DOCSLIB.ORG

Response to the Press Recognition Panel Call for Information on the Annual Report on the Recognition System 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Response to the Press Recognition Panel Call for Information on the Annual Report on the Recognition System 2019 Response to the Press Recognition Panel Call for Information on the Annual Report on the Recognition System 2019 Introduction 1. The Press Recognition Panel (PRP) was established under the Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press (‘the Charter’) to ‘carry on activities relating to the recognition of Regulators’. 2. Among other things, the PRP is responsible for ‘reporting on any success or failure of the recognition system’. 3. Accordingly, on 18 September 2019, the PRP issued a call for information ‘to gather views on the extent to which the recognition system has succeeded in its aims.’ This call for information poses the following questions: • To what extent does the new system of genuinely independent and effective system of self-regulation recommended by Leveson exist today? • Is the system of self-regulation that exists today more or less independent and effective system than three years ago? What evidence do you have to support your view? • How much confidence can the public have in the systems that are currently in place to protect it from potential harm caused by the press and news publishers? • How satisfied are you with the mechanisms and processes that are in place to challenge misinformation and mistruths in the press? 4. This paper constitutes IMPRESS’s response to this call for information. 5. In the paper, we first set out the factual background to our response. We then provide answers to the PRP’s questions. IMPRESS Response to PRP Call for Information October 2019 Page 1 of 12 6. We hope this response encourages productive dialogue with the PRP and other relevant stakeholders, including representatives of the news publishing industry, regulators, academics, civil society organisations and policymakers. Part One: Factual background Government policy towards the news publishing industry 7. The Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press (‘the Charter’) was designed to give effect to recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson following his Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press (‘the Leveson Inquiry’). 8. The recitals to the Charter show that its aims are aligned with the Terms of Reference of the Leveson Inquiry, which was tasked with recommending: ‘a new more effective policy and regulatory regime which supports the integrity and freedom of the press, the plurality of the media, and its independence, including from Government, while encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards’. 9. In this paper we assess ‘the extent to which the recognition system has succeeded in its aims’ by reference to these aims of: • Supporting the integrity and freedom of the press; • Supporting the plurality of the media; • Supporting the independence of the media, including from Government; and • Encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards. 10. The recognition system was intended to form part of a wider framework for press regulation (‘the post-Leveson framework’) that included the legal incentives set out in sections 34-42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. These incentives are designed to protect publishers from awards of exemplary damages and adverse costs orders in libel and privacy actions, so long as they subscribe to a recognised regulator, and to expose publishers to the risk of exemplary damages and adverse costs orders if they do not subscribe to a recognised regulator. 11. The exemplary damages provisions were commenced in the normal way upon enactment of the legislation, but the Government chose not to commence section 40 of the Act (‘s40’), which sets out the costs provisions. IMPRESS Response to PRP Call for Information October 2019 Page 2 of 12 12. On 1 March 2018, the Government announced its intention to repeal s40 and cancelled Part Two of the Leveson Inquiry. At the same time, the then Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Rt. Hon Matt Hancock MP, announced a range of related policy initiatives: ‘Action is needed. Not based on what might have been needed years ago – but action now to address today’s problems. Our new Digital Charter sets out the overarching programme of work to agree norms and rules for the online world and put them into practice. Under the Digital Charter, our Internet Safety Strategy is looking at online behaviour and we will firmly tackle the problems of online abuse. And our review into the sustainability of high-quality journalism will address concerns about the impact of the Internet on our news and media.’1 13. The Secretary of State suggested that the aims of these initiatives were comparable to the aims of the recognition system: ‘At national and local levels, a press that can hold the powerful to account remains an essential component of our democracy. Britain needs high-quality journalism to thrive in the new digital world. We seek a press – a media – that is robust, and independently regulated. That reports without fear or favour. The steps I have set out today will help give Britain a vibrant, independent and free press that holds the powerful to account and rises to the challenges of our times.’ 