Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Damn Right it needs reform, its rotten to the core!
Steel: press watchdog needs reform
See below a repost of my look at members of the Press Complaints Commission and its selection methods. It is the group that select that is the most scary. This is a follow up from the Press Complaints Decision I received in the post earlier today, posted here earlier today.
Posted by planning4acrash @ 08:18 PM (998 views)
18 thoughts on “Damn Right it needs reform, its rotten to the core!”
Add a comment
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
planning4acrash says:
From their page: http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/whoswho/members.html
“The independent Chairman is appointed by the newspaper and magazine publishing industry” – Says it all really, about as Independent as Mervyn King of the Bank of England then?!
“Each of the Press Members must be a person experienced at senior editorial level in the press” – It just gets better!!
The Appointments Commission chooses who is in the board, now, this bit is scary: http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/whoswho/appointments.html
– It is a small team of five, which include previous ambassador’s to the USA, Germany, Former BOE Deputy Governer. I love this, a previous press secretary to the prime minister!!!!!!! The only one that appears initially to be ok, runs the Edinburgh Fringe.
Chairman: Sir Christopher Meyer (former British Ambassador to the United States) – God Help us!!
Director: Tim Toulmin Toulmin graduates to PCC’s top job Apparently Tim has “newspapers in his blood” as the scion of an old regional newspaper publishing family. Impartial then? So, presumably, many in his family are currently publishing articles that he will judge if complained about, great!
Members of the Commission:
– Peter Hill (Daily Express editor VESTED INTEREST!!!!!!!)
– Simon Irwin (Editorial Director of the KMGroup) (Well over a million people read the Group’s newspapers and magazines each week and the website, http://www.Kentonline.co.uk, attracts more than 3,000,000 page impressions a month) VESTED INTEREST!!!!!
– Ian MacGregor (Sunday Telegraph editor VESTED INTEREST!!!!)
– Lindsay Nicholson (editor in chief of Good Housekeeping magazine & Editorial Director of National Magazine Company (That covers all the “lifestyle” (Consumerist) mags then)
– Tina Weaver (Deputy Editor of the Mirror, need I say more?! VESTED INTEREST!!!!)
– Matti Alderson (former long-serving Director General of the Advertising Standards Authority, who brings to the PCC her strong background in consumer affairs. She is currently a member of the Better Regulation Task Force – chairing a report on Higher Education – and has until recently served on the Food Advisory Committee of the (then) Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.)
– Spencer Feeney (Editor – South Wales Evening Post)
– Colleen Harris MVO (Prince Charle’s former press secretary)
– Vivien Hepworth (Chief Executive, Grayling Political Strategy – A specialist in developing and running communications strategies, Vivien has also worked in the NHS and voluntary sector. Vivien began her career as a journalist, spending 13 years in newspapers, seven on them as a political journalist. (I don’t like the sound of the developing and running communications strategies for politics, sounds like Propoganda management to me)
– Ian Nichol (From 1992 to 2001 he was a partner in the business advisory firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers.)
– Rear Admiral Nick Wilkinson CB. Admiral admonishes Times for security breach So, we have an Admiral, who, presumably, is representing the Armed Forces to ensure that we don’t find out about everything we should know about how our money is being used for corporate imperialism in the Middle East? What’s for sure, is that he is not on the commission for the good of the general public. Aren’t there laws about this? Is military vested interest really something for the PCC?!
– Esther Roberton (From 1994 until 1999, Esther was actively involved in the campaign to secure Scotland’s Parliament. Most recently she served as a member of the Government’s all-party Consultative Steering Group that developed standing orders and procedures for Parliament.) – Nice, she’s obviously behind the New Labour Project then. http://www.somis.dundee.ac.uk/court/com/Biography/roberton.htm
– Eve Salamon (A solicitor who has held senior positions at the Radio Authority and the Independent Television Commission)
– Dianne Thompson CBE (Has headed Britain’s National Lottery provider for seven years)
– Derek Tucker, The Right Rev. (editor of The Press and Journal, Aberdeen)
– John Waine KCVO, (A Knight of the Victorian Order, set up by by the Imperial Victorian Powers, is his allegiance to God, or to the establishment?)
planning4acrash says:
Anybody got anymore dirt to dish up about this rot?
paul says:
No dirt to dish that will be a surprise to anyone. Take heart that this battle against the PCC is being fought by peope who have much deeper pockets than ours – celebrities and just about anyone slandered by the media tries the PCC first, and they get exactly the same response as you.
planning4acrash says:
Yes, and nothing here, about this “organisation” has anything to do with democracy or even law. It is a corporate watchdog of corporations. A Quango of the fascist corporate machine, if you like.
Anyway, rant over. Thanks for your suggestions today Paul. I’ll follow them up. Watch this space!
jack c says:
P4AC – good to see you back after your short sabatical
Do you know who funds the PCC? – I checked their site earlier today based on your other posting and they are obviously dealing with a multitude of complaints. I presume they have more than 2 staff and dont just cut and paste a standard reply to everyone along the lines of “having looked into things but there is no case to answer”
icarus says:
planning4 – The commission simply consists of the Great and the Good, many of whom probably don’t get particularly involved. Power is rarely simple and monolithic e.g. a Telegraph man on the Commission may not be averse to upholding a complaint against the Mirror and vice versa. I think there are many educated thickies about who can string a few words together and therefore get jobs in the PCC, Advertising Standards Authority etc. and may well mean what they say when they don’t uphold legitimate complaints. It probably works like all power – on a day-to-day basis it all seems democratic and above board and the full-timers go about doing their jobs without much direction from the top. Only pretty occasionally when some interest is threatened is the power exercised. Agreed, it’s power nonetheless but a bit more subtle and clubby than corporate fascism.
planning4acrash says:
Icarus, agreed, to an extent. BUT, the commission make the rules and enforce them. By making the rules, they set a program for the commissioners, who are more or less administrative. Except in situations where interests are not supported by the code, which is when their creativity will kick in.
