(signs)

*gets out a pen*

It’s a great idea, the letter, but may I (in all good faith) suggest that arguing that blogs follow higher journalistic ethical standards than journalists invites the response “well, you have nothing to worry about then”.

I personally feel that highlighting the many truths that the unregulated nature of the ‘blogosphere’ have allowed to come to light is a better argument.

(signs)

Signed.

Hapy to add my name to this. I’d add that I am deeply worried about the risks to my good name of being in any way associated with such a disreputable organisation as the PCC…

I will sign, of course, but a couple of things:

1. There’s a few typos and missing words etc in the original, so needs a quick tidy-up before posting.

2. The comment about that “well you have nothing to worry about then” is an important one. Hence I suggest adding a new section, that runs:

“Having highlighted our belief that, in many respects, the UK “blogosphere” already exhibits higher standards of jouranlistic ethics than much of the established print (and broadcast) media, you may be puzzled as to why UK bloggers should be concerned by the prospect of PCC regulation.

The answer is that the extension of regulation is troublesome insofar as it may act as cover for an attack upon the integrity and independence of blogs which presently act to highlight the failure of mainstream media, and which criticise figures within that media in a manner rarely found in the “traditional” outlets.

Though you may disagree, many at persent view the PCC as an ineffectual body as regards regulation of “traditional” media because those in charge of administering regulation are representatives of the very organisations they are charged with regulating. Yet if the PCC were charged with regulating the independent blogosphere, a situation would be created in which those who represent the interests of print and broadcast media would have the power to regulate the blogs which are, very frequently, vocal critics of that print and broadcast media.

Given that even the most influential of UK blogs and bloggers are effectively powerless (in terms of resources, both financial and legal) vis-a-vis traditional media, extending the PCC remit to cover blogs threatens to act as an open invitation for traditional media to silence independent voices critical of its failings. We believe this situation would not only be a threat to the independence and integrity of UK bloggers, it would constitute a ‘back-door’ attack on free speech exercised outside of traditional media outlets, and is thus worthy of the most serious of considerations”

Or something like that, anyway.

Signed, although the nature of my blog is unlikely to bring to any regulator’s notice!

Signed

Signed.

DK

Signed!

(signed)

Is this another example NuLab mind control?

[7] WTF do you think she made the proposal in the first place?

The idea of regulating blogging is so complex it would be far simpler to leave it unregulated. It opens up a can of worms – will twitter be regulated too as it’s a micro-blogging site? I am not looking forward to having freedom of speech or arts funding in the cold hands of a Tory government…

and also, civilrightsandwrongs.wordpress.com – this letter is absolutely fantastic! As a semi-retired U.S. civil rights lawyer, turned blogger (started in earnest in August of this year), I’ve been following our own government’s regulatory efforts aimed principally at bloggers who write reviews of products and services. I don’t know the details of what is taking place on your side of the Atlantic, but I think your letter to this “Baronness” is great. Keep it up!

Signed.

Usually wouldn’t even begin to apply to my witterings, though, but I suppose some folk might not like my opinions on certain matters musical, retailers, manufacturers, etc,etc.

At least I check my sources, and never use Wikimpedimentia…

Mike Killingworth,

“[7] WTF do you think she made the proposal in the first place?”

to be seen to be “doing something” to justify her pointlessly large salary without affecting/irritating her current constituency?

Signed.

Signed.

Sign me up, please: Julian Harris, Liberal Vision

Has anyone at the PCC ever read a blog? I mean the whole organisation is held in universal disdain.

Me and Jamie Sport (Mr Daily Quail) were at one point thinking about setting up an aggregator a la http://www.libdemblogs.co.uk for all the different blogs which actually do hold the press to account – 5CC and Eric the Fish etc.

Anyone know the logistics of actually getting an Independent Press Complaints Commission like that off the ground?

FX: *signs*

Signed – and I echo Paul Sager’s point.

[18] Andy, I think it’s more than that. News International and the Daily Mail & General Trust effectively control the PCC and believe that their products between them provide a sufficiency of choice. The Tories hope to bankrupt the Guardian by denying it public service advertising and to move the BBC to the right by threatening to require it to use Fox News rather than its present in-house service. The Mirror, NI and DMGT believe, can be dealt with by market forces alone. In order to complete the strategy it is therefore necessary to close down those blogs which don’t conform the NI/DMGT line.