14. A group of claimants brought an unsuccessful challenge to the lawfulness of the government’s decision to cancel Part Two of the Leveson Inquiry. The Government released a statement on judgement on 28 November 2018, stating that: ‘The media landscape has changed significantly in the six years since the Leveson Inquiry was first published and we believe that the steps we have taken mean that continuing with Part 2 is no longer appropriate, proportionate, or in the public interest.’ 15. The policy initiatives outlined in Matt Hancock’s statement subsequently took shape as the Cairncross Review: A sustainable future for journalism (‘the Cairncross Review’), published in February 2019, and the Online Harms White Paper (‘the White Paper’), published in April 2019. 16. The Cairncross Review found that there has been a market failure in the provision of public interest news and recommended public intervention to address 1 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/leveson-consultation-response IMPRESS Response to PRP Call for Information October 2019 Page 3 of 12 this. In particular, the Review recommended subsidies to support local journalism and digital innovation in news publishing. 17. The White Paper set out proposals for a new regulatory framework for social media platforms that would address harms such as ‘misinformation’ and ‘abuse of public figures’. In response to concerns that this framework would also affect the online services offered by news publishers, the then Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Rt. Hon Jeremy Wright MP, wrote to the Society of Editors, copying IMPRESS, on 10 April, stating: ‘where these services are already well regulated, as IPSO and IMPRESS do regarding their members’ moderated comment sections, we will not duplicate those efforts.’ 18. The Government did not explain: • How it assessed whether IMPRESS’s and IPSO’s members’ moderated comment sections were well regulated, or regulated at all; • What its plans were for comments sections on the websites of news publishers more generally; or • How it was justified in not including the content of news publishers regulated by IPSO or IMPRESS in the regulation of third-party platforms where that content appeared. 19. The Government has not yet formally responded to either the Cairncross Review or its consultation on the White Paper. 20. Meanwhile, the Government has continued to provide a range of direct and indirect subsidies to parts of the news publishing industry. Printed news publications are zero-rated for Value Added Tax (VAT), whilst local authorities are obliged to advertise with selected local newspapers. Taken together, the annual value of these subsidies has been calculated at £250m.2 21. In the course of reviewing the BBC Charter, the Government encouraged the BBC to enter into partnership with the News Media Association (NMA) to invest £8m of licence fee funds per year into a Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS). The lion’s share of LDRS contracts (61 out of 68) were subsequently awarded to newspapers owned by Reach, Newsquest and JPI, three of the 2 https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/why-local-websites-deserve-a-share-of-governments-250m-plus- annual-subsidy-for-local-news/ IMPRESS Response to PRP Call for Information October 2019 Page 4 of 12 largest publishing companies in the UK, all of which are members of IPSO (see below), and which have a combined turnover of more than £1bn.3 22. In 2018, the Government updated data protection law to reflect the requirements of the European Union General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). The Data Protection Act 2018 includes a qualified exemption for journalists who follow any of a number of listed journalism codes. The listed codes include the Editors’ Code of Practice, which is used by IPSO. Despite multiple requests by IMPRESS and a cross-party group of parliamentarians, the Act does not list the IMPRESS Standards Code, either by name or as the code of a recognised regulator. The state of the news publishing industry 23. At a conservative estimate, we believe that there are at least 500 news publishing companies in the UK. These companies are responsible for a wide range of publications, including general interest newspapers and magazines as well as specialist titles. They include investigative journalism non-profits, hyperlocals, political media and publications aimed at particular communities of interest. 24. Whilst digital technology has enabled new players to enter the news market, it has also created problems for audiences, who increasingly encounter news via social media platforms and search engines, and who are unsure, as a result, whether to trust a particular news site. 25. Ofcom’s latest research shows that audiences are increasingly looking for trust indicators when they encounter news online: ‘Although close to one in five social media users say they would not tend to check the truthfulness of news articles, this is less likely than in 2017 (23%).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Response to the Government Consultation on the Leveson Inquiry and Its Implementation
