DOCSLIB.ORG

Press Freedom Under Attack

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Convened in a small Iseminar room at the London School of freedom of the press, nor Economics, the gathering was scheduled at the request of the World Association of that be limited without Newspapers (WAN-IFRA) in furtherance danger of losing it.’ of its global mission to defend press freedom, quality journalism and editorial Thomas Jefferson integrity. It was galling that WAN should feel the need to turn its attention to this country, which has done more than any other to prove the value to democracy of a diverse and vigilant free press. 5 , LEVESON S ILLIBERAL LEGACY As those attending took their seats, my thoughts turned to recent cases in which newspapers had held power to account in the public interest. The Guardian’s patient and persistent revelations about phone hacking at the News of the World came to mind instantly; then The Times’ ongoing investigation of ruthless and organised sexual exploitation of children in Rotherham, South Yorkshire; finally the Daily Telegraph’s diligent exposure of abuse by MPs of their parliamentary expense accounts. Each of these stories makes the case for journalism unhindered by prior restraint. Countless examples from British history confirm and reinforce it. This is the country in which William Howard Russell of The Times first demonstrated through his coverage of the Crimean War the power of honest, eyewitness reporting to reveal official incompetence and topple governments as long ago as 1854; it is the land in which W.T. Stead’s Pall Mall Gazette exposed the horrors of child prostitution before the end of the nineteenth century; in which the Yorkshire Post proclaimed the perils of appeasement even as Neville Chamberlain promised ‘peace for our time’. But I was not reassured; I was truly miserable because I understood entirely the WAN delegation’s need to visit Britain for the first time in the organisation’s 110-year history. Since the abolition of press licensing in 1695, Britain’s newspapers had been free from direct oversight by government. Now, following the Leveson Report and The Guardian’s revelations regarding digital surveillance, the threat of press regulation backed by Royal Charter loomed large. It was clear that the WAN representatives could hardly believe it: the Westminster Parliament, which had promoted press freedom as a core democratic principle since the middle of the nineteenth century, was now threatening to restrict editorial independence. The latest manifestation of an unelected cabal that since 1979 has been conspiring to tame the press was supporting them. I listened in dismay as ideological enemies of the newspaper industry zealously sought to persuade the WAN team – including journalists from countries in which repressive regimes routinely suppress and censor honest reporting – that a regulator authorised by Royal Charter was compatible with press freedom. The WAN delegates were plainly appalled. Their report,1 published a few months later, pulled no punches. It concluded that: ‘Self-regulation remains the ideal model for press regulation in that it guarantees the least restrictions to the freedom of the press.’ It warned that the Royal Charter proposal represented ‘a fundamental shift…from the principle of zero involvement of politicians in press regulation’. It raised concerns that 1 WAN-IFRA (2014). Press Freedom in the United Kingdom. Available online at www.wan-ifra.org. 6 , LEVESON S ILLIBERAL LEGACY foreign governments would seek to exploit evidence that Britain was punishing and controlling its newspapers as an excuse to implement similar restrictions with still more repressive consequences. In short, it confirmed, reinforced and amplified the very serious concerns I had raised, before publication of the Leveson Report, in my pamphlet, ‘Responsibility without Power: Lord Justice Leveson’s constitutional dilemma’.2 It emphasised the stark truth that, no matter how ostensibly well intentioned, regulation of the press by any organisation authorised by the state creates the polar opposite of true press freedom. It exposed as profoundly misguided the Hacked Off Campaign’s fantasy that a happy compromise can be found somewhere between self-regulation and statutory regulation. It revealed as deplorably self-serving that campaign’s efforts to imply that the Royal Charter, which Lord Justice Leveson had emphatically not suggested, was in some way less oppressive than regulation by statute, which he had rejected equally emphatically. The WAN delegation’s mere presence in the UK confirmed the decline of this country’s global reputation for press freedom since the publication of the Leveson Report and parliament’s decision to create a Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press. It brought shame on