Thread: Leveson Inquiry - The Press Should Not Be Allowed To Hound Celebrities

» Leveson Inquiry » A Modern Military Mother / A Modern Military Mother

The only way this will stop is when there is no market for it.

So stop reading crappy celeb mags in the hairdressers, women's and men's mags, the Daily Mail, The Sun, stop watching the X-Factor, Hollywood movies (or any movie, come to that). In fact, stop partaking in the media!!

The public has been titillated by gossip since the birth of the newspaper and now it's spiralled into a mass market industry - if the people didn't want it, they wouldn't buy it and the media would do something else. Simple economics.

What is missing from commentary about the Leveson enquiry is the line that was crossed - relatives of murder victims had their phones illegally hacked. Not celebs, not people who used the media for publicity. The inquiry is being hijacked by politicians and celebs. Yes, laws were broken in many cases, but that's the fault of the judiciary and informal media regulation for allowing the tactics to continue. The last thing we want is the freedom of the media to be extinguished by the foul practices of a select few.

Until there is formal regulation of the print media as there is for broadcasters, this trade in tittle-tattle will continue.

Originally Posted by WhiteRose

The only way this will stop is when there is no market for it.

So stop reading crappy celeb mags in the hairdressers, women's and men's mags, the Daily Mail, The Sun, stop watching the X-Factor, Hollywood movies (or any movie, come to that). In fact, stop partaking in the media!!

The public has been titillated by gossip since the birth of the newspaper and now it's spiralled into a mass market industry - if the people didn't want it, they wouldn't buy it and the media would do something else. Simple economics.

What is missing from commentary about the Leveson enquiry is the line that was crossed - relatives of murder victims had their phones illegally hacked. Not celebs, not people who used the media for publicity. The inquiry is being hijacked by politicians and celebs. Yes, laws were broken in many cases, but that's the fault of the judiciary and informal media regulation for allowing the tactics to continue. The last thing we want is the freedom of the media to be extinguished by the foul practices of a select few.

Until there is formal regulation of the print media as there is for broadcasters, this trade in tittle-tattle will continue.

I agree that formal regulation by an independent body with the power to fine larger than the cost of a libel suit. At the end of the day it's the editors that pay money for the images and endorse the methods that should be called to task not the vacuous consumers who feed off it like crack cocaine. Consumer demand should not be justification for this within a 'responsible society' if that was the case we would all still be drinking Coca Cola laced with cocaine.

live your life in the media, you know what is expected. If all these celebs grouped together to get some sort of law imposed, then they may well be able to stop the paps. BUT that means no coverage, no promotion, which means no money However much celebs complain, they won't lift a finger

I'd agree with Josephine, if you court the media and invite them into your family moments (weddings etc) then you can't complain when they pry into the rest of your life.

That doesn't give them the right to go into any "celeb's" life, but then look at some of the great actors like Robert De Niro, who are famous but who haven't invited media into their private lives and are therefore treated with more respect (or so it seems), I think the adage, you reap what you sow is a good one.

I do feel sorry for those that haven't courted the media, or those with Children where they have been exposed to the media (JK Rowlings daughter for example) but the rest, you take the money, you accept the risk...

I disagree with both of you. Everyone has a right to privacy. I think the celebs absolutely have a right to choose to court the media and then say we choose not to court you any longer. They have right to give permission and then withdraw permission. It is their lives they can choose how much they reveal and don't reveal. It's called freedom of choice.

Maybe this is the price they pay but it's not right and the law and the government should protect the rights of the individual. The editors of the media are responsible for this because they trade in the images and the stories. It's not reasonable to say for example - it's wrong for De Niro because I like him but Jordan had it coming because I don't like her and she courts the media.

The way the *certain* (added retrospectively) media behaves is 'harrassment' - Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing.

No, AMMM, don't tar the media with the same brush. Most members of the media behave very well - look at how the 24hr grace period is held every time one of our forces is killed. And when Prince Harry's Afghanistan story broke in 2008, it wasn't the British media that broke the embargo.

The right to privacy is already enshrined in Human Rights legislation, regardless of who you are or what you do for a living - remember all those injunctions and super-injunctions from earlier this year and all the hoo-har that only the rich could afford privacy?

Anyone can challenge the media in the courts if they feel they have been harassed, liabled, had their privacy invaded etc., and there are many high profile cases that prove this. Whilst not defending the behaviour of a few journalists and their associates, celebs and their publicists must tread carefully between publicity and privacy themselves. Cuddling up to the media one minute then screaming for privacy the next smells of hypocrisy. The PR and celeb industry is as much to blame for the feeding frenzy.

Remember that the Leveson inquiry is to recommend, and I quote, "on the future of press regulation and governance consistent with maintaining freedom of the press and ensuring the highest ethical and professional standards." Balancing public interest and privacy is a test that journalistic lawyers do every day. As I have said, the press (newspapers) is not as formally regulated in the UK as the broadcasters are.