This is just trying to divert attention from the important problems in the big newspapers. She is fighting the easy battle to show she is doing something. Her comments come from an instant reaction to something she does not know. Just to divert us from the real, much bigger and significant, problem in the newspapers. This real difficulty she is too scared (or unable) to deal with.

Signed.

Signed with Paul Sagar’s point.

And well done.

Signed.

And would like to assert my agreement with Paul Saga (@7) when he says:

Given that even the most influential of UK blogs and bloggers are effectively powerless (in terms of resources, both financial and legal) vis-a-vis traditional media, extending the PCC remit to cover blogs threatens to act as an open invitation for traditional media to silence independent voices critical of its failings. We believe this situation would not only be a threat to the independence and integrity of UK bloggers, it would constitute a ‘back-door’ attack on free speech exercised outside of traditional media outlets, and is thus worthy of the most serious of considerations

Signed

Signed,

Shaun Pilkington

Count me in.

What would be the compliance costs?

What is the PCC structure?

Sign me up, too! Laurie Penny, of Penny Red and various other places.

I agree.

Signed,

DunGeekin.

Rant to follow.

I’d suggest that the major issue here is that the PCC exists to regulate *professional* publications – most importantly, to act as a deterrant to professional publications using their huge reach and resources to cause damage to individuals who may not have the resources to pursue action through the courts (due to the vast cost of libel actions).

Extending the PCC’s remit to blogs means, in effect, setting up a body that can punish individual members of the public for expressing their opinions – even though any and every member of the public is already covered by the libel laws (as some bloggers have already discovered to their cost).

It should also be noted that if a blogger does libel another ordinary member of the public or publish something factually inaccurate or misleading, the potential damage is significantly smaller than if the same libel were to appear in a newspaper. First, most blogs have a tiny readership; second, blogs are not generally considered to be trustworthy sources of information. They are usually only capable of causing damage when acting collectively, making regulation – especially post-facto regulation, such as that offered by the PCC – extremely difficult.

In other words, rather than extend the PCC’s remit, the government should instead reform the libel laws to make them both more rational and cheaper to both bring and defend. Then there would be no need for the PCC for blogs or the press, as it would be much easier to both seek redress and defend against malicious libel actions. Both blogs and the press would at once be given greater liberty and more effectively restrained from spreading falsehoods.

Good letter. Sign me up.

Agreed with Nosemonkey wholeheartedly, and signed.

I agree with this letter wholeheartedly. Hands off our blogs!

Sign me up, please.

Signed.

Signed

Signed in Blood.

Signed by me too.

Signed

Signed

Signed

Signed.

Although my political blogging is extremely infrequent these days, nevertheless I value the freedom to pass comment or raise issues without checking that every post satisfies the self-interested requirements of what appears to be an asylum run by its own inmates (viz. comment 24).

However I do “tweet” daily about political issues, so in particular agree with comment 15 in respect of Twitter/micro-blogging.

Concur entirely with comment 3.

You have my support.

If you are a blogger facing SLAPP actions or other intimidatory tactics, feel free to help yourself at http://speakoutened.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/blogger-resisting-anton-piller-search/

Hope to post more useful material along the way.

Sign me up.

The PCC is an organisation set up and managed by the newspaper industry. It exists to maintain the good name of the press by self-regulation (in the way doctors and lawyers try to maintain the good name of their professions through self-regulating bodies to maintain standards). The PCC thinks that self-regulation is good and outside regulation is bad. Yet now the PCC would like to regulate another part of the media, bloggers, who are their competitors. You couldn’t make it up!

Signed.

Cheerily signed,

BenSix (Back Towards The Locus)

Well done, Unity – it looks like this idea has united bloggers from several different political factions.

Count me in as well.

signed

What a brilliantly-written letter.

Sign me up

I have no intention of working to the “ethical standards” of a body that hires Paul Dacre to review and revise their code of practice. Such bunkum from Baroness Buscombe.

Signed.

Signed…..

Signed

Sunder Katwala
http://www.nextleft.org/

—
Thanks for this. A couple of thoughts about the letter.

* Thanks for the link to the Malone ‘free cars’ saga. But the PCC (being defensive and complacent in its DNA) may say ‘why complain about an issue where an adjudication was accepted’ (missing the point about the tortuousness) believing this to be a success story for the PCC. So I think the letter would be stronger if it also went on to include one equally manifestly false claim in a newspaper where there was a PCC refusal to even adjudicate the complaint (perhaps because it was a third party complaint).