a nation that many journalists struggling against censorship and intimidation had been accustomed to regarding as a beacon of enlightenment. It illustrated the collapse of a long-established political consensus whereby Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians alike had understood that a healthy democracy requires a robust, independent, and sometimes unlovable press. It confirmed the wisdom of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s view that: ‘Voluntary self-regulation schemes should be preferred to government-mandated ones’ and ‘state interface of any kind except supporting voluntary agreements’ is ‘entirely wrong’.3 It underlined the virtue of Index on Censorship’s argument that: ‘[A] free press must be just that – free from political interference, including from politicians voting on the establishment of, and characteristics of, a press regulator.’4 LOCAL, REGIONAL AND NATIONAL PAPERS UNITED So, along with sincere defenders of free speech everywhere, I was pleased when not one major British newspaper, local, regional or national, agreed to register with a regulatory body approved by the Press Regulation Panel (PRP) which is charged under section 3.1 of the Royal Charter with responsibility to ‘carry on activities relating to the 2 Tim Luckhurst (2012). Responsibility without Power: Lord Justice Leveson’s constitutional dilemma. Bury St. Edmunds: Abramis Academic. 3 LSE Media Blog (2013). OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media ‘Monitoring’ UK Policy. Available online at http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2013/05/21/osce-representative-on-freedom-of-the-media- monitoring-uk-policy/ 4 Index on Censorship (2013). Leveson, the Royal Charter and press regulation. Available online at https://www. indexoncensorhip,org/2013/04/index-on-censorship-leveson-royal-charter-and-press-regualtion/ 7 , LEVESON S ILLIBERAL LEGACY recognition of Regulators’.5 The notion is risible that this body, which was created by Parliament, and is funded exclusively by the Exchequer, is in any meaningful sense independent of the state. Its very existence makes clear the extent to which moral panic and hasty judgments over phone hacking made some politicians who sat in Parliament between 2010 and 2015 lose sight of the crucial role a free press plays in challenging power, making government accountable and reinforcing our democratic processes. I was equally pleased when the General Election of 2015 demonstrated that state-endorsed regulation of the press has no popular support. It will, I suspect, be a very long time before another leader of a mainstream British political party presents to the nation a manifesto commitment to implement press regulation underpinned by statute. In the unlikely event that they were to, it would almost certainly breach Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights6 which guarantees our freedom ‘to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority’. A FLAWED INQUIRY Back in 2011, the revelation that Milly Dowler’s telephone had been hacked coincided with a bid for control of British Sky Broadcasting and the expenses scandal to spawn moral panic. The result was the Leveson Inquiry, created in haste and without proper consultation. The inquiry was conducted efficiently and with admirable speed, but it was flawed from conception. Not one of the six assessors appointed by the Prime Minister to advise Lord Justice Leveson had any experience of popular newspapers, the publications that would face the inquiry’s most intense scrutiny. The inquiry devoted only one day to the study of local and regional newspapers, the interests of which are profoundly affected by its recommendations. Critics of the press were granted the privilege of core participant status.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Celebrities As Political Representatives: Explaining the Exchangeability of Celebrity Capital in the Political Field
    Celebrities as Political Representatives: Explaining the Exchangeability of Celebrity Capital in the Political Field Ellen Watts Royal Holloway, University of London Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Politics 2018 Declaration I, Ellen Watts, hereby declare that this thesis and the work presented in it is entirely my own. Where I have consulted the work of others, this is always clearly stated. Ellen Watts September 17, 2018. 