Media ethics works both ways and the public, ie the consumers, are as culpable as the media by buying their wares. If we the people don't like it, don't buy it and the media will soon change its tune. You only have to look at newspapers from other parts of the world to understand tolerance for some subjects and not others.

Maybe this, as sparked by the outrage of the hacking into a murder victim's phone, is the beginning of that change in focus.

Define what is "News" and what breaches Privacy.

Just to be a devil's advocate, does a murderer have the right to have any pictures or details of their life suppressed from the media because it's not linked to the crime details, in fact do they have the right to have crime details not reported on because it's an invasion of their private life.. how far do you go with the "everyone has a right to privacy" rule if you believe it can be turned on and off based on the opening of a cheque book (because that's essentially the reason)?

One rule for one or one rule for all?

There are those that choose to live their lives in the media eye, they can choose how much is public by their actions, but to step out of the limelight because it suits them and they aren't getting paid - well that's what the courts are for, how is the media to know, ask every person if they can publish an item about them?

Because for some celebs that's the crunch, it's the "I didn't get paid for" so you can't publish.... just look at those who sold their wedding pictures to one place, only to sue another publication for getting and printing a picture - hypocritical.... just a little.

But do you blame the media, or the people that buy the papers and therefore feed the media's need for similar stories...

In the age that you can become a "celebrity" for staying in a house with strangers and exposing your tedious life... ask yourself who's to blame for the "Media Frenzy" because as Whiterose said, if people didn't buy the papers/gossip mags/pictures then the media wouldn't report it - basic economics.

Personally I couldn't tell you which "celeb" was seeing whom, where, when, getting married, divorced, wearing what ever, because I'm just not interested in it, but someone out there has to be to make it commercially viable.

The public are a fickle group, if you ask most people about the enquiry, they'd be horrified at the "press intrusion" because of it's coverage on tv, ask them what they read/buy.. and they probably wouldn't link the 2, or be horrified that you thought their actions could be anything to do with them.

But it comes down in the end to cause and effect, they wouldn't chase celeb's if people didn't buy the papers, people wouldn't buy those papers/Magazines, if celeb's didn't sell their stories/live their life in the limelight, Celeb's wouldn't sell stories if they weren't chasing money/fame.....

Just my personal view

Originally Posted by WhiteRose

No, AMMM, don't tar the media with the same brush. Most members of the media behave very well - look at how the 24hr grace period is held every time one of our forces is killed. And when Prince Harry's Afghanistan story broke in 2008, it wasn't the British media that broke the embargo.

The right to privacy is already enshrined in Human Rights legislation, regardless of who you are or what you do for a living - remember all those injunctions and super-injunctions from earlier this year and all the hoo-har that only the rich could afford privacy?

Anyone can challenge the media in the courts if they feel they have been harassed, liabled, had their privacy invaded etc., and there are many high profile cases that prove this. Whilst not defending the behaviour of a few journalists and their associates, celebs and their publicists must tread carefully between publicity and privacy themselves. Cuddling up to the media one minute then screaming for privacy the next smells of hypocrisy. The PR and celeb industry is as much to blame for the feeding frenzy.

Remember that the Leveson inquiry is to recommend, and I quote, "on the future of press regulation and governance consistent with maintaining freedom of the press and ensuring the highest ethical and professional standards." Balancing public interest and privacy is a test that journalistic lawyers do every day. As I have said, the press (newspapers) is not as formally regulated in the UK as the broadcasters are.

Media ethics works both ways and the public, ie the consumers, are as culpable as the media by buying their wares. If we the people don't like it, don't buy it and the media will soon change its tune. You only have to look at newspapers from other parts of the world to understand tolerance for some subjects and not others.

Maybe this, as sparked by the outrage of the hacking into a murder victim's phone, is the beginning of that change in focus.

But people do like it and do buy it - that is the point. But the people also liked it when they put cocaine in coca cola and bought that too. On the whole I agree with you White Rose and meant that the offending media and not 'all' media. But ultimately the cost of libel cases is not worth it because the profit from the consumer is greater than defending in court. Hence I believe the need for an independent commission with the power to fine media larger sums then libel compensations.

I think the press needs to be regulated akin to broadcasting regulation. To be honest I think you should have a licence to drive a blog even. Self regulation is clearly not working.

But whether if the law was passed it would be enforceable is a different matter.

Hypocrisy isn't a crime. Privacy is a human right. Celebrities are not public property that the public gets to decide what they see and what they don't see or the media. Celebrities also have a right to change their mind. Who cares whether it's hypocritical or not.