    Response to the Government Consultation on the Leveson Inquiry and its Implementation Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 2 The commencement of section 40 ............................................................................. 4 Option (a): Government should not commence any of section 40 now, but keep it under review and on the statute book ..................................................................... 4 Option (b): Government should fully commence section 40 now ............................ 5 Option (c): Government should ask Parliament to repeal all of section 40 now ...... 8 Option (d): Government should partially commence section 40, and keep under review those elements that apply to publishers outside a recognised regulator ... 10 Option (e): Government should partially commence section 40, and ask Parliament to repeal those elements that apply to publishers outside a recognised regulator 11 The impact of section 40 .......................................................................................... 13 The impact of section 40 on the press industry .................................................... 13 The impact of section 40 on claimants .................................................................. 19 The purpose of section 40 ........................................................................................ 22 Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Why Journalism Matters a Media Standards Trust Series
    Why Journalism Matters A Media Standards Trust series Lionel Barber, editor of the Financial Times The British Academy, Wednesday 15 th July These are the best of times and the worst of times if you happen to be a journalist, especially if you are a business journalist. The best, because our profession has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to report, analyse and comment on the most serious financial crisis since the Great Crash of 1929. The worst of times, because the news business is suffering from the cyclical shock of a deep recession and the structural change driven by the internet revolution. This twin shock has led to a loss of nerve in some quarters, particularly in the newspaper industry. Last week, during a trip to Colorado and Silicon Valley, I was peppered with questions about the health of the Financial Times . The FT was in the pink, I replied, to some surprise. A distinguished New York Times reporter remained unconvinced. “We’re all in the same boat,” he said,”but at least we’re all going down together.” My task tonight is not to preside over a wake, but to make the case for journalism, to explain why a free press and media have a vital role to play in an open democratic society. I would also like to offer some pointers for the future, highlighting the challenges facing what we now call the mainstream media and making some modest suggestions on how good journalism can not only survive but thrive in the digital age. Let me begin on a personal note.
    [Show full text]
  • Additional Material for Chapter 2: Press Regulation Section Numbers from the Book Are Used When Relevant
    Dodd & Hanna: McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, 24th edition Additional Material for Chapter 2: Press regulation Section numbers from the book are used when relevant. Its content provides fuller explanations and context. 2.1.1 Fragmentation of press regulation A deep concern among the ‘mainstream’ press organisations and many journalists was that Leveson’s proposed regulatory system included an overseeing ‘recognition body’, to be created by statute (and therefore in a form decided by politicians). Leveson’s aim was that this body would decide whether to approve (‘recognise’) any regulator funded by the press, and therefore how the regulator would operate. The idea was that - if recognition was granted - there would be periodic reviews of the regulator’s effectiveness, in terms of promoting standards in journalism, to check if its recognised status remained merited. Leveson did not recommend that such recognition should be compulsory for any regulator the press established. But, as explained below, he designed a legal framework which could financially penalise press organisations – potentially very heavily - if they did not sign up to a ‘recognised’ regulator. Critics of the recognition concept say it offers potential for future governments to interfere with press freedom, by exercising influence through the role of, or powers granted to, the recognition body—for example, by giving it powers to insist that a regulator, to retain recognition, impose tighter rules on the press, with harsh penalties for breaching them. Supporters say that such ‘recognition’ oversight can help ensure that a recognised regulator is completely independent, in its decisions on complaints against the press, of any press group funding it.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Freedom Under Attack