2 Abstract The ability of celebrities to become influential political actors is evident (Marsh et al., 2010; Street 2004; 2012, West and Orman, 2003; Wheeler, 2013); the process enabling this is not. While Driessens’ (2013) concept of celebrity capital provides a starting point, it remains unclear how celebrity capital is exchanged for political capital. Returning to Street’s (2004) argument that celebrities claim to speak for others provides an opportunity to address this. In this thesis I argue successful exchange is contingent on acceptance of such claims, and contribute an original model for understanding this process. I explore the implicit interconnections between Saward’s (2010) theory of representative claims, and Bourdieu’s (1991) work on political capital and the political field. On this basis, I argue celebrity capital has greater explanatory power in political contexts when fused with Saward’s theory of representative claims. Three qualitative case studies provide demonstrations of this process at work. Contributing to work on how celebrities are evaluated within political and cultural hierarchies (Inthorn and Street, 2011; Marshall, 2014; Mendick et al., 2018; Ribke, 2015; Skeggs and Wood, 2011), I ask which key factors influence this process.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • “English Law and Descent Into Complexity”
    “ENGLISH LAW AND DESCENT INTO COMPLEXITY” GRAY’S INN READING BY LORD JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE Barnard’s Inn – 17th June 2021 ABSTRACT The Rule of Law requires that the law is simple, clear and accessible. Yet English law has in become increasingly more complex, unclear and inaccessible. As modern life becomes more complex and challenging, we should pause and reflect whether this increasingly complexity is the right direction and what it means for fairness and access to justice. This lecture examines the main areas of our legal system, legislation, procedure and judgments, and seeks to identify some of the causes of complexity and considers what scope there is for creating a better, simpler and brighter future for the law. Introduction 1. I am grateful to Gresham College for inviting me to give this year’s Gray’s Inn Reading.1 It is a privilege to follow a long line of distinguished speakers from our beloved Inn, most recently, Lord Carlisle QC who spoke last year on De-radicalisation – Illusion or Reality? 2. I would like to pay tribute to the work of Gresham College and in particular to the extraordinary resource that it makes available to us all in the form of 1,800 free public lectures available online stretching back nearly 40 years to Lord Scarman’s lecture Human Rights and the Democratic Process.2 For some of us who have not got out much recently, it has been a source of comfort and stimulation, in addition to trying to figure out the BBC series Line of Duty. 3.
    [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]
  • The Technology, Media and Telecommunications Review
    The Technology, Media and Telecommunications Review Third Edition Editor John P Janka Law Business Research The Technology, Media and Telecommunications Review THIRD EDITION Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in TheT echnology, Media and Telecommunications Review, 3rd edition (published in October 2012 – editor John P Janka). For further information please email [email protected] 2 The Technology, Media and Telecommunications Review THIRD EDITION Editor John P Janka Law Business Research Ltd The Law Reviews THE MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS REVIEW THE RESTRUCTURING REVIEW THE PRIVATE COMPETITION ENFORCEMENT REVIEW THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REVIEW THE EMPLOYMENT LAW REVIEW THE PUBLIC COMPETITION ENFORCEMENT REVIEW THE BANKING REGULATION REVIEW THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION REVIEW THE MERGER CONTROL REVIEW THE TECHNOLOGY, MEDIA AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS REVIEW THE INWARD INVESTMENT AND INTERNATIONAL TAXATION REVIEW THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE REVIEW THE CORPORATE IMMIGRATION REVIEW THE INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS REVIEW THE PROJECTS AND CONSTRUCTION REVIEW THE INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL MARKETS REVIEW THE REAL ESTATE LAW REVIEW THE PRIVATE EQUITY REVIEW THE ENERGY REGULATION AND MARKETS REVIEW THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REVIEW THE ASSET MANAGEMENT REVIEW THE PRIVATE WEALTH AND PRIVATE CLIENT REVIEW www.TheLawReviews.co.uk PUBLISHER Gideon Roberton BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Adam Sargent MARKETING MANAGERS Nick Barette, Katherine Jablonowska, Alexandra Wan PUBLISHING ASSISTANT Lucy Brewer EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Lydia Gerges PRODUCTION MANAGER Adam Myers PRODUCTION EDITOR Joanne Morley SUBEDITOR Caroline Rawson EDITor-in-CHIEF Callum Campbell MANAGING DIRECTOR Richard Davey Published in the United Kingdom by Law Business Research Ltd, London 87 Lancaster Road, London, W11 1QQ, UK © 2012 Law Business Research Ltd © Copyright in individual chapters vests with the contributors No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply.