Life is not that simple. Sometime people don't realise what they are getting themselves into. I see it in the military all the time - didn't expect war to fuck them up quite as much as did. Didn't know what they were getting themselves into when they signed on the dotted line. Things change, people change, life isn't what you expected it to be. Freedom of choice and privacy as a human right. Maybe you are not sympathetic - maybe you think they had it coming to them but that is not what is being considered here.

See below Britney story - she didn't deserve to be fucked up because she wanted to be famous.

Laws do little to block paparazzi - USATODAY.com

Don't forget that blogging is actually governed by much of the same law as the media. Contempt, libel, privacy, privacy of minors, imagery without permission, copyright, I could go on. Many bloggers don't understand that but it's absolutely true.

Indeed celebs like everyone can change their mind, but they tend to employ publicists and agents, that's what makes them different from us plebs who don't seek the limelight as a career. Dealing with the media is a two-way game.

Feisty one, you're spot on. The boundaries of what is deemed private is a minefield. As for what defines news, that's easy: it's what the editor says is news, ie what'll flog their media channel

AMMM, you say the "press" should be regulated - how? I'm interested...

Originally Posted by WhiteRose

Don't forget that blogging is actually governed by much of the same law as the media. Contempt, libel, privacy, privacy of minors, imagery without permission, copyright, I could go on. Many bloggers don't understand that but it's absolutely true.

Indeed celebs like everyone can change their mind, but they tend to employ publicists and agents, that's what makes them different from us plebs who don't seek the limelight as a career. Dealing with the media is a two-way game.

Feisty one, you're spot on. The boundaries of what is deemed private is a minefield. As for what defines news, that's easy: it's what the editor says is news, ie what'll flog their media channel

AMMM, you say the "press" should be regulated - how? I'm interested...

Like:
Ofcom

But for print media.

yes - am aware of the laws etc but still feel the whole thing should be licenced.

Like OFCOM. And that would work how? It's an interesting prospect But fundamentally unworkable.

There's one major difference. Broadcasting is technically intrusive, as in it's in the air and available. Print is paid for, therefore one makes a decision to purchase. Licensing goes back to the old days of newspaper taxation which was considered draconian and dropped. Regulate the print like broadcasters and most - like the broadcast stations - will die on their behinds.

Beware the knee-jerk something-must-be-done reaction, otherwise one will be forced to do courses and exams just to blog... And would the country right now stomach another quango?

Originally Posted by WhiteRose

Like OFCOM. And that would work how? It's an interesting prospect But fundamentally unworkable.

There's one major difference. Broadcasting is technically intrusive, as in it's in the air and available. Print is paid for, therefore one makes a decision to purchase. Licensing goes back to the old days of newspaper taxation which was considered draconian and dropped. Regulate the print like broadcasters and most - like the broadcast stations - will die on their behinds.

Beware the knee-jerk something-must-be-done reaction, otherwise one will be forced to do courses and exams just to blog... And would the country right now stomach another quango?

Print is dying and eventually newspapers will have to give copies away and the subscription tariff will be redundant - see The Evening Standard and the Metro and rely on advertising to raise revenue. It will eventually become wholly digital and people will receive content on tablets (ipads).

I am the ghost of Christmas future - the digital age is coming - like it or lump it. The dinosaur will eventually become extinct.
Newspaper content will include video and audio and print journalists will have to become multi-media proficient to survive - video, audio, podcasts, etc. It's already started but most national print journalist and publishers have got their retro-bourgeois backward facing heads stuck so far up their arses - they'll be crying like the French aristocracy when the peasants revolt 'oh for the good old days when we lunched for hours'. Viva la digital revolution

Originally Posted by Feisty one

Define what is "News" and what breaches Privacy.

Just to be a devil's advocate, does a murderer have the right to have any pictures or details of their life suppressed from the media because it's not linked to the crime details, in fact do they have the right to have crime details not reported on because it's an invasion of their private life.. how far do you go with the "everyone has a right to privacy" rule if you believe it can be turned on and off based on the opening of a cheque book (because that's essentially the reason)?

One rule for one or one rule for all?

There are those that choose to live their lives in the media eye, they can choose how much is public by their actions, but to step out of the limelight because it suits them and they aren't getting paid - well that's what the courts are for, how is the media to know, ask every person if they can publish an item about them?

Because for some celebs that's the crunch, it's the "I didn't get paid for" so you can't publish.... just look at those who sold their wedding pictures to one place, only to sue another publication for getting and printing a picture - hypocritical.... just a little.

But do you blame the media, or the people that buy the papers and therefore feed the media's need for similar stories...

In the age that you can become a "celebrity" for staying in a house with strangers and exposing your tedious life... ask yourself who's to blame for the "Media Frenzy" because as Whiterose said, if people didn't buy the papers/gossip mags/pictures then the media wouldn't report it - basic economics.