That would allow us to note the inconsistency where the PCC often (but, arbitrarily, not always) refuses to adjudicate complaints to see whether articles which members of the public believe breach its code (for accuracy) do so, and say that we believe that perhaps a more pressing priority for a press complaints commission should be to commit to considering public complaints about press articles in breach of its code!

* I think it could be clearer if the letter pulled out and bulleted two or three simple things that are common practice among bloggers; proposed that emulating these could help to move press standards towards those common in the blogosphere. The letter could then explicitly ask whether the PCC itself agree with the bloggers writing to them that these would be ‘good practice’ for newspapers and magazines as well as blogs, and whether they would actively suggest members adopt them, and if not, why they do not think they would be good practice, or would not recommend them. (At the moment, it doesn’t seem to me to ask for a response about the standards being advocated; and so this can more easily be ducked with the letter being taken as only sticking two fingers up).

- always publishing corrections on the original article, so that subsequent readers online are not misled by mistakes and errors which have been acknowledged;
- agreement that where substantive corrections are made after publications, that these should be indicated (rather than 1984-style ‘stealth editing).
- agreement that newspapers should establish trust by acknowledging that they routinely correct errors of fact in the newspaper (for example by each establishing a ‘corrections and clarifications’ column so as to have a space for doing so).

* I feel the balance of the letter is good, and that “Should you succeed in raising the ethical standards and practices of the majority of the national press, particularly the tabloids, to our level then we may be inclined to reconsider our position” is a good conclusion, as it would be difficult

I agree with the sentiments of the letter

Signed.

The Observer has a similar system to The Guardian.

I thought the Mirror had also introduced a readers editor/ombudsman, but am not sure about the details of that.

If you want an example of a PCC decision that was rubbish – you might be interested in the one I describe in this post:

What happens to minorities who can’t or won’t sue the papers?

Sorry – just realised what I was after is buried halfway through the post – I meant this:

Here’s a quick example. A while back, the Express produced a pack of lies about the contents of a Muslim Council of Britain document. I complained, and had my complaint knocked back because I wasn’t directly involved. More importantly, the MCB complained. The PCC found that the Express’s article was misleading, but ruled only that the paper would have to print a letter from the MCB to correct this. The MCB rejected this, which meant the PCC could let it go.

It gets worse. Now that the Express was getting away with it, the paper could keep the story on the website, and more besides.

My complaint made reference to the fact that the headline on the website ‘Muslims: ban un-Islamic schools’ was misleading, and created the impression that Muslims had called to ban non Islamic schools (they hadn’t called to ban anything). The MCB had made special reference to the paper pretending they had called for swimming lessons to be banned during Ramadan. Since we made our complaints, the online version of the story has been changed.

The headline is now ‘Muslims: Ban non-Islamic schools’ exactly the false impression I argued the old headline could create. There is now a separate quote box with ‘”Swimming lessons should be banned during Ramadan” Muslim Council of Britain’.

Signed it

With the condition that a sentence to the effect of the one suggested by Paul Sagar is included…

Signed.

Signed, signed, and signed thricely.

Signed

Signed again, this time with my usual method of attack:

‘Press Complaints Commission To Regulate Everything‘

D

Assuming modifications similar to those proposed by Paul Sagar – signed by Denny and Helen from Police State UK.

This is a lunatic proposal which will help no-one except the worst of the libel lawyers. Also a total waste of time. Bloggers will get round it by writing on foreign-hosted servers.

Signed

Despite reservations about your penultimate subclause (the most influential UK political blogs are very far from powerless, thank goodness)

Signed

Signed

Signed.

Totally agree (unless the membership of the PCC can be made up entirely of bloggers of my choosing of course)

Signed, sealed, delivered, I’m yours.

Total agreement – signed, yours sincerely – Clara Ross

Signed.

Mike @ #24,

Reckon that’s a conspiracy theory too far, sorry…

Seems more like what I (frivolously) suggested, and others have echoed – an empty “moral crusade” against the evil, ‘paedophile, pornographer and story-inventing-blogger’-infested internet, grabbing a few headlines while leaving the papers to carry on with business as usual.

