Newspaper regulation: blog tasks- MM56
Task One: Media Magazine article and questions
MM56
1) At its peak, the Leicester Mercury had 130 journalist. In 10 years time Keith sees the newspaper becoming more expensive and have a small circulation. The number of staff will decrease.
2) Regulation isn't the solution to the phone hacking scandal, even though it was illegal. He sees regulation the press is to "tame" them.
3) IPSO: Independent Press Standards Organisation. It was set up in response of the Leveson.
IPSO is more powerful than the PCC and can order newspapers to print apologies or corrections on the front page or fine papers. However, it crucially doesn’t act on Leveson’s key recommendation that the regulator is backed by government legislation.
4) He believes in freedom of speech and that audiences have the right to buy or neglect the newspapers. Hew said how Rupert Murdoch is allowed to say whatever he wants.
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 this point because I believe that they will become more biased when their job is to be neutral. The media should be like a "guardian" so should be providing well-rounded news to the people.
Task Two: Newspaper regulation essay
What are the arguments for and against statutory regulation of the newspaper industry?
Statutory regulation refers to the idea of the government being involved in controlling the media, in particular the newspaper industry in response to the Leveson Inquiry. The Leveson Inquiry in 2011-12 was a judicial public enquiry ordered by the government into the culture and ethics of the British press. This followed the revelations of the phone hacking scandal and the closure of the News of the World. I believe that newspapers should be regulated because they have a duty if care towards the people and are seen as “guardians”, therefore meant to be providing well rounded and neutral content. Instead, newspapers are the ones who now need to be supervised due to their unethical and immoral ways of getting their news stories.
Newspapers should be regulated by the government because it will give them a criteria that they will need to follow and act as a deterrent to illegal and immoral ways of finding news. So it’s a good way to protect society. The media role in the democratic society is to “provide an essential check on all aspects of public life” and act as a “guardian” for its citizens. However, Leveson’s Inquiry has suggested that the citizens are the guardians and have to hold the media in account for malpractice and corruption.
Moreover, after the Leveson Inquiry, Leveson stated that newspapers should be self-regulated-as they had been by the PCC, but there should be a new standards body. The Royal Charter was approved by the Queen in 2013 and mainly sets out the workings of the body that is supposed to guarantee the self-regulator does its job properly. People believe that the charter will is safe in the hands of MPs and peers and that the conditions that might lead to it being altered are highly likely. This will protect the public against the worst abuses of the press. Therefore prevent any unethical and immoral actions by the newspaper industry.
Furthermore, the fact that the newspapers are still allowed to be self-regulated is concerning as it compares with how a kid would “mark their own homework”, both reflecting how the press will be biased and still carry out immoral actions and bury scandals. Also, it’s the actions of the newspaper bosses who encouraged the phone-hacking scandal so they can’t be trusted anymore and need to have some sort of orders given of broken code of conduct. Not having this will make the public more susceptible to becoming victims of unwarranted press intrusion. Ultimately it can be seen that self-regulation of the press can hardly be seen as a success so far.
In contrast, many people oppose the idea of statutory regulation as they believe that it would give politicians too much power, the Newspaper society said it was tantamount to “state-sponsored regulation”. Many people see the problem lying within morality: can morality be regulated? More importantly, should it? They believe that statutory regulation will impact negatively. The press can’t be neutral, but it can be independent and so parliamentary control will have the effect of reducing editorial staff and thereby reducing news coverage. Also, the charters compulsions will impact negatively on the presses side as they would find themselves subject to a provision of the courts and crime act 2013, known as section 40, which would make publishers pay the legal costs if they win or lose, which could make them face crippling costs.
Moreover, it can be seen that 80% of the public voted for statutory regulation, however statistics show that around 50% of the population don’t vote, this shows the unbalanced can lead to an unfair conclusion. It can be see that the press has undoubtedly done wrong, but it is important to realise that everyone recognises this. The media do hold accountability for their actions. The public outcry brought on by the findings of the Leveson inquiry underlines that the morality of the British press must come not from the law, but from the public itself. Therefore, self-regulation can be seen as successful as the press knows their boundaries and take the public voice into account.
Furthermore, statutory regulation is strongly disagreed against because it disallows the concept of ‘freedom of speech’. It gives the government sole power of control of news content which can also be in jeopardy of being biased because it may favour political parties that are in control so it won’t give a well-rounded and neutral content as he public needs. Also, there are underlying trust issues with the government being corrupt or hiding scandals as well so it won’t be the best solution to this problem.
In conclusion, I believe that statutory regulation is need because the newspaper industry have time and time again shown that they can’t be trusted with self-regulating due to them hiding scandals. They also don't “look after, protect or defend public morals” instead they are places of corruption and they need to be supervised by the public.
