“Leveson:
EU wants power to sack journalists” proclaimed the Maily Telegraph’s point man in Brussels,
Bruno Waterfield, yesterday. The idea that those meddling Brussels bureaucrats
were going to take control of press regulation was a dream come true for the
anti-EU brigade. And anything that is too good to be true should cause anyone
with brain engaged to stop and think.
Because not only is there no Leveson connection, there is also
no move to give the EU power over hiring and firing of hacks: Waterfield’s talk
of “setting up state regulators with
draconian powers” is scaremongering baloney of the crudest kind. So what
has actually happened? Well, a “high-level
group to discuss freedom and pluralism of the media across the EU” has been
established.
Yes, the “freedom and
pluralism” got filtered out by the Europhobes. Nobody should be surprised.
But what has this group achieved? That question is answered by its
report submitted on Monday to the European Commission (EC) [.pdf]. Note
that the report has not been issued by
the EC: the EC has not responded to it, so there are no proposals to implement
part or all of its recommendations.
But let’s just address some of the flagrantly dishonest
claims made by Waterfield in his Tel
piece: there is no proposal to “rein in
the press” (note that the report quotes Article 11.2 of the EU’s Charter of
Fundamental Rights, “the freedom and
pluralism of the media shall be respected”, on its first page), and nor is
there any urging of “tight press
regulation”, or “state regulation”.
The EC has not taken a position on the Leveson
recommendations, and as these are a matter for the UK, does not intend to do
so. There is no proposal to put “Brussels”,
or indeed any EU body, in control of press regulation in any member state. So
what has been suggested? EC Vice
President Neelie Kroes gives a hint with “Ensuring
the independence of regulators across the member states and their cooperation”.
Ah, “independence of
regulators”. Not “state control”,
then? No: the recommendations talk of acting “to protect media freedom and pluralism”. And “The EU should raise the issue of journalistic freedom in all
international fora where human rights and democracy are discussed”. Plus
the one the Tel doesn’t like: “All EU countries should have independent
media councils”.
How “Independent media
councils” can be centrally run from Brussels is something that the usual
suspects, like Douglas Carswell, Philip Davies and Nigel Farage, and less
principled hacks like Bruno Waterfield (and
the loathsome Toby Young, plus their pals at
the Mail and Express)
prefer not to address. After all, that would mean admitting that they were
advancing a seriously false prospectus.
Thus the freedom of the UK press, to peddle any old rubbish it can get away with.
2 comments:
Worried about the referendum, how will pro europeans get a fair hearing!
Press Gazette, the loyal voice of the proprietors, was also in Leveson scaremongering mode despite there being no mention of Leveson in the report.
So much for British journalists interest in the facts.
One of the points in the report that will bring down the wrath of proprietors is the proposal for a serious right to reply. A very reasonable proposal if you support free speech but a threat to commercial freedom and the ability to print lies.
BTW Waterfield was once a libertarian communist but replaced the communist part with capitalist when he hung around with the LM lot. I presume his qualifications for the DT job were an ability to bullshit about the EU.
Post a Comment