    LEVESON’S ILLIBERAL LEGACY AUTHORS HELEN ANTHONY MIKE HARRIS BREAKING SASHY NATHAN PADRAIG REIDY NEWS FOREWORD BY PROFESSOR TIM LUCKHURST PRESS FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK , LEVESON S ILLIBERAL LEGACY FOREWORD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. WHY IS THE FREE PRESS IMPORTANT? 2. THE LEVESON INQUIRY, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 A background to Leveson: previous inquiries and press complaints bodies 2.2 The Leveson Inquiry’s Limits • Skewed analysis • Participatory blind spots 2.3 Arbitration 2.4 Exemplary Damages 2.5 Police whistleblowers and press contact 2.6 Data Protection 2.7 Online Press 2.8 Public Interest 3. THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK – A LEGAL ANALYSIS 3.1 A rushed and unconstitutional regime 3.2 The use of statute to regulate the press 3.3 The Royal Charter and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 • The use of a Royal Charter • Reporting to Parliament • Arbitration • Apologies • Fines 3.4 The Crime and Courts Act 2013 • Freedom of expression • ‘Provided for by law’ • ‘Outrageous’ • ‘Relevant publisher’ • Exemplary damages and proportionality • Punitive costs and the chilling effect • Right to a fair trial • Right to not be discriminated against 3.5 The Press Recognition Panel 4. THE WIDER IMPACT 4.1 Self-regulation: the international norm 4.2 International response 4.3 The international impact on press freedom 5. RECOMMENDATIONS 6. CONCLUSION 3 , LEVESON S ILLIBERAL LEGACY 4 , LEVESON S ILLIBERAL LEGACY FOREWORD BY TIM LUCKHURST PRESS FREEDOM: RESTORING BRITAIN’S REPUTATION n January 2014 I felt honour bound to participate in a meeting, the very ‘Our liberty cannot existence of which left me saddened be guarded but by the and ashamed.
    [Show full text]
  • Feral Beast": Cautionary Lessons from British Press Reform Lili Levi University of Miami School of Law, [email protected]
    University of Miami Law School University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository Articles Faculty and Deans 2015 Taming the "Feral Beast": Cautionary Lessons From British Press Reform Lili Levi University of Miami School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles Part of the Communications Law Commons, and the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons Recommended Citation Lili Levi, Taming the "Feral Beast": Cautionary Lessons From British Press Reform, 55 Santa Clara L. Rev. 323 (2015). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Deans at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TAMING THE "FERAL BEAST"1 : CAUTIONARY LESSONS FROM BRITISH PRESS REFORM Lili Levi* TABLE OF CONTENTS Introdu ction ............................................................................ 324 I. British Press Reform, in Context ....................................... 328 A. Overview of the British Press Sector .................... 328 B. The British Approach to Newspaper Regulation.. 330 C. Phone-Hacking and the Leveson Inquiry Into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press ..... 331 D. Where Things Stand Now ...................................... 337 1. The Royal Charter ............................................. 339 2. IPSO and IM
    [Show full text]
  • British Media Coverage of the Press Reform Debate : Journalists Reporting Journalism
    This is a repository copy of British media coverage of the press reform debate : journalists reporting journalism. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/165721/ Version: Published Version Book: Ogbebor, B. orcid.org/0000-0001-5117-9547 (2020) British media coverage of the press reform debate : journalists reporting journalism. Springer Nature , (227pp). ISBN 9783030372651 Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. This licence allows you to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even commercially, as long as you credit the authors for the original work. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ British Media Coverage of the Press Reform Debate Journalists Reporting Journalism Binakuromo Ogbebor British Media Coverage of the Press Reform Debate Binakuromo Ogbebor British Media Coverage of the Press Reform Debate Journalists Reporting Journalism Binakuromo Ogbebor Journalism Studies The University of Sheffield Sheffield, UK ISBN 978-3-030-37264-4 ISBN 978-3-030-37265-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37265-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020. This book is an open access publication. Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.
