Plymouth MPs back new regulation of the press

“The only people rallying against this seem to be those with a known right wing viewpoint......why is that? Worried you'll have to find another way to stir up the paranoia and hatred that keeps you folks views alive?”

“I see the paranoia-exploiting propaganda from the gutter press is doing its job.

It's not about restricting legitimate journalism. Such stories as the MPs' expenses scandal and whistleblowing in public bodies are clearly in the public interest.

The problem is the freedom of the press barons and their minions to victimise, persecute and exploit, without regard for either the truth or the consequences of their actions. A classic case in point is the recent death of transgender teacher Lucy Meadows, singled out for vilification by Richard Littlejohn of the Mail for no other reason than spiteful prejudice. How is the public interest served by persecuting a dedicated teacher to death?”

“Bringing in a Charter backed by any form of legal regulation will raise questions like - 'Will we be ever see stories about MPs fraudulent expenses? Whistleblowers from government/Health departments?'

It will make the FOI Act irrelevant as nobody will be able to publish any of the details for fear of retribution from on high.
I dare say that MPs are rubbing their hands together in glee at this unnecessary control of the press.
Democracy? What democracy?

We may now have to resort to reading more leaks on websites/texts/twitter as they do in China, North Korea and Russia.

As you sow, so shall you reap. Be warned.”

“*sigh* (again)

History lesson: 40 years ago it was the Tories who were broadly keen on Europe and Labour who weren't. Most (not all) key Labour figures came round to the idea; most (not all) Tories went off it. Not everybody in those parties shares the majority view: Ken Clarke is a pro-EU Conservative and he too is entitled to dissent.

So I mean right-wing in the context of UKIP, the party whose entire existence is based on withdrawing from the EU. And I mean far-right in the context of its membership overlap with the BNP, and regarding its MEPs' cosiness with various extreme-right parties in other member states.

Now I'm the one who seems to have touched a raw nerve. If all you can do is nit-pick, I'll leave you to it. I came on here to discuss press regulation.”

“@Nevman

What - "right wing" as in Tony Benn or Bob Crowe?”

“*sigh*
To answer your comments, one by one:

I'm not "getting" anything. As I just said, the Herald website automatically redacts the name of its owners' editor-in-chief with asterisks.

No, but you did imply that a family blog might be subject to the press regulator even though the quote you supplied clearly indicates that a blog would have to be authored by more than one person, under the control of an editor and operating as a business. That clearly excludes a family blog.

Context is everything. If you were to say that, in your opinion, David Cameron had blood on his hands, you'd be fine. If you stated it as fact, then you might conceivably have a libel problem, though I suspect Mr Cameron has better things to do with his time than issuing writs for everyone who ****s him off on the internet.

It's funny, but nobody who parrots the agenda of the right-wing media ever admits to reading them. (I do read the Mail, as it happens, on the principle of "know thine enemy".) But maybe you don't, although you do seem to be the target readership it's aimed at.

What UKIP have to do with this is that Rupert Murdoch seems to be courting them lately, inviting Nigel Farage to dinner and echoing their belief that David Cameron isn't nearly right-wing enough on Europe - views which you have expressed on these pages on several occasions, and are pretty clear from your nom de plume.”

“@Nevman

I don't know why you are getting so ****** but please do read what I've written.

I've not implied that a family blog would be published in the course of a business.

And if two or more constitutes multiple authors, and they express an opinion, then these measures would apply to them – just to be "on your side", would saying that David Cameron has blood on his hands because he has cut welfare benefits not constitute a reason for this legislation to be used against the authors.

And save the Mail, Sun, whatever rhetoric – I don't read either of them, and might I suggest that if you don't like them, don't buy them.

And what the hell UKIP have to do with this I have no idea.”

“It is generally important that any news piece is unbiased and contains clear and actual, facts. Whilst journalism school teaches that any columned piece should endeavour to omit any personal opinion of the journalist, and journalistic license is and should be used to create a 'news' piece, it is folly to adhere to guidelines which state opinion should be clearly written in 'comment' or 'editorial' headed item only to attempt to steer the opinion, or cover in incitement, opinion to an extent that confusion arises, such that the journalistic style used has dictated in bias that the editorial comment is the only possible outcome in opinion on the article presented (it would have been considered that any such style of writing would have be learned against by year two of a journalism degree or two years experience in the field), irrespective of first-hand (biased in emotional or professional witness) or third-hand third-rate guessing of a reader's psychology. As always, responsibility lies on the Editor's head.”

“The asterisks are P*a*u*l_D*a*c*r*e, by the way - editor-in-chief of Daily Mail & General Trust. Typically, while he feels he should be free to name and criticise anyone he feel like, apparently he doesn't extend the right to name and criticise him to the likes of us!”

“A family blog isn't "published in the course of business" though, is it? Do save your McCarthyite scare stories for the UKIP meetings.

And "editorial control" means exactly what it says. Nothing sinister about two perfectly clear English words. If you decide what gets published, you have editorial control. If you're just a contributor you don't. Applies equally to blogs or national newspapers.

There's nothing in the proposals to restrict investigative journalism. MPs' expenses would still be a legitimate story.

I do agree with you about those in power not acting altruistically, though. I just wish you'd think it through and apply it to Rupert Murdoch, **********, the Barclay twins and Richard Desmond - who hold more power than any politician could dream of, as they have the power to control what people think.”