The point is, that these people are representatives of the corporate media, who are putting themselves forward as an “independent” watchdog. They are unelected, are a Blairite alternative to actual regulation. If there is to be a corporate state, it would be run by groups like this. Self serving groups such as this are the epitome of fascism. Along with the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England. They are the visually benevolent sleeping policemen of the corporate machine.
icarus says:
PS – It’s the concentration of ownership of the media that should be our main concern. When Blair had his meetings with Murdoch – who told who what to do?
icarus says:
panning4 – Agree about the Fed & BoE. What they were doing seemed a lot clearer in the 19th century before the Rothschilds bought up most of the western world’s media.
icarus says:
Sorry – pLanning4
planning4acrash says:
Hi Jack, I’m going to be taking a longer sabatical. Basically because I’ve been repeating the same thing over and over and others now are doing a fine job, with enough people now understanding the nature of fiat money and inflation, etc. I found that the site was taking over my life a bit so will be taking a back seat!! But I did promise earlier to keep people up to date with this story.
But, Just a week away, and I got itchy thumbs, even checking the site via wap from holiday in Italy!! I may post things that really break new ground every now and then.
planning4acrash says:
Back to your question about funding,
– It appears that the PCC was formed by and is funded by the Press. Ho Hum!
The below is from: http://www.swanturton.com/articles/JKCPressComplaintsCommission.aspx
The Inevitable Appearance of Bias:
(The PCC is a) body created and funded by the press adjudicates a complaint based on a Code which the press has drafted, by means of a commission on which the press is substantially represented, and where the newspaper is defended by lawyers expert in the field in circumstances where the PCC will not make an award of costs to the claimant for equivalent expert assistance, where the PCC’s sole power is to make finding that the newspaper has breached the Code (to its own commercial advantage), but no financial penalty is imposed on the newspaper, or compensation awarded to the complainant, and where there is effectively no appeal against its determination.
Anyone who has any doubt as to the true nature and agenda of the PCC need no more than read its submission to the Committee. It read as it was, a detailed submission on behalf of a press lobby group to ensure that regulation of the press was kept to a minimum, and in particular that it was not subjected to any further form of legal restraint. This is not what you would expect from an organisation which is supposed to be a bulwark between the hugely powerful print media and those who might suffer damage because of its transgressions. Here is just one example of the unsustainable arguments made by the PCC on behalf of the print media against it operating (so far as privacy is concerned) within the confines of the law. This is one point from their Executive Summary:-
“the alternatives to the PCC are impractical and undesirable. Statutory controls would be impossible to implement under the HRA, and privacy laws would be inaccessible to ordinary people.”
It is certainly not the case that statutory controls would be impossible to implement under the HRA. A privacy law which recognises the Article 10 right enjoyed by the media, and the Article 8 right enjoyed by the citizen would not only reflect the balancing exercise which the Courts are currently undertaking, but also which is inherent within the PCC Code itself. To suggest that a privacy law would be “inaccessible to ordinary people” is also just plain wrong. The nearest equivalent (the Law of Libel) is open to everyone either as a litigant in person or who instructs lawyers on the basis of a contingency fee, or who funds proceedings in the traditional way. The alternative (suggested by the PCC) that “ordinary people” are not given any legal right to redress does rather betray the PCC’s real agenda.
planning4acrash says:
From Wikipedia “The PCC is funded by the annual levy it charges newspapers and magazines”
planning4acrash says:
Icarus, no need to apologise, its questions like that which make me think and formulate my thoughts. Its questions and debate like that, that makes me post and visit this site.
jack c says:
P4AC – thanks for the info and your input – most interesting – even an old g*t like me learns something new every day
“checking the site via wap from holiday in Italy!” – are you biking around Lake Garda with techieman by any chance?
planning4acrash says:
Nah!! I have no personal contact with anybody on the site!!! I’m afraid that I’ve not been quite so healthy and am a bit worse for wear after too much pasta, pizza, sloth and fine wine!!!
jack c says:
@16. planning4acrash – “am a bit worse for wear after too much pasta, pizza, sloth and fine wine!!!” – suggest you wrestle a few lions down at the colosseum – this will burn a few calories and perk you up for battle with the PCC !
planning4acrash says:
Its more than that, its a fight against corporate fascism and a fight to regain our civil institutions.
Its all pervasive, and you will see it in all of your own professions. I work in planning and we have CABE. What is it? An organisation run by architects for architects and their opinion is material in planning decisions, them being a statutory consultee for certain things. Explains some of the decision in London. Look everywhere you can and you will see how Blair has swapped government for corporate self-regulation, i.e. no regulation. We are being disenfranchised through the back door. We are being controlled by corporations.