    [Show full text]
  • Action on Access WP and Access Eupdate Issue 139: 18 June 2021
    1 Action on Access WP and Access eUpdate Issue 139: 18 June 2021 This eBulletin is created and produced by Andrew Rawson, Director, Action on Access, and currently emailed to 1,530 colleagues in the wider access widening participation and student success community. Don’t forget you can follow Action on Access on twitter: @actiononaccess Our eUpdates provide a monthly round-up of the latest news, events, resources and information requests on higher education, and include occasional features on Widening Participation, access, student success and social justice. I hope you find it useful and informative. Please continue to send me your feedback as well as your contributions. This edition will continue to be available until the next monthly edition at http://www.wptestsites.co.uk/actiononaccess/resources/e-update If you have any suggestions for how the newsletter could be improved, have any items of news, an event or an article you would like to contribute, please contact the editor at [email protected]. We disseminate information every day through our [email protected] list and current WP, access, student success and related vacancies are also regularly posted at http://www.wptestsites.co.uk/actiononaccess/resources Contents Welcome to the June 2021 Action on Access eBulletin. ...................................................................3 What’s New .............................................................................................................................................4 Skills and Post-16 Education
    [Show full text]
  • Unauthorised Tapping Into Or Hacking of Mobile Communications
    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications Thirteenth Report of Session 2010–12 1. This report is strictly embargoed and is not for broadcast or publication, in any form, before 05.00hrs, Wednesday 20 July 2011. 2. This report is issued under the condition that it should not be forwarded or copied to anyone else. 3. Under no circumstances should you distribute copies to anyone else or speak to the media before the publication time about the content of this report. 4. The report is subject to parliamentary copyright and you are not permitted to distribute, replicate, or publish further copies either in hard copy or on the internet either before or after publication. 5. If these instructions are unclear in any way please contact Alex Paterson on 020 7219 1589 or email [email protected] HC 907 Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications 3 House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications Thirteenth Report of Session 2010–12 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 19 July 2011 HC 907 Published on 20 July 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chair) Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West
    [Show full text]
  • [.Watch.] News of the World (2020) Movie Online Full 11 June 2021
    [.Watch.] News of the World (2020) Movie Online Full 11 June 2021 11 secs ago. mAniAc.mAyhEm.XSTRETCHY/Watch News of the World (2021) Full Movie Online Free HD,News of the World Full Free, [#NewsoftheWorld2021] Full Movie Online, Watch News of the World Movie Online Free,News of the World Movie Full Watch Online Free Official STRETCHY Business Partner with watching NEWS OF THE WORLD Online (2021) Full ARCTIC/DESTRETCHY!!~watch News of the World (2021) FULL Movie Online Free? HQ Reddit&Youtube Video [STRETCHY] News of the World (2021) Full Movie Watch online free [#NewsoftheWorld2021] Google Drive/News of the World (2021) Full Movie Watch online No Sign Up English 123Movies #NewsoftheWorld2021 Online !! In News of the World, the gang is back but the game has changed. As they return to rescue one of their own, the players will have to brave parts unknown from arid deserts to snowy mountains, to escape the world’s most dangerous game. News of the World (2021) [STRETCHY] | Watch News of the World Online 2021 Full Movie Free HD.720Px|Watch News of the World Online 2021 Full MovieS Free HD !! News of the World (2021) with English Subtitles ready for download, News of the World 2021 720p, 1080p, BrRip, DvdRip, Youtube, Reddit, Multilanguage and High Quality. Watch News of the World Online Free Streaming, Watch News of the World Online Full Streaming In HD Quality, Let’s go to watch the latest movies of your favorite movies, News of the World. come on join us!! What happened in this movie? I have a summary for you.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement: Ofcom's Plan of Work 2021/22