Personally I couldn't tell you which "celeb" was seeing whom, where, when, getting married, divorced, wearing what ever, because I'm just not interested in it, but someone out there has to be to make it commercially viable.

The public are a fickle group, if you ask most people about the enquiry, they'd be horrified at the "press intrusion" because of it's coverage on tv, ask them what they read/buy.. and they probably wouldn't link the 2, or be horrified that you thought their actions could be anything to do with them.

But it comes down in the end to cause and effect, they wouldn't chase celeb's if people didn't buy the papers, people wouldn't buy those papers/Magazines, if celeb's didn't sell their stories/live their life in the limelight, Celeb's wouldn't sell stories if they weren't chasing money/fame.....

Just my personal view

It depends on your perception of 'your right to know' and also the balance of entertainment v information. Also it brings into question 'what is truth'. I don't disagree that it's about equity but the media can be judge, jury and executioner and the question is are they responsible enough to have so much power and who's responsibility is to mitigate it. But to err is human and we are all flawed. You probably dabble - have a peek - it's very tempting. I dip in and out when it suits. I am not so sure why we expect perfection so much and are afraid to admit that we are responsible for it and then work the solution out as we go along through trail and error. We like to blame other people I guess.

Like all great rulers and tyrants they fall and rise - like Rome. This the end of an era I hope and the start of a new one. Time will tell.

Originally Posted by amodernmilitarymother

Print is dying and eventually newspapers will have to give copies away and the subscription tariff will be redundant - see The Evening Standard and the Metro and rely on advertising to raise revenue. It will eventually become wholly digital and people will receive content on tablets (ipads).

I am the ghost of Christmas future - the digital age is coming - like it or lump it. The dinosaur will eventually become extinct.
Newspaper content will include video and audio and print journalists will have to become multi-media proficient to survive - video, audio, podcasts, etc. It's already started but most national print journalist and publishers have got their retro-bourgeois backward facing heads stuck so far up their arses - they'll be crying like the French aristocracy when the peasants revolt 'oh for the good old days when we lunched for hours'. Viva la digital revolution

Print media isn't dying because of the digital age - its been on the decline since the 1950s actually. The subscription model isn't dead, it's purely metamorphosed into a digital platform. EVERY newspaper relies on advertising to raise revenue, as they have done since the end of the press baron proprietor era!

You've completely lost me. Anyone working in the media knows - and have known for about ten years - that multi-platform, multi-discipline journalism is the way forward. I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the Leveson inquiry nor press regulation. OFCOM doesn't regulate websites, only the telecoms providers in the UK that may host or direct traffic to it. Much the same way that OFCOM regulates a radio station, but not the content it puts on its website. It gets sticky when broadcast content that may have broken OFCOM rules is then rebroadcast on the website.

Anyway, I digress. The digital revolution, as you call it, may call for wholesale regulation way beyond the remit of Leveson. Already Section 19 of the inquiries act has been tested rather farcicly (in my opinion). And there, i fear, is the sound of a can of wriggly worms being tin-opened.

Oh, as for lunching for hours, some of the best material is still gathered at long lunches and dinners. It's just these days you have to make sure you have a budget for it.

Originally Posted by WhiteRose

Print media isn't dying because of the digital age - its been on the decline since the 1950s actually. The subscription model isn't dead, it's purely metamorphosed into a digital platform. EVERY newspaper relies on advertising to raise revenue, as they have done since the end of the press baron proprietor era!

You've completely lost me. Anyone working in the media knows - and have known for about ten years - that multi-platform, multi-discipline journalism is the way forward. I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the Leveson inquiry nor press regulation. OFCOM doesn't regulate websites, only the telecoms providers in the UK that may host or direct traffic to it. Much the same way that OFCOM regulates a radio station, but not the content it puts on its website. It gets sticky when broadcast content that may have broken OFCOM rules is then rebroadcast on the website.

Anyway, I digress. The digital revolution, as you call it, may call for wholesale regulation way beyond the remit of Leveson. Already Section 19 of the inquiries act has been tested rather farcicly (in my opinion). And there, i fear, is the sound of a can of wriggly worms being tin-opened.

Oh, as for lunching for hours, some of the best material is still gathered at long lunches and dinners. It's just these days you have to make sure you have a budget for it.

Please stop being so patronising and read what I actually write. I don't disagree with you anyway - I think we have been agreeing all along but just saying it differently. I have worked in the media for nigh on 20 years. In fact yesterday I had a conversation with a national newspaper journalist who was terrified of technology so forgive me but I am telling you from my experiences on the ground that even if they know it they have not all started adopting it yet. Plus I also attended the Guardian Debate Guardian phone hacking debate and I am also repeating the sentiments of Carl Bernstein Carl Bernstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia from that debate. Or do you know better than him too?