-ownership has slight influence on news politically. owners never interfere with the content of the newspaper. though murdoch (who owns much of News International) has expressed strong views about the EU, his newspapers (The Times, Sunday Times and Sun) took different views in the referendum.
-the Leveson inquiry into the press found that politicans of all parties had 'developed too close a relationship with the press in a way that has not been in the public interest', and that politicans' relationships with newspaper owners, managers and editors were not clear and open.
-For example Tony Blair visited Murdoch before he was elected in 1997 and received far more favourable coverage than his Conservative predecessor John Major who reportedly did not 'do a deal' with Murdoch.
-The owner appointing an editor is one form of indirect power that they wield, even if they never interefere with the editorial content.
Task discuss the
reasons why the Daily mail reported the Leadership challenge and their
(possible) interests in TM’s PM resignation.
(read page 39) on the influence of ownership on newspapers
linked to “The harmsworth’s who own the Daily Mail” How might the Harmsworth’s
benefit?
-They may be interested in TM's resignation because of the fact that it presents the standstill of our country and her struggle. Daily Mail called tories traitors when they voted against her, therefore backing her plan, so it can be suggested that they are covering her resignation because they support her efforts and want to generate sympathy.
Levenson enquiry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20543133
The Leveson inquiry was a judicial public inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the British press following the News International phone hacking scandal, chaired by Lord Justice Leveson, who was appointed in July 2011. A series of public hearings were held throughout 2011 and 2012.
News regulation - IMPRESS or IPSO (or refuse to join either like the Guardian)
IMPRESS
In 2016, an external review by former civil servant, Sir Joseph Pilling, found IPSO "largely compliant" with the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry.[10]
In 2013,[11] a new group was formed by free speech advocate Jonathan Heawood[12] called IMPRESS, intended to be a body fully compliant with the recommendations of Leveson.[citation needed] IMPRESS was initially supported by individuals and groups including J.K. Rowling, the campaign group Hacked Off and the controversial Max Mosley.[citation needed] In 2015, a charity, the Independent Press Regulation Trust (IPRT), agreed to provide £3.8 million in funding to IMPRESS over the next four years, with the IPRT's funding guaranteed by Max Mosley's Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust.[5] By October 2016, it regulated around 40 specialist and local publishers.[5]
IPSO
The Press Recognition Panel was created on 3 November 2014 as a fully independent body with the purpose of carrying out activities in relation to the recognition of press regulators. IPSO has said that it will not seek approval from the Press Recognition Panel (PRP)[10], which has officially recognised the regulator IMPRESS.[11]. The "Hacked Off" campaign has described IPSO as a "sham" and "the illusion of reform"
Livingstone and Lunt
the idea that there is an
underlying struggle in
recent UK regulation policy
between the need to
further the interests of
citizens (by offering
protection from harmful or
offensive material), and
the need to further the
interests of consumers (by
ensuring choice, value for
money, and market
competition)
the idea that the increasing
power of global media
corporations, together with
the rise of convergent
media technologies and
transformations in the
production, distribution
and marketing of digital
media, have placed
traditional approaches to
media regulation at risk
-Cambridge Analytica was a political advertising firm that had access to the data of millions of users, some of which was allegedly used to psychologically profile US voters. The data was acquired via a personality quiz. How such data, particularly in terms of political campaigning, was shared by Facebook was at the heart of the inquiry, alongside the effects of fake news. "Democracy is at risk from the malicious and relentless targeting of citizens with disinformation and personalised 'dark adverts' from unidentifiable sources, delivered through the major social media platforms we use every day," concluded the report. "The big tech companies are failing in the duty of care they owe to their users to act against harmful content, and to respect their data privacy rights."
-In order to better regulate social media firms, the MPs suggested creating a new category of tech firm - one that was neither a platform nor a publisher but something in-between, which would tighten the legal liability for content identified as harmful.
-Facebook has repeatedly said it is committed to fighting fake news and works with more than 30 fact-checking organisation around the world. Two of those agencies - Associated Press and Snopes - recently quit working with the social network.
The Facebook chief executive has called for more government regulation of the internet. And what he has said is pretty sensible, if a little light on detail. The four areas Zuckerberg wants governments to regulate more are harmful content, election integrity, privacy and data portability.
No comments:
Post a Comment