    Ofcom’s plan of work 2021/22 Making communications work for everyone Ofcom’s plan of work 2021/22 – Welsh translation STATEMENT: Publication Date: 26 March 2021 Contents Section 1. Chief Executive’s foreword 1 2. Overview 3 3. Our goals and priorities for 2021/22 9 4. Delivering good outcomes for consumers across the UK 31 Annex A1. What we do 37 A2. Project work for 2021/2022 39 Plan of Work 2021/22 1. Chief Executive’s foreword Ofcom is the UK’s communications regulator, with a mission to make communications work for everyone. We serve the interests of consumers and businesses across the UK’s nations and regions, through our work in mobile and fixed telecoms, broadcasting, spectrum, post and online services. Over the past year we have learned that being connected is everything. High-quality, reliable communications services have never mattered more to people’s lives. But as consumers shift their habits increasingly online, our communications sectors are transforming fast. It is an exciting moment for our industries and for Ofcom as a regulator - it requires long-term focus alongside speed and agility in response to change. Against this backdrop our statement sets out our detailed goals for the coming financial year, and how we plan to achieve them. On telecoms, Ofcom has just confirmed a new long-term framework for investment in gigabit- capable fixed networks. In the coming year, we will shift our focus to support delivery against this programme, alongside investment and innovation in 5G and new mobile infrastructure. Following legislation in Parliament, we will put in place new rules to hold operators to account for the security and resilience of their networks.
    [Show full text]
  • Moderation Guide
    Moderation Guide Society of Editors www.societyofeditors.org 01 Moderation Guide Society of Editors www.societyofeditors.org Department for Communities and Local Government 01 Foreword Introduction Before the arrival of online news, the and threatening content is an issue of real C.P. Scott, Manchester Guardian editor from 1872 to 1929, writing for the 100th space available for content was limited and concern for many. That is why we funded anniversary of the paper and his 50th birthday in 1921, said a newspaper’s primary office newspaper editorials and comment pieces the Society of Editors with input and support was the gathering of news. were the preserve of the few. from the Press Complaints Commission to carry out research into current moderation “At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, Today there really are no such physical of user-generated content and to produce nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face restrictions and together with technological good practice guidance to help on-line of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free, but facts are sacred.” advances and social networking, a much moderators in the future. larger group of commentators now have This most famous quote of the longest serving editor of the newspaper we know today a voice on almost any topic. This opening The majority of online news outlets take as The Guardian, now provides the title of the comment section of the Guardian’s up of traditional media, with the advent of the issue of moderation seriously, not successful website.
    [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]
  • Before the Murdoch Takeover: New Evidence Indicating the Need for a Further “Fit and Proper” Review
    Before the Murdoch takeover: new evidence indicating the need for a further “Fit and Proper” review AVAAZ, 8th March 2017. Submission for Karen Bradley, Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport Introduction An acquisition of Sky Plc. by 21st Century Fox (21CF) would result in a major expansion of the influence of the Murdoch Family Trust (MFT) over Sky. In 2012 Ofcom was highly critical of the role of James Murdoch who was CEO and Chairman of News International during the period of criminal and other reprehensible conduct at that organisation. This submission details a long list of wrongdoings and criminal misgovernance that has emerged since Ofcom reviewed the licenses held by BSkyB in 2012. It also draws attention to an unfolding sexual harassment epidemic being unearthed at Fox News in the US. The Secretary of State notes in her 6th March 2017 letter1 to 21CF and Sky that 21CF’s record of compliance with the broadcasting code might reflect on the culture or corporate governance at 21CF. The “huge failings of corporate governance” at News Corporation, the precursor company to 21CF were noted in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on News International and Phone Hacking and the Secretary of State herself acknowledges that James Murdoch’s actions during this time was a “failure of corporate governance.” The shocking scale of corporate misgovernance and criminal conduct make it incumbent upon the Secretary of State to exercise her powers under Section 58(3) of the Communications Act 2003, to refer the Sky bid on broader public interest grounds than those she currently says she is minded to exercise.
    [Show full text]