Leveson

ooh I would not want to be in LJL's shoes. There is an anti regulation ad in the local newspaper. Gove has been having a go. The press print lies all the time. I am not that proud of them really. The problem is how do you go about regulating the nasty ones, and they are nasty, without damaging open political debate - things that are truly in the public interest rather than the public being encouraged to take a prurient interest in?
lay off Charlotte (on the basis she is Welsh)
and HG - well i find him quite impressive when he is talking about this stuff really. not at all the silly young man he is normally portrayed as (yes he has been silly in the past, I know). DS and DDIL saw him out trying to have a quiet, ordinary meal one night in OZ. He was being pestered all evening by staff and customers and did not have a moments peace. They felt sorry for him.
Do people with genuine talent actually want all this "publicity" i.e. lies printed about them, hounded by papp,,, can't spell it ... photographers? I think not. I think it is only the likes of Katie Price and P Hilton that want it.

JessM nor me. The press print lies, yes, but often expose truths. It just seems wrong to me, the idea of a muzzled press and I hope it won't happen. I actually think, in this country, there's a fairly sophisticated readership - we know the political leanings/fundings of the various papers and use and pick and mix method. Personally I read across the spectrum. What I don't want is the fourth estate, of whatever persuasion, muzzled. One ray of hope, whatever Levenson comes out with, the internet is another dimension and much more difficult to police.

Come the morning [s]

I don't like the idea of the press being controlled by any government. We need a free press but we don't need a free gutter press.

Sel

You more or less hit the nail on the head for me. Perfection is an impossible thing to acheive in any walk of life. State regulation is a path that should cause concern in my book, we are not Russia or North Vietnam I know but a slippery road is very is to slide down.

[easy to slide down] oops

POGS agreed, I'm worried, let's see what tomorrow brings

I thought Hugh Grant's programme last night was excellent. I can't see why statutory regulation underlying an agreed code muzzles the press. Surely if they don't break the law then they have nothing to fear?

Mamie Famous last words. Once government – or anyone in authority – has gained a power, it is a) uwilling to surrender it and b) eager to increase it.

Yup! I think you can see exactly that in the response of the media owners.

I certainly would not want to see government regulation of the press. I would be in favour of a regulatory body, not controlled by any government, that would have powers to punish transgressors. I think the previous (or current) body don't have any powers (could be wrong on that one). Once a government controls the press, how far behind would other freedoms be?

A line has to be drawn however on what is in the public interest. I for one would not have wanted to know what messages were on Milly Dowlers phone.

However I do find it hard to accept that "celebrities" who are quite happy to sell pictures of their weddings, children etc. to the press, then cry foul when that same press catches them in less flattering guises.

I'm just looking forward to hearing the outcome of the report. It's just wonderful that there's been no leaks or prior announcements. It must be the first time in many years. I really hate the way the newscasters announce smugly that so and so will announce today that ...... Why bother to announce anything when it's already been reported in full.

As long as they don't try to muzzle Private Eye..............I am surprised that no attempt has been made on Ian Hislop's life, given the very evil people that he has exposed.

Leveson report sounds pretty measured and sensible so far.....

They really are all as bad as each other, with their weasel words. Cameron left Maria Miller to explain their attitude,which she did very badly. Clegg sad nothing in a lot of words. Milliband appears to have shot himself in the foot by declaring beforehand that he would accept the report in its entirely. His spokeswoman tried to retreat from that.
I expect the report will follow the same path as so many others - it will just gather dust.

I hope so Greatnan Much derision is heaped on the press here but I think it's vital and the envy of many countries. What happened with News International, phone hacking etc is already covered by criminal law. The police haven't been held to account by Levenson - hopefully that will come via the courts.

I found the 'jumping on the bandwagon' of celebrities risible. The whole, very costly exercise of this enquiry, really triggered by the Millie Dowler hacking incident, emotionally driven. I would hate to see the Press muzzled and that we reach a state where the MPs' expenses scandal could never have been uncovered from what was a stolen CD.

I can't see how what is proposed would muzzle the press. What Leveson has suggested, if I have understood correctly, is what already applies to broadcast media. Why should printed media be different? I think the way that the tabloid press has behaved towards people like the McCanns and the Dowler family has been appalling. I also think that people who are famous have a right to privacy. The expenses scandal could still be uncovered and reported under the new proposals. Leveson is absolutely clear that the regulatory boddy would have no politicians on it. I think all this loss of freedom stuff is completely ridiculous and is being stirred up by the print media so they can carry on as before.

Sorry, body. Ipad finger!

I would be very cautious about anything requiring statutory controls. Many of the actions that led to the Leveson Inquiry, phone -tapping and breaking into email accounts is illegal already as is paying for confidential information.

The character assassination of people like the McCanns and Jo Yeates' landlord are unacceptable and should be stopped and, generally the private family lives of all celebrities, unless they have used them for self-publicity, should be private or they conflict with their self-declared moral beliefs or opinions.

I think the idea that the monitoring body should have mainly independent members and newspapers and other media that do not join should be penalised in the way suggested.

I feel cautious about press regulation too for the simple reason that once the government start regulating the press, you essentially have an authoritarian state. Not a nice thought.

Ian Hislop talks sense in the Independent here. He seems to be saying that we already have adequate laws to come down on the kind of behaviour that was so disgusting to the victims of harassment, libel and so on. We just need to enforce them.

Surely the point is that those laws didn't work. Do people really think that the broadcast media is muzzled under what is now proposed for print media. Do John Humphreys, Jon Snow and Jeremy Paxman sound as if the have been muzzled? Leveson is not talking about government regulation, he is saying politicians should have nothing to do with what is proposed.
The print media has had huge powers and has not used that power responsibly or wisely in many, many cases.
They have had enough chances at self-regulation.

You could be right, mamie, that those laws didn't work. But why didn't they work? Was it because they were not enforced or because they were inadequate laws? Hislop seems to think they should have been enforced. Tricky issue.

Hislop also says that Cameron (or whoever is PM, presumably) would appoint whoever was in charge of the regulatory committee. How is that "separate" from politicians?

My guess would be that it has been the power of the press to make or break politicians that has been part of the reason for the hands-off approach. I listened to Leveson and I had no sense that he was talking about a political appointee having power over what newspapers reported. I ask again, why would it be different from what happens with broadcast media at the moment? If that was being proposed then I would be dead against it.
It wasn't Private Eye who exposed all this, it was The Guardian and the wonderful Nick Davies; they are not against the proposals.
I have signed the petition.

Christopher Meyer, former British ambassador to the USA, is also against press regulation such as Leveson recommends. He says we already have laws to deal with harassment as well. It's in the New York Times which is described as "impeccably liberal" in its outlook.

I have heard elsewhere that our libel laws are extremely complex and difficult. Maybe that's where we need to focus?