MM56
1) At its peak, the Leicester Mercury had 130 journalist. In 10 years time Keith sees the newspaper becoming more expensive and have a small circulation. The number of staff will decrease.
2) Regulation isn't the solution to the phone hacking scandal, even though it was illegal. He sees regulation the press is to "tame" them.
3) IPSO: Independent Press Standards Organisation. It was set up in response of the Leveson.
IPSO is more powerful than the PCC and can order newspapers to print apologies or corrections on the front page or fine papers. However, it crucially doesn’t act on Leveson’s key recommendation that the regulator is backed by government legislation.
4) He believes in freedom of speech and that audiences have the right to buy or neglect the newspapers. Hew said how Rupert Murdoch is allowed to say whatever he wants.
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 this point because I believe that they will become more biased when their job is to be neutral. The media should be like a "guardian" so should be providing well-rounded news to the people.
Task Two: Newspaper regulation essay
What are the arguments for and against statutory regulation of the newspaper industry?
Statutory regulation refers to the idea of the government being involved in controlling the media, in particular the newspaper industry in response to the Leveson Inquiry. The Leveson Inquiry in 2011-12 was a judicial public enquiry ordered by the government into the culture and ethics of the British press. This followed the revelations of the phone hacking scandal and the closure of the News of the World. I believe that newspapers should be regulated because they have a duty if care towards the people and are seen as “guardians”, therefore meant to be providing well rounded and neutral content. Instead, newspapers are the ones who now need to be supervised due to their unethical and immoral ways of getting their news stories.
Newspapers should be regulated by the government because it will give them a criteria that they will need to follow and act as a deterrent to illegal and immoral ways of finding news. So it’s a good way to protect society. The media role in the democratic society is to “provide an essential check on all aspects of public life” and act as a “guardian” for its citizens. However, Leveson’s Inquiry has suggested that the citizens are the guardians and have to hold the media in account for malpractice and corruption.
Moreover, after the Leveson Inquiry, Leveson stated that newspapers should be self-regulated-as they had been by the PCC, but there should be a new standards body. The Royal Charter was approved by the Queen in 2013 and mainly sets out the workings of the body that is supposed to guarantee the self-regulator does its job properly. People believe that the charter will is safe in the hands of MPs and peers and that the conditions that might lead to it being altered are highly likely. This will protect the public against the worst abuses of the press. Therefore prevent any unethical and immoral actions by the newspaper industry.
Furthermore, the fact that the newspapers are still allowed to be self-regulated is concerning as it compares with how a kid would “mark their own homework”, both reflecting how the press will be biased and still carry out immoral actions and bury scandals. Also, it’s the actions of the newspaper bosses who encouraged the phone-hacking scandal so they can’t be trusted anymore and need to have some sort of orders given of broken code of conduct. Not having this will make the public more susceptible to becoming victims of unwarranted press intrusion. Ultimately it can be seen that self-regulation of the press can hardly be seen as a success so far.
In contrast, many people oppose the idea of statutory regulation as they believe that it would give politicians too much power, the Newspaper society said it was tantamount to “state-sponsored regulation”. Many people see the problem lying within morality: can morality be regulated? More importantly, should it? They believe that statutory regulation will impact negatively. The press can’t be neutral, but it can be independent and so parliamentary control will have the effect of reducing editorial staff and thereby reducing news coverage. Also, the charters compulsions will impact negatively on the presses side as they would find themselves subject to a provision of the courts and crime act 2013, known as section 40, which would make publishers pay the legal costs if they win or lose, which could make them face crippling costs.
Moreover, it can be seen that 80% of the public voted for statutory regulation, however statistics show that around 50% of the population don’t vote, this shows the unbalanced can lead to an unfair conclusion. It can be see that the press has undoubtedly done wrong, but it is important to realise that everyone recognises this. The media do hold accountability for their actions. The public outcry brought on by the findings of the Leveson inquiry underlines that the morality of the British press must come not from the law, but from the public itself. Therefore, self-regulation can be seen as successful as the press knows their boundaries and take the public voice into account.
Furthermore, statutory regulation is strongly disagreed against because it disallows the concept of ‘freedom of speech’. It gives the government sole power of control of news content which can also be in jeopardy of being biased because it may favour political parties that are in control so it won’t give a well-rounded and neutral content as he public needs. Also, there are underlying trust issues with the government being corrupt or hiding scandals as well so it won’t be the best solution to this problem.
In conclusion, I believe that statutory regulation is need because the newspaper industry have time and time again shown that they can’t be trusted with self-regulating due to them hiding scandals. They also don't “look after, protect or defend public morals” instead they are places of corruption and they need to be supervised by the public.
Comments
Post a Comment