The supposedly new and allegedly independent press regulator
the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) launches today, with chairman
Alan Moses being sent out to do the rounds of the radio and TV studios and tell
a stubbornly sceptical public that this new and improved offering is not the
same old PCC piss in a differently labelled bottle (which, unfortunately for
him, it is).
(c) Steve Bell 2014
While the former judge has told that he has “had lots of contact with campaigners”, his
task has not got off to the best of starts, with the BBC headlining its item “New press self-regulation body 'not a fake',
says Ipso chairman”, then going on to tell that “Sir Alan said he understood why campaigners felt the new body was a ‘sham’
but wanted to prove them wrong”.
That he understands may
be down to the analysis by the Media Standards Trust which found that, of “38 Leveson recommendations, IPSO satisfies
12, and fails to satisfy 20 ... of the 20 recommendations that IPSO fails, many
are key elements of the Leveson system, including independence from industry, access
to justice, and complaints”. The press disagree, but have failed to counter
the report.
Oh what a giveaway! (Thanks to Hacked Off)
And, although the Daily
Mail has
dutifully told readers “IPSO, the new
Press regulator, begins work today with a commitment to be 'rigorous,
independent, fair and transparent' ... It has far tougher rules than the
previous regulator, the Press Complaints Commission”, the deeply subversive
Guardian, which has declined to sign
up to IPSO, has
bad news for the new regulator.
“Victims of press
intrusion including the sister of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler and parents
of missing child Madeleine McCann have accused publishers of ‘rejecting due
process and the rule of law’ in setting up a new industry regulator ... In a
letter to ... Sir Alan Moses, 30 victims of press intrusion said they did not
believe it would make any practical difference to those who suffer abuse by
newspapers”.
(c) Steve Bell 2014
That, put directly, is the problem for Alan Moses as he
attempts to persuade the wider public that IPSO will bring any significant change
from the PCC, which deflected complaints in their thousands, allowed the press
their own facts so they could rebut yet more complaints, and sanctioned
flat-out lying by pundits on the grounds that “it was a comment piece and they did it for effect”.
Joan Smith of Hacked Off has concluded “Neither we, nor victims of press abuse, nor the wider public will
accept a sham regulator that fails to meet the Leveson criteria of independence
and effectiveness”. She might also have added transparency, which has been
lost on the Mail, whose IPSO article
tells “Sorry we are not currently
accepting comments on this article”.
That sums up the press’ attitude. Do as they say, not as they do.
2 comments:
Public respond to Moses by buying tablets, and bloggers they trust, rather than newspapers with owners (and editors) they don't?
"A stubbornly sceptical public"
Is there sceptisim though, or is it a case of people just, rightly or wrongly, not even taking any notice and getting on with it.
As I have said previously, the whole thing has been a waste of time and money.
Rly
Post a Comment