Would You Pay For Online News?

A possible revolution in the news industry was announced yesterday. Rupert Murdoch said that his News Corporation plans to charge users of their online newspapers - these include The Sun, The News of the World and The Times. This is a very controversial move, with opinion divided on whether it will work or not. Murdoch feels that users will be willing to pay for quality and unique content. This could have a massive impact on the future content on paid for news sites. Murdoch places a heavy emphasis on the need for 'scoops', whether they be celebrity or political. Could this mean an increase in libel and privacy cases or even more frequent use of illegal news gathering methods like phone-hacking?

Libel Laws Go Against Free Speech?

Roy Greenslade writes in today's Media Guaridan about an article in the Wall Street Journal which claims that Britain's libel laws inhibit free speech. They claim the the "chilling effect", which places the onus of proof on the publisher rather than the person or organisation claiming to be defamed makes it easier for those who wish to prohibit scientific and political debate. Read Roy Greenslade's article by clicking on the title above. There's also a link within his article to the Wall Street Journal's article.

Privacy Law and Celebrities

A really good article from the Sunday Times about the relationship between celebrities and the press. It is particularly good in flagging up a number of key issues and cases relevant to the regulation of the press. These include:

• hypocrisy of celebrities


• how privacy has replaced libel as the law that celebrities favour


• Naomi Campbell Vs. Daily Mirror case

Max Mosley Case

This is a crucial case study to be used when discussing privacy and the press.  Luckily, the Guardian have neatly packaged lots of relevant articles in the one place - click on the title above to start learning about what the case was all about and what the judgement means for how newspapers will act in the future.

Real Debate

Last night's Richard Bacon programme on 5 Live radio had a really intense debate about the role of newspapers and the news media in a democracy. Tim Luckhurst, who used to edit the Scotsman newspaper and is now Professor of Journalism at the University of Kent made some really forceful arguments in favour of traditional journalism and paid for newspapers as a way of holding government to account and offering readers a properly informed choice because of their investment in fact gathering when news reporting. They differ from blogging and other forms of citizen reporting because of this and their wider perspective. Richard Bacon tried, in vain, to get him to accept that blogging is an equally democratic source of information as it provides readers with a perspective they may not find elsewhere. However, Luckhurst insisted that ultimately blogs tend to be more opinion based and therefore cannot replace proper investigative in holding government to account. Neither can they offer readers the more rounded perspective on issues as they report a story from a very local viewpoint.

You should be able to listen again by clicking on the title above and clicking on Monday's programme. I heard the debate from about two hours into the programme, though it was already in full flow by then. This would be very useful for both Broadcast News and Freedom of the Press.

The Paparazzi Point of View

The Guardian has an interview with Darryn Lyons, who runs Britain's biggest picture agency. They sell paparazzi photos to newspapers and magazines. You may have seen him on TV - the Australian with the multi-coloured mohican. In the interview he offers a range of opinions on the role of his agency and the paparazzi in today's society, claiming that celebrities largely rely on people like him for their careers - including those like Abi Titmus who have deals with the agencies to take a cut of 'paparazzi' shots of them sold to newspapers. Interestingly, he now has a website where members of the public can submit their own photos of celebrities to be published - http://www.mrpaparazzi.com/. The existence of such sites begs the question, how can you regulate 'the press' when it's the public as much as the press industry who are now generating what might be considered invasive images. How does the PCC control how much members of the public 'harrass' celebrities in order to take photos of them?

Morrissey Case - Vanilla Views From Now On?

You may have heard about the singer Morrissey winning a defamation case against The Word magazine recently. The Guardian raises the question what the implications of this case will be for reviews in newspapers and magazines. Read the article to find out what the issues are. You should really start commenting on these cases as it will help you develop your arguments for the exam.

News from Iraq. Is it a Fraud?

Rageh Omaar, a former BBC correspondent in Iraq, details how difficult it is to report the full truth of what is happening in Iraq due to the increasing insecurity in the country. He makes that point that the British public are not getting the full story about what is happening in the country because of the dangers facing Western journalists in the country. Whereas five years ago, at the start of the war, all sorts of journalists, from big Western news outlets like CNN and the BBC to local and independent one, could go report with relative freedom now only those who can afford the massive insurance costs can do so - i.e. big news organisations like the BBC, Sky and CNN. Even so, they report under real constraints, having to be accompanied by large security forces and from within heavily guarded compounds.

Blair takes on the "beastly" media

Relevance - Freedom of the Press & Broadcast News
Tony Blair made a speech today, reflecting on the state of the media. At one point, he described it as a "feral beast." Obviously this implies that, at times, it is out of control and needs taming. There is loads of stuff on this all over the web, especially on the BBC website. You could look at any number of places to find commmentary on it, including the BBC's political correspondent's (Nick Robinson) blog - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2007/06/feral_media_my.html
If you'd rather listen to a debate about it, go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/drive.shtml and select "Listen Again Tue" for today's programme (this will only be available until Friday or so). Then skip forward to 2:30:30 to get to start of a report on the speech. They interview a prominent Labour MP, Gerald Kaufman, and the editor of the Independent newspaper, Simon Kelner. It's a perfect opportunity to get a sense of two sides to a debate (it gets a bit feisty) and of how politicians feel the urge to control the press - especially when it is unkind to them.
You can also read the whole of Blair's speech at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6744581.stm - he says interesting things about Broadcast News as well.
The more you can refer to speeches like this in your answers the better chance you have of succeeding - it shows that you are truly engaged with the live debates and not just rehashing the notes given out in class.

Daily Mirror Iraqi Abuse Photos

Click on the title to read more about the sacking of the Daily Mirror's editor, Piers Morgan, following to publication of faked photos which alleged to show British soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners. Lots of issues here - should the Mirror have published the pictures in the first place (whether they were fake or not) or should they have refused to publish them on the basis that they would be protecting the national interest by safeguarding British troops in Iraq? Once they knew they were fake, why did Piers Morgan still claim that "we published the truth.....We have revealed a can of worms. If the government chooses to ignore that, it is entirely a matter for them."

Year 13 Press Regulation - Privacy Vs. Public Interest

This is an interview with a judge from the European Court of Human Rights outlining how judgements are reached when deciding on cases where someone feels the press has invaded their privacy. It's even laid out in an accessible questions and answers format - ideal for you poor stressed out things!

Year 13 Press Regulation - Is Privacy More Important Than Freedom of Expression?

As promised, click on the title above to go to the Guardian article on the Loreena McKennitt case. She's a folk singer who successfully prevented a (former?) friend from publishing large parts of a book about their relationship, claiming that it invaded her privacy. This sets an important precendent for future cases that might be taken on these grounds. What will it mean for all those "kiss 'n' tell" stories that are the lifeblood of the Sunday tabloids? How might it affect the earning potential of all the WAGs an wannabe WAGs? How will the audience survive without salacious tales of footballers and pop stars misbehaving? More seriously, will this mean that public figures will be able to behave in a very hypocritical manner without ever being held to account for it? Imagine a situation where an evangelical bishop was able to block a story about a homosexual relationship on the basis that it invaded his privacy, while every Sunday he preached about how wrong homosexuality is.