04 Informed


Michelle’s Message


Michelle atending the Leveson Inquiry


Read More www.nuj.org.uk/ campaigns/leveson- inquiry/


Te union’s nuanced


position on UK media reform explained


Distraction is an age-old tactic. A disproportionate fuss over a triviality soaks up atention that might be beter spent elsewhere. Tis thought comes to mind


watching the hyperbolic reaction of many newspaper publishers to the government’s recent consultation on Section 40 and the possible initiation of the second part of the Leveson inquiry. At the start of November a 10 week consultation kicked off on whether


☞


recognition from the Press Recognition Panel, established by Royal Charter in 2014. To achieve recognition, a regulator must have in place a quasi- judicial system of arbitration to consider unresolved issues between publications and the public where individuals believe that the editor’s code has been breached. Implementing Section 40 would mean that arbitration of this kind would take the place of the first stage of a legal action against a publication. It makes it dramatically easier, and critically cheaper, for petitioners and respondents. As well as this carrot, Section 40 also contains a stick. Publications that do not sign up to a recognised regulator and therefore are without a system of arbitration would potentially be liable for the costs of both sides should anyone bring an action against them. Given that the intention


was that this legislation would


be triggered at the point at which a Leveson-compliant regulator came on the scene – and in the face of the industry’s rampant hostility – this issue effectively sat in the long grass until the eventual granting of that recognition to regulator Impress made the prospect of legislative follow-through imminent enough to spark the industry’s atack dogs into activity.


What about the morality of offshore, foreign- domiciled billionaires who dominate our national newspapers, or the ethics of these men marking their own homework?


Section 40 of the Crimes and Courts Act (2013) should be implemented – a decision entirely in the giſt of Karen Brady, the cabinet minister whose department covers the media. Tis provision was one of the upshots of Lord Leveson’s inquiry, agreed by parliament in its aſtermath. Te intention was that a press regulator or regulators would seek


Many column inches have been


expended on the charitable funding model of Impress and the sexual peccadillos and family background of Max Mosley. No similar editorial space has been devoted to commensurate critical analysis of the funding mechanism of the industry’s preferred model of self-regulation that they run and fund – IPSO, the reborn PCC.


Mark Tomas


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12