Media Plurality in the UK: Where Do We Go From Here?

Media Plurality in the UK: Where Do We Go From Here? | LSE Media Policy Project: "What happens after the Ofcom analysis?

Probably a lot of occasionally interesting discussion; just possibly a new media plurality regime; most likely, nothing. The key questions, whatever your analysis, are what you then do and who makes the decisions. To take the easier question of who decides, the Government predictably gives a firm “non” to the suggestion that European Union tanks might be parked on our media lawn.  This is understandable, given Government’s natural desire to be able to wield influence over the media, but may be short-sighted if media markets continue to become more multi-national. It is also rather uncollegiate in limiting EU interventions in other Member States where media owners’ behaviour might be more detrimental to democracy and governments less effective at maintaining the media freedoms they were required to demonstrate at accession to the EU. The Government response seems to side-step the question of whether the final arbiter should be the independent regulator or a Government Minister. The Lords Committee seeks rather complexly to balance the desirability of independent arbitration with an element of democratic accountability. However, ultimately, it seems to me that politicians are elected to take such decisions and the objective should be that we have open and independent advice from a body such as Ofcom and a transparent, reasoned decision from Government." 'via Blog this'

Changes Are Coming to Scottish Broadcasting

Philip Schlesinger: ‘Yes’ or ‘No,’ Changes Are Coming to Scottish Broadcasting | LSE Media Policy Project: "Scottish Government’s White Paper (the blueprint for independence negotiations) has pointed to possible co-regulation with Ofcom, another version of the joint venture idea mooted for the BBC.

If it is a no on 18 September, would these ideas simply disappear? That is hardly likely. The BBC is gearing up for the next Charter Review in 2016, a good time for lobbying for the Scottish interest. The SNP’s nascent Plan B would doubtless raise questions about the corporation’s formal accountability to the Scottish Parliament as well as the adequacy of Scottish representation on the BBC Trust and Ofcom’s board, much in tune with the call for more devolved broadcasting governance made earlier this year by the Silk Commission in Wales." 'via Blog this'

Cooke: First judgment under the new Defamation Act analysis

Farrer - First judgment under the new Defamation Act: "This highly anticipated judgment, the first to be decided under the Defamation Act 2013, looked specifically at the new "serious harm" test under s1(1). In finding against the claimants, the court made it clear that the threshold for a statement to be defamatory had been raised.
The court attached significant weight to early apologies and suggested that evidence will almost always be required to pass the serious harm test. However, on the meaning of "serious harm" itself, discussion was somewhat limited. The judge said that this was an ordinary term in common usage, providing little clarity on how it differs from the previous common law approach. " 'via Blog this'

Cooke & Anor v MGN Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 2831 (QB) (13 August 2014)

Cooke & Anor v MGN Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 2831 (QB) (13 August 2014):

"34. The 2013 Act was the product of extensive parliamentary scrutiny. A draft Bill was produced in March 2011 for public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses. The Joint Committee reported on the draft Bill on 19th October 2011. The Defamation Bill itself was then presented to the House of Commons on 20th May 2012 and after detailed consideration in both Houses received Royal Assent on 25th April 2013.

35. Both Mr Tomlinson and Mr Price have sought to refer to Hansard to cite remarks made in the course of the Bill's passage through Parliament, relying on Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593. I consider that it is proper to refer to the Ministerial foreword to the draft Bill, to the Joint Committee's report on the draft Bill, and to the Explanatory Notes to the Act, to identify the mischief at which it was aimed. I also consider that the parliamentary history, and in particular any respect in which the Act differs from the original draft Bill, may be highly illuminating. It is also proper to refer to statements made by the promoters of the Bill (that is to say the sponsoring minister in each House or the proposer of any successful amendment) in order to resolve a genuine ambiguity in the Act." 'via Blog this'

Cooke & Anor v MGN Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 2831 (QB) (13 August 2014)

Cooke & Anor v MGN Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 2831 (QB) (13 August 2014): Mr Bean rules on the Defamation Act - the first case heard in QBD:

"28. The Act only applies to defamation claims where the cause of action has arisen since the beginning of 2014. Mr Tomlinson and Mr Price tell me this is the first case in which the interpretation of the Act has come before the courts.

29. There was originally a suggestion in correspondence that Midland Heart are a "body that trades for profit" and that therefore by virtue of s 1(2) they could only succeed if they showed that the publication has caused or was likely to cause serious financial loss. However, by the time the issues to be tried by me were formulated the parties were agreed that s 1(2) does not apply in the present case, although its terms are arguably of some assistance in construing s 1(1).

30. It is common ground that s 1(1) requires a claimant to show that serious harm has been caused or is likely to be caused to his reputation. It is not enough to show that the publication has caused or is likely to cause serious distress or injury to feelings." 'via Blog this'

Historical censorship of media - and 'golden years' 1832-1912

Josiah Wedgwood, MP, protested in the House against the institution by the Government of prosecutions of the Press. His speech was a scathing attack on those who were intent on returning to the political prosecutions of a century before. He noted that from 1832 to 1912 – Cobbett to Bowman – prosecutions of the Press of this nature had ceased and that it was from the trial of Cobbett that the freedom of the press really dated. 'The best men in every age have been against such prosecutions', he observed, adding the warning, 'there has always been some provocation, some fear inspiring prosecution. The clamour of propertied classes has again and again deafened the Government to the still, quiet voice of reason and liberty.'

McSithigh papers available online

Open access to 2013 work: "Open access versions of a couple of my 2013/4 publications and talks have recently been made available through the University of Edinburgh. These versions are the best possible permitted under the terms of the relevant publishers –  peer reviewed but not fully formatted for (print) publication in the journal in question. They are accessible without registration or charge to all.
Earlier publications continue to be available via my SSRN page without a need for a subscription, in various forms." 'via Blog this'