Task One: Media Magazine article and questions
1) Keith Perch used to edit the Leicester Mercury. How many staff did it have at its peak and where does Perch see the paper in 10 years' time?
Where does he see a paper like The Mercury, which once employed 130 journalists, in ten years time? Perch thinks that if it is still in print, it will be weekly, extremely expensive, and have a very small circulation; if it is online only – the likeliest outcome – it will be unlikely to make money, and so would employ as few as five or six staff.
2) How does Perch view the phone hacking scandal?
The biggest single issue is that something illegal was going on which obviously should not have been, and which wasn’t dealt with by the police, and unfortunately the resulting actions have been disproportionate [...] Far too many newspapers and magazines have been caught up in a regulatory system that they shouldn’t really be caught up in [...] A small section of the press was behaving in a totally unacceptable way, but it should have been dealt with legally. I don’t think regulation is the answer. I know many people point to Leveson and the fact he held a massive inquiry, but I don’t think he looked carefully enough at what is happening in the regional press or in small weekly papers. I think his form of regulation is unacceptable, and that actually what people really want to do is ‘tame’ the press.
3) What does IPSO stand for and how does it work?
A newspaper has 28 days to deal with a complaint. If it hasn’t been resolved, the complainant can then take it to the IPSO Complaints Committee, which will decide if the Editor’s Code of Practice has been broken. If it has, the Committee can insist on corrections and demand that they be placed on a particular page.
4) What is Perch's view of newspaper ownership?
Keith does not believe that businesses such as Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns The Sun, The Times and 39% of Sky, should be forced to sell some of their titles to ensure that no one person or company can control too much of the media industry and therefore control the agenda:
Ultimately if people wanted to, they could buy The Guardian or The Mirror and just ignore The Sun. But they don’t, they buy The Sun! Rupert Murdoch is as entitled to his say as you or I. There are a million different voices online but everyone chooses to listen to the views in print – The Daily Mail’s website is far far bigger than anybody else’s little blog or point of view. It’s not The Daily Mail’s fault if that’s what people choose to read. What I really struggle with is that the Left are effectively trying to say people who read The Sun are stupid, and I don’t understand that. It’s trying to control what people read.
5) Do you agree with his view that broadcast news should have less regulation so that TV channels can support particular political parties or people?
I disagree with his view because I believe that no matter how much regulation is kept or not kept, broadcast news will still be biased in what they produce.
Task Two: Newspaper regulation exam question
Write an answer on your blog answering the following exam question:
What are the arguments for and against statutory regulation of the newspaper industry? [20 marks]
The debate regarding whether newspapers should have statutory regulation is a difficult one and has been ongoing for many years. Between the years 1990 to 2014, the newspaper industry was first regulated by the ‘Press Complaints Commission’ (PCC). This was a voluntary regulator that that technically had no legal powers. It was essentially run by the newspaper editor themselves which led to heavy criticism- the newspaper merely had to print a small apology when the regulator ruled against them and this meant that no one really saw the apology and it held no value.
Following the phone hacking scandal on Milly Dowler in 2007 and the closure of the ‘News of the World’ in 2011 led to the Leveson Inquiry (2011-2012). The 2,000-page report featured 337 witnesses, ranging from those at the top of the chain - Rupert Murdoch and Hugh Grant - to the victims at the bottom of the chain, such as Sally Dowler. Following the Leveson report, a new news press regulator was introduced: The Independent Press Standers Organisation (IPSO). IPSO is more powerful that the PCC and can order newspapers to print apologies at the front of newspapers and even fine accused newspapers. However, it crucially doesn’t act on Leveson’s key recommendation that the regulator is backed by government regulation. An alternative regulator - IMPRESS - was also set up. Unlike IPSO, it was fully compliant with Leveson. However, no major newspapers have signed up with it, making it essentially useless.
The phone hacking scandal on Milly Dowler was an action of invasion of privacy and it gave her family false hope that she was still alive. This was completely unfair and inhumane to the Dowlers and it was just the newspapers twisted and “evil” way of creating a bigger story and gaining more profit. If statutory regulation had existed at the time, the News of the World would have had to print an apology on its front covers and they would have been fined. This would have meant that justice would have been served and the Dowlers would have been compensated. However, the actions of these journalists jeopardised an ongoing police investigation and caused more trauma to the school girl’s family. One columnist from my CSP the Daily Mail, Richard Littlejohn, is an example of this. In March 2013, Littlejohn published a column on MailOnline concerning a primary school teacher, Nathan Upton. Upton decided to undergo a gender transition and would return to the school as a female teacher. Littlejohn expressed his views on the matter, stating that this adult life should not be “forced down their (the school children’s) throats”. Later on, Meadows was found dead and DailyMail were forced to take the column down. Many people expressed anger towards Littlejohn and a petition started to get him fired. Therefore, it seems logical that statutory regulation should exist for the purpose of preventing such crimes from occurring again in the future.
Furthermore, the main goal for almost all newspapers is to generate large amounts of profit. Therefore, other newspapers may be pressured into carrying out these unethical actions themselves as well in order to match up to another newspaper’s readership. This is extremely dangerous and puts many people at risk of being victims of the newspaper industry. In order to prevent this, there must be some form of regulation. The newspaper industry is owned by very few people with too much power and they seem to have no problems on inflicting pain if it means they get a higher readership. This is especially true in our current time, where the internet is taking over and newspapers are declining dramatically, meaning they are more inclined than ever to carry out unjust acts. Curran and Seaton suggest that newspapers must reflect the needs and desires of the reader in order to maintain circulation and readership and that, technically, anyone should be able to set up a newspaper. However, this assumption is wrong and an illusion because the press has been industrialised; ‘ordinary people’ would require substantial capital to establish a paper. The Internet has lowered these entry costs, however, the “the list of the ten most-visited sites is dominated by large news organisations like BBC News, the Guardian, The Times, The Sun and Telegraph.” This would suggest that the individual may have access to resources, but they will have difficulty reaching an audience without the power of the mass media industries. Perhaps regulation would change this.
The other side of the debate, however, would argue that all these cases are not a reason for statutory regulation to exist. The phone hacking scandal, and any acts similar to this, are illegal. This means that it should be the police taking care of the issue. Keith Perch states that ''Far too many newspapers and magazines have been caught up in a regulatory system that they shouldn’t really be caught up in.” This would be completely true if we did have statutory regulation. The unjust actions of one newspaper would lead to all the others having to suffer the consequences. It is important to note that a free press is essential for a free and democratic society- this cannot be possible with statutory regulation.
Furthermore, it is essential to consider the good that has come from newspapers. One example is ‘Watergate’ in the Washington Post – one of the most famous newspaper stories of all time that broke out in 1972. It exposed president Nixon and led to his resignation. This is an example of investigative/accountability journalism and there have been many other cases like this where newspapers have exposed people in power for the greater good. They may have needed to invade people’s privacy with these matters, but no one seems to mind when its for the benefit of the general public. If statutory regulation existed, these powerful people would have been able to get away with what they are doing. In addition, it is important to also note that newspapers provide an alternative voice that isn’t controlled by one viewpoint. For example, some people argue that if the current Fox News had been around and Nixon was accused, he would have been able to get away with it because they would have supported him.
In conclusion, I believe that statutory regulation shouldn’t regulate the newspaper industry. Although there have been some illegal cases in the past, these should have been dealt with by the government and police. The law already compensates victims- libel laws. Furthermore, the British press has illustrated that it can regulate its ethics on its own, by listening to the voices of the British people. The newspaper industry will always have to work in favour of its readers, as they will not be able to exist without them.
No comments:
Post a Comment