FleetStreetBlues realises that as the busy chair of an inquiry into the press, Lord Leveson
barely has time to read the newspapers in the morning, let alone a blog.
But in the spirit of being helpful and assisting the inquiry...
- Chris Jefferies' experience, as we first wrote way back before inquiries into the press were fashionable, was appalling. But is the claim made yesterday by a former News of the World journalist that he tried to sell his story to the paper true? It would be relevant, surely?
- In fact, given it is relevant, and in light of Kate McCann lambasting News International six months after it serialised her book, why not make it a standard question for all witnesses? Have you ever sold or ever attempted to sell your story to a tabloid newspaper?
- You've succeeded in getting Guido Fawkes to remove the Alastair Campbell evidence for now, and he'll be appearing to explain himself before the inquiry on Thursday. But thanks to the Press Association, a key quote from the evidence now appears all across the internet, everywhere from the Cambridge News to the Chorley Guardian. Will you be calling the Press Association in to explain itself?
- Yesterday, an ordinary member of the public was filmed without her knowledge or consent in a public place, and then had her face splashed all over the newspapers. When will you be inviting the angry tram passenger woman to appear before the inquiry?
- In fact, what about the wider privacy implications of YouTube in general? And if your remit only covers newspapers and newspaper websites but doesn't extend to cover other websites, doesn't that make coming up with any recommendations on privacy or intrusion pretty much impossible?
17 comments:
Regarding Kate McCann selling her story to NI, Leveson might also ask why, when she received the apology and £125k from NotW for printing her diaries, it was also necessary for Carter-Ruck to include in their press release the following:
The News of the World assures Mrs McCann, and she accepts, that it acted in good faith and had no wish to invade her privacy or cause distress.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/Miscellaneous/?page=18
How precisely could NotW have been operating in such a way as for Kate to accept they were acting 'in good faith' in believing they had permission to print her diaries?
I think we should be told.
If I consistently interviewed people for my paper with the skill Leveson has interviewed his witnesses I'd get the sack. He's like the anti-Paxman.
Your paragraphs one to four are entertaining asides. Paragraph five demonstrates the futility of the entire Leveson inquiry, as did the Twitterstorm which centred on #womanontheleft. There is a great danger of Leveson resulting in legislation which emasculates the printed press, in contrast to the freedom available on the internet. And for the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that I am not advocating controls on what may be published online.
During the Charlotte Church evidence session, yesterday the question was put:
Q. Another myth is that you need the press as much as they need you. In that respect, look at paragraph 6 of your statement, where you say this:
"It's often argued that as someone in the public eye, I need the media and that intrusions into my private life and the negative coverage are and always have been a fair trade off for success, that I need the press just as much as they need me. However, I cannot see how this is actually the case."
And you say as a singer, a newspaper in particular is a very bad medium for promoting my work. Why is it a very bad medium?"
Whilst the witness statement suggests that Charlotte Church cannot see how it is true, for the questioner to accept this, and indeed build upon it by declaring it a "myth" surely prejudges as to whether that is in fact true.
Time and time again I have heard "stars" saying that they only give interviews and use the press where they are "Contractually requires to"
One wonders why the contract requires this, who benefits from the contract that requires it, and who signed the contract.
xample from the Charlotte Church interview:
Q. I understand. You then say, same paragraph:
"I have interacted with the media on a number of occasions, as is required of any signed recording artist."
Can I ask you a bit about that?
A. It's not even necessarily just a signed recording artist. If you have a new show on television, if you have a book or, you know, kind of whatever, generally it's -- you're signed to a company, whether it be a book company or TV company, and therefore you are contractually obliged to promote that product. So maybe a lot of the decisions that were made by the promotion staff, whether in the record company at the time or the TV company, wouldn't have been the publications I would have necessarily gone for but you have a contractual obligation.
Q. I understand. So in a nutshell, you've interacted with the press on a number of occasions because you were obliged to do so?
A. I was obliged to do so
Where is the questioning as to who benefits - who signed the contract?
These stars that have used the media to their own benefit, where it suits them, are being given an easy ride.
My question to Leveson would be :- "Do you really believe Charlotte Church 'cut a deal with Murdoch' ? Or is it just a case of her record company and managers wanting to lick the sun king's @r$e in the hope and expectation, but certainly not any guarantee, of future preferment.."
I'm not sure how relevant any alleged attempt by Chris Jefferies to sell his story to the press really is. The question Leveson is adressing is: was he treated badly by an irresponsible press. The answer is surely yes. Wether he did or did not try and get something out of his miserable ordeal (or indeed put his point over) after the fact by selling his story doesn't change that at all. It just seems to me like a slimy attempt to pretend Jefferies was a willing victim, or 'playing the game' or some such rubbish - an attempt to create a distraction from his appalling treatment, and an illustration that some journalists don't understand how bad their practice has been
Leveson is not fit for purpose.
Guido shamefully copied the Campbell statemnt from Tom Watson MP's blog. Will Lord Luvvy be censuring that smug git Watson?
The inquiry is turning into a luvvy variety show. I hear Sir Jimmy Tarbuck will be doing a turn soon.
Penfold - I wish I had your confidence that Leveson is not fit for purpose.
I think there is a real danger that he will fulfil the mandate, which is obviously to ensure that the great and good never again have to put up with the 'inconvenience' of a truly free press.
The Mail has now removed Ms Tram from its site. Interesting.
Fleet Street Fox is a valuable service that helps members of the non-media public gain an insight into the real activities of the press.
I shall be suggesting to the House that it is banned immediately.
Anon 13:05
Whilst it is correct that the statement was published by Tom Watson on his blog and questions should be asked as to why Watson is not being called to account, where is your evidence that Watsons blog was the source of Guidos posting ?
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lOZdBA8Y7Z4J:www.tom-watson.co.uk/2011/11/alastair-campbells-evidence-to-the-leveson-inquiry/+tom+watson+blog+alistair+campbell&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a
Google cache is your friend, Watson published it and then tried to delete it
Are your concerns about the woman on the tram merely that she was breaching copyright by reciting the next day's Daily Express editorial?
Are you saying that Tram Woman could claim that she had a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' in court?
Daft.
Re first comment, it might also be worth Leveson asking the McCanns exactly what payments they have received from News International since May 2007.
Forget the 'damages' for printing her diary and serialisation rights for the intimate details of her non-sex life, what did happen to that NotW reward fund - not the fake pledges by celebs, but the real money the public added to the reward fund.? How much did NotW collect? And where is it now?
Post a Comment