’, then I may be subject to regulation. If I do not have those things, then I am not.

In other words, he doesn’t seek to regulate the internet, and he shouldn’t.

So your arguments are:

1) That the internet shouldn’t have been part of the remit, because it wasn’t part of the remit.

2) The internet shouldn’t have been part of the remit because the person tasked to investigate was ignorant.

3) As long as people don’t bother claiming to be ethical, they can do whatever they want – i.e., the only real issue with the press is hypocrisy.

4) That ‘Westminster’ (and btw, there are other categories of news!) stories don’t break on the internet, even though they regularly break on Twitter or indeed on political blogs (though presumably, given your stance here, never on Liberal Conspiracy).

Neat.

@ 5 Martin

I don’t see your problem with (1) or (2). He had a job to do. Presenting a close textual analysis of Madonna lyrics wasn’t part of his remit either; is he negligent for not explaining the influence of postmodernism on Material Girl? And why on earth are you apparently annoyed by the idea that someone tasked to investigate something should have some expertise in the relevant field?

I also think you’re missing the point with (4), or rather the OP has explained himself poorly. I suspect “break” should read “reach the attention of the general public”. It’s still not 100% true, but a lot of stories still only gain wings when the press or TV picks them up.

Agree with you on (3). It’s specious. I don’t think papers should be allowed to keep phone-hacking the families of murder victims as long as they don’t display some ethical kitemark, and nor should blogs.

Arguably, the internet has strengthened newspaper brands (especially that of the Guardian and the Mail) than diminished their power.

Yup, has it increased the money they make though?

“I don’t see your problem with (1) or (2). He had a job to do. Presenting a close textual analysis of Madonna lyrics wasn’t part of his remit either”

Umm, yes, but should it have been? No one thinks it makes sense to include a textual analysis of Madonna lyrics in a report that considers the freedom of press. Many people think that presenting an analysis of Internet publications – such as blogs or news aggregators – should have been quite relevant for considering what the freedom of press means (“the press” nowadays being more a commercial and non-commercial industry rather than an object involving ink and screws).

Just consider the BBC and the senior conservative politician that was rumored to be a pedophile. Big story relevant for this consideration, even without the actual “press” really being involved.

the internet does not claim to operate by any particular ethical standards

But this doesn’t really mean anything. “The internet” isn’t an entity, or a group of entities or anything like – it’s a series of tubes a medium of communication.

Let’s take the Guardian – an article by Polly Toynbee appears in the print version, a response to that article then gets published online on Comment Is Free, and then the author of that response gets into a discussion with Toynbee on Twitter. Which bit of that is “press”, which bit is “internet”?

@ 8 pjt

I accept that maybe it should have been part of the remit. What I’m saying is that, given that it wasn’t part of the remit, it’s odd to criticise him for doing what he was meant to do. And had it been part of the remit then you would have wanted someone with expertise involved.

@5 Martin

You say that Sunny says: “The internet shouldn’t have been part of the remit, because it wasn’t part of the remit.” No, Sunny says that Leveson wasn’t asked to consider the regulation of information on the internet. So he didn’t. I can’t see the point of your remark.

You say that Sunny says “The internet shouldn’t have been part of the remit because the person tasked to investigate was ignorant.” You are right and Sunny is wrong. Any independent investigation has to assume its own ignorance ab initio. Otherwise the process has no point.

You say that Sunny says “As long as people don’t bother claiming to be ethical, they can do whatever they want – i.e., the only real issue with the press is hypocrisy.” No, that’s not what Sunny, or more importantly Lord Leveson, is saying, and I would have thought that Leveson’s point is clear – that those who claim to operate by ethical standards should abide by their own claims. The internet makes no such claims.

Tou say that Sunny says that “Westminster…and…other categories of news… stories don’t break on the internet”. You’re right. Of course they do. Again, though, I think that Leveson addresses that point. There is a world of difference between gossip in the local pub or on an internet chat board to the effect that Madeleine McCann was murdered by her parents, and the same suggestion being asserted by a newspaper which claims to observe ethical standards of reportage.

7. Leon

Guardian has made a £44million loss.

9. Tim J

It is all the press because ultimately the press authored the story. The none press element would be the same if people just chatted about a story over coffee having just read the newspaper or indeed wrote a letter to Toynbee.
I don’t think this issue is about the medium in which news is carried but more about regulating the those institutions associated with the daily production of news.
The internet, including the internet papers, are really just noise in the background.

