A website called Discover Leveson provides rich background and insight into all that emerged during the Leveson Inquiry into standards in the press, following the phone hacking scandal. It includes the full report, but also lots of fascinating detail. Find it here:
Ofcom imposed a £7,5000 teleshopping channel JML Media Limited for failing to disclose the political connections of one of its directors. It said the beach of licence conditions was serious enough to merit a sanction. Read more.
An injunction to stop the Daily Telegraph exposing alleged sexual and racial abuse by a businessman was “a devastating blow” to press freedom, the paper said in six pages of coverage.
The Court of Appeal granted an injunction to stop the paper naming the “leading businessman”, because the story probably arose from a breach of non-disclosure agreements – in which employees are paid money to stay silent.
The Telegraph said the ruling was “contrary to the age-old principle against prior restraint of the press”, which traditionally said the media should not be prevented from publishing stories that people wished to suppress – on the basis that they could be sued if the story was unjustified.
The editor said he was confident the junction would be overturned.
Prime Minister Theresa May said in the Commons that NDAs were being used unethically. Labour MP Jess Phillips said: “It seems that our laws allow rich and powerful men to pretty much do whatever they want as long as they can pay to keep it quiet.”
Telegraph gagged by injunction
Two presenters at a community radio station encouraged discussion of election issues on polling day, the regulator Ofcom reports. It found a clear breach of the Ofcom code, which bans discussion of election issues while polling stations are open. Read its report (page 15).
Eamonn Holmes opened a TV report by saying, “Should pet shock collars be banned? We think so.” The following piece continued to present a one-sided picture, in breach of the requirement for impartiality, found Ofcom. Read its report here (page 6)
Publishing candid street photography may fall foul of the General Data Protection Regulation introduced in May 2018, a number of writers have speculated. Facial features and even the fact that someone was in a particular location are now classed as personal data, meaning consent must be sought for “processing” images: a problem for photographers whose work involves snapping unsuspecting people. The impact of the law will become clear over time. Read more