    [Show full text]
  • The Value of Public Service Media
    The Value of Public Service Media T he worth of public service media is under increasing scrutiny in the 21st century as governments consider whether the institution is a good investment and a fair player in media markets. Mandated to provide universally accessible services and to cater for groups that are not commercially attractive, the institution often con- fronts conflicting demands. It must evidence its economic value, a concept defined by commercial logic, while delivering social value in fulfilling its largely not-for-profit public service mission and functions. Dual expectations create significant complex- The Value of ity for measuring PSM’s overall ‘public value’, a controversial policy concept that provided the theme for the RIPE@2012 conference, which took place in Sydney, Australia. This book, the sixth in the series of RIPE Readers on PSM published by NORDI- Public Service Media COM, is the culmination of robust discourse during that event and the distillation of its scholarly outcomes. Chapters are based on top tier contributions that have been revised, expanded and subject to peer review (double-blind). The collection investi- gates diverse conceptions of public service value in media, keyed to distinctions in Gregory Ferrell Lowe & Fiona Martin (eds.) the values and ideals that legitimate the public service enterprise in media in many countries. Fiona Martin (eds.) Gregory Ferrell Lowe & RIPE 2013 University of Gothenburg Box 713, SE 405 30 Göteborg, Sweden Telephone +46 31 786 00 00 (op.) Fax +46 31 786 46 55 E-mail:
    [Show full text]
  • Associated Newspapers
    ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS Press Recognition Panel Call for Information - IMPRESS’s application for recognition. Response from Associated Newspapers 1. Introduction 1.1 I am writing to give Associated Newspapers’ response to your Call for Information in respect of IMPRESS’s application for recognition under the government’s Royal Charter. 1.2 As Editor Emeritus of Associated Newspapers I deal with regulatory matters for the United Kingdom’s second- and third-largest daily newspapers by circulation, the Daily Mail and Metro, and second-largest Sunday newspaper by circulation, The Mail on Sunday. The information below is supplied on behalf of Associated Newspapers. 1.3 Associated Newspapers is a member of the News Media Association. We have read the NMA’s response to this Call for Information and endorse it in full. 1.4 Before examining IMPRESS’s application in more detail we would like to call into question one aspect of this consultation. It is framed as a ‘Call for Information’ rather than a ‘Call for Evidence’. The consultation document says the PRP will not consider opinions offered to it: The PRP will only consider facts and evidence related to IMPRESS’s compliance with the Royal Charter criteria, not opinions or hearsay. This contrasts with the much more open approach taken during the PRP’s last consultation: Through this consultation we will continue to seek the views of interested parties to inform the recognition process – and give everyone the opportunity to have their say. No reason is given for this change of approach. We look forward to receiving an explanation of why the PRP believes it should not take account of the opinions of consultees on the merits of IMPRESS’s application.
    [Show full text]
  • IMPRESS and IPSO
    1 2 3 COMPETITION AND MARKETS AUTHORITY 4 21ST CENTURY FOX / SKY MERGER INQUIRY 5 6 7 Notes of a hearing with IPSO and IMPRESS 8 held at Competition and Markets Authority, Southampton Row, London 9 on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 10 11 12 PRESENT: 13 14 FOR THE COMPETITION AND MARKETS AUTHORITY 15 Sarah Chambers - Panel Member 16 Tim Tutton - Panel Member 17 18 19 FOR THE STAFF 20 Joel Bamford - Project Director 21 Sabrina Basran - Project Manager 22 Tim Capel - Legal Director 23 Jennifer Halliday - Project Director 24 Conor McCarthy - Legal Adviser 25 Rafia Saif - Project Officer 26 27 28 FOR IPSO 29 Charlotte Dewar - Director of Operations 30 Matt Tee - Chief Executive 31 32 33 FOR IMPRESS 34 Jonathan Heawood - Chief Executive Officer 35 Ed Procter - Chief Operating Officer 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Digital Transcription by WordWave International Ltd trading as DTI 45 8th Floor 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY 46 Tel No: 0207 404 1400 4043 Fax No: 0207 404 1424 47 Email: [email protected] 48 49 1 Q. (Mr Bamford) Thank you for making yourselves available today. I am Joel 2 Bamford. I am the Project Director on the staff side of the inquiry. We will 3 start from our side with some introductions. You can see the names in front of 4 you but we will tell you who we are and what we do and then ask you to 5 introduce yourselves. Then we will go through some of the procedural points. 6 As I said, I am Joel.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Social Media and Screen-Use on Young People's Health