I don’t agree with any regulation of the press but I don’t follow the OP logic in differentiating between the internet and the dead tree press/TV etc. If the only difference is a claim to/not to have any ethical standards then someone could start a paper, claim to have no ethical standards and that would be ok ?
From the perspective of “the victim” in what sense is the internet any different in it’s potential to invade privacy, misrepresent etc. The McAlpine allegation was broken entirely on the internet but had exactly the same impact as if broken in a paper or on channel 4 news.
The only real difference I can see is (for now and only to a point) elective anonymity.

@14. Derek Hattons Tailor: “I don’t agree with any regulation of the press…”

Not even libel? Libel acts post facto — do you believe that I could accuse Miles Quantifacts of Bristol to be a kiddy fiddler, without any legal response? Could I make that accusation anywhere?

“If the only difference is a claim to/not to have any ethical standards then someone could start a paper, claim to have no ethical standards and that would be ok ?”

Old dead tree brain Leveson considered that too. Leveson proposes a club where responsible journalism is conducted; membership of that club delivers privileges and requires responsibilities. Club privileges will be nifty. If your paper does not join the club, it lives in the wild west where lawyers will take you to pieces.

Bloggers are not newspapers.

“The McAlpine allegation was broken entirely on the internet but had exactly the same impact as if broken in a paper or on channel 4 news.”

Those Tweeters replicated an aspect of a story that they did not understand. Broadcasters did not name the man. because they realised that the evidence did not exist.

Tweeters need to be more hesitant about re-tweeting random accusations. It is an aspect of life called “responsibility”.

@15 You can then sue, as many victims of the press do. The law already offers remedies, it’s not an issue of press regulation but is being opportunistically presented as one.
The real issue in the hacking scandal was the Police (and others) selling privelidged information to journalists. Despite the promises none of them yet seems to have been charged with anything ?

I’m not opposed to a voluntary code of conduct that blog editors could sign up to

I’m not opposed to a voluntary code either.

I wouldn’t sign up to it because I don’t want to blog with one hand tied behind my back – but I’m not opposed to other bloggers signing away their credibility any more than I’d oppose a street protestor’s right to silence himself with a ball-gag.

The question is how ‘voluntary’ this would actually be.

The real issue in the hacking scandal was the Police (and others) selling privelidged information to journalists.

That, and page 3 (according to another thread at LibCon)

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.

But that is because Britain does not have anyone like Drudge. Or even Breitbart. The internet in America has repeatedly broken stories. This is a failing of bloggers.

The internet has eaten away at newspaper sales and the rise of social media makes it harder for newspapers to push lies.

So there is no need for regulation at all.

In that sense the internet makes the Leveson report even more relevant and necessary.

Why do I get the feeling this article ends on the exact opposite note compared to how it started? If the internet is spreading lies, and it does, then how does the fact that the Leveson report does nothing about it help? Surely this is an argument for including the internet into his remit?

“I’m not opposed to a voluntary code of conduct that blog editors could sign up to.”

There is already the “Blog with Integrity” logo which I, and other responsible bloggers display.

http://www.blogwithintegrity.com/

I agree. The Leveson Inquiry was about the press because the press is able to set the agenda, and also because it had been shown that the press intimidates the Police and politicians. There is nothing, as yet, on the internet, that sets the agenda and intimidates in the way that the tabloid press does. The P. Staines blog might have had some power for a brief moment several years ago, but it lost that power as others opened up their own blogs and set out their own opinions.

Policemen don’t try to get their daughters jobs on this blog (because there aren’t any jobs on this blog). The PM doesn’t have country suppers with the owner of this blog (who doesn’t organise country suppers and who wouldn’t be able to swing the result of an election). Lot of very dubious things are said on the internet but it rarely matters because no-one has a critical mass that will affect political strategies and policy and it is relatively easy to contradict dubious stories. It is the concentration of influence of the press, and its ability to sway policy and fend off enforcement of the law and its own codes of practice, that led to the Leveson Inquiry. At present no-one is in that position on the internet.

@16. Derek Hattons Tailor: “You can then sue, as many victims of the press do. The law already offers remedies, it’s not an issue of press regulation but is being opportunistically presented as one.”

Yes, victims can sue. For a £50 charity donation, name anyone who is/was dependent on state benefits and who won a libel case (settled in court, not on the sidelines) for greater than £50.

£50 for the first instance.