More spin from IPSO, Part 2 – Jonathan Coad

The irrefutable evidence that IPSO is and was always intended to be the same kind of sham regulators as its three un-illustrious predecessors emerges clearly from how it administers its primary remedy. If IPSO had any intention of actually uncovering any wrongdoing on the part of the press it would not have instigated a 28 day period in which the press can cover up its wrongdoing. If it had any intention of deterring the press from breaching even its self-written code of practice then it would permit it to publish corrections and apologies which are a fraction the size of the offending article.

More spin from IPSO, Part 1 – Jonathan Coad

Sir Alan Moses has been propagandising again about the merits of IPSO, and in particular its alleged superiority over its predecessor, the Press Complaints Commission (“PCC”). He told the Guardian that IPSO is “much better than before” – by which he presumably means the PCC.  I will demonstrate that he is plainly wrong about this.

Law and Media Round Up – 7 March 2016

This week the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information has published its report [pdf].  In anticipation of the release the government announced that there will be ‘no legal changes,’ Matthew Hancock, the cabinet office minister who commissioned the report, said “after 10 years we took the decision to review the Freedom of Information Act and we have found it is working well.”

Tightening the Grip: Why the web is no haven of media plurality – Justin Schlosberg

A digital market research company recently reported that “the top 10 publishers make up a huge chunk of the U.K. media market and own more than half of the entire industry”. The statement was based on data that SimilarWeb collected over 2015, specifically the number of page visits to the top 300 news websites. They found that 65 percent of this traffic was concentrated in the websites of the top 10 news publishers, and the top five alone attracted more than half of all traffic across the sample.

Donald Trump wants US libel laws to be more like those in Australia – Sally McCausland

Donald Trump recently said that if elected President he would “open up our libel laws so when [newspapers] write purposely negative stories…we can sue them and make lots of money”. That sounds eerily familiar to observers here in Australia, where there is a long history of politicians suing or threatening to sue the news media.

Brexit and the BBC: a tough call for the culture secretary? – Damian Tambini

Culture secretary John Whittingdale gave an update on the progress on the renewal of the BBC Charter in a speech at the Oxford Media Convention last week. All the parties, as well as recent select committee reports, and even the chair of the BBC Trust, agree that reform of BBC regulation is necessary.

News: Stocker Facebook libel trial, claimant awarded £5,000 damages (which he turns down)

In the first libel trial of 2016, Mr Justice Mitting found that the claimant, Ronald Stocker, had been defamed by his ex-wife, Nicola Stocker, in a post on his new partner’s Facebook page. The Judge rejected Mrs Stocker’s argument that the allegations she had made were substantially true and assessed compensation in the sum of £5,000.  He added, however, that he was not making an award of damages because Mr Stocker had indicated that he did not want one.