    House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Impact of social media and screen-use on young people’s health Fourteenth Report of Session 2017–19 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 29 January 2019 HC 822 Published on 31 January 2019 by authority of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office for Science and associated public bodies. Current membership Norman Lamb MP (Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk) (Chair) Vicky Ford MP (Conservative, Chelmsford) Bill Grant MP (Conservative, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) Mr Sam Gyimah MP (Conservative, East Surrey) Darren Jones MP (Labour, Bristol North West) Liz Kendall MP (Labour, Leicester West) Stephen Metcalfe MP (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock) Carol Monaghan MP (Scottish National Party, Glasgow North West) Damien Moore MP (Conservative, Southport) Graham Stringer MP (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) Martin Whitfield MP (Labour, East Lothian) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No. 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2019. This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/copyright. Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/science and in print by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of Proceedings
    House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee Minutes of Proceedings Session 2008–09 Culture, Media and Sport Committee The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Current membership Mr John Whittingdale OBE MP (Conservative, Maldon & East Chelmsford) (Chairman) Janet Anderson MP (Labour, Rossendale and Darwen) Mr Nigel Evans MP (Conservative, Ribble Valley) Philip Davies MP (Conservative, Shipley) Paul Farrelly MP (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme) Mr Mike Hall MP (Labour, Weaver Vale) Alan Keen MP (Labour, Feltham and Heston) Rosemary McKenna MP (Labour, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) Adam Price MP (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) Mr Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay) Helen Southworth (Labour, Warrington South) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/cmscom. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Tracey Garratty (Clerk), Martin Gaunt (Second Clerk), Elizabeth Bradshaw (Inquiry Manager), Anna Wrobel/ Lisa Watkins (Senior Committee Assistants), Ronnie Jefferson (Committee Assistant). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerks of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6188; the Committee’s email address is [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Sun Has Torn Into Ed Miliband Even More Viciously Than It Hit Neil Kinnock
    Sun has torn into Ed Miliband even more viciously than it hit Neil Kinnock Exclusive: Research finds 95% of tabloid’s editorials in runup to election have been anti-Labour, with most of those directly vilifying the Labour leader The Sun in 1992 (left) and 2015. The Media Standards Trust said 77% of the tabloid’s leaders were anti-Miliband, against 44% that were deemed anti-Kinnock in 1992 John Plunkett and Ami Sedghi Wednesday 6 May 2015 16.06 AESTLast modified on Thursday 7 May 201502.11 AEST The Sun has been more virulently opposed to the Labour party and its leader Ed Miliband than it was in the runup to the 1992 election when Neil Kinnock was famously portrayed in a lightbulb on polling day, a study shows. Research by the Media Standards Trust found that 95% of the leader columns in Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid were anti-Labour ahead of Thursday’s general election, compared with 79% that were judged anti-Labour in 1992. Sun leader partisanship, 1992 v 2015 The Sun’s claim after the 1992 election in which John Major beat Neil Kinnock The research came as David Axelrod, the American political consultant and Obama adviser who has been working for Labour during this campaign, said that the Tory press in the UK is more powerful and “much more aggressive” than Fox News in the US. The Media Standards Trust found 77% of the News UK paper’s leaders were anti- Miliband, against 44% that were deemed anti-Kinnock in 1992, when the paper was edited by Kelvin MacKenzie and told its readers: “If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights.” The paper later claimed “It’s the Sun wot won it” after John Major’s Conservatives beat Kinnock.
    [Show full text]