The Grauniad has been doing a fine job of screwing-up its finances all by itself for quite a long time, it doesn’t need any huge plot from Tory central office to assist it on that front.

Pretty damn fine turnout in opposition, though, eh?

Cheers from north o’ the forth…

Agreed and signed

Signed

Richard Horton

Please stop trying to grow your empire before you have gained proper control of the dead tree press, thank you.

Cracking letter – happy to sign.

The vast majority of bloggers link to any information they relay (thereby allowing simple rebuttal should the info be false or inaccurate), anything else is merely opinion. the MSM don’t feel the need to separate the two.

Signed

Signed.

Signed.

Signed.

The PCC don’t adequately “police” the press – how do they hope to do it for blogs?

They’re hopeless and pointless, and they can keep their remit away from bloggers

Signed.

Please sign me up xx

Signed. (How embarrassing to have spelt my own name wrong).

Signed.

signed

Not that I fear the regulation of the PCC, nobody’s likely to complain of my pointless wittering. They could at least demonstrate the ability to regulate the things they currently claim to regulate, before expanding their reach.

I write for pleasure, for the exchange of ideas.For much of my life I have railed against the authority of others and the thought that part of my life should be regulated by the PCC is not one I find acceptable.

All bloggers are subject to the law. That is quite enough for me. I have no need of the services of the PC and very little regard for your activities on present and recent form. .

SIGNED…. with a glass of Rioja to my right and a cigarette to my left.

Signed

Signed

Good to see a range of political voices signing up. At least we can all agree with the PCC is rubbish.

Paul Sagar’s point is well made too.

Is this another example NuLab mind control?

She’s a Conservative peer.

Please sign from me.

Signed

I will sign if Paul Sagar’s suggestion (esp No 2) is incorporated – it does explain *why* we would object to being regulated by the body that allows such deplorable behaviour in the “professional” (HAH!) press

Signed

Signed.

Signed.

Signed

Signed

Signed

Agree wholeheartedly.

Signed

Signed

I’m in. Signed

Signed.

Nigel Stapley (‘The Judge’)

Count me in – this smells so much of a desperate attempt by an organisation that’s facing the chop to try to show it has teeth. Baroness Buscombe should retire.

Signed

Count me in (http://donalblaney.blogspot.com/2009/11/peta-lets-defeat-her.html) even though it will creep out many of you that we agree on something

Sign me up please. Totally agree – the standards of the most blogs far outstrip those of most newspapers, to which the PCC ought to be directing its attention before even thinking about regulating the blogosphere.

Signed. One of the more sinister peculiarities of the last decade is the number of people who want to be regulated – not just to have others regulated, but positively want someone else to tell them what to do.

Add my name to that.

OurKingdom signs – it’s witty and may even make the PCC think. Cheers!
Guy Aitchison joins me

(signs)

Someone should play Devil’s Advocate here, and it might as well be me:

http://www.layscience.net/node/790

You may all flame me now

Yep – very good letter, put me down. I also think the contributions from Paul Sagar and Sunder K would strengthen it.

Signed – and I agree with Paul Sagar’s comments.

Bill Cameron
Bill’s Comment Page

signed

Signed.

Signs.

That’s a letter I am happy to put my pseudonym to. Consider it done.

Please sign for me.

As others have pointed out, bloggers are already subject to laws. The PCC has done such a pitiful job of restraining the worst excesses of tabloid journalism (do you suppose the editor and owner of the NoW are scared of the PCC? Or just having a good old laugh at it?) that one cannot help feeling their new-found interest in blogging is just them looking for an easier target. And trying to make themselves look more important, of course.

I’m in.

Signed

Put my tiny little blog on the list too. The PCC is a joke, let’s not risk extending its credibility by extending its reach.

“covered documented” – shouldn’t it be either “covered” or “documented” but not both?

Ethical journalism != proofreading

Signed.

It’s probably worth noting that there may well be some high profile bloggers who don’t sign this. Can we also collectively agree not to condemn them for not doing so? We are a loose collection of bloggers, not a political party or pressure group, so moralisation towards non-signatories is likely to undermine the cause…

Signed.

Add me to the list of signatories.
It’s an idea that is actually more stupid than the decision to make ISPs liable for usenet articles

Signed.

Well I support that wholeheartedly ,sadly my supprt of free speech will be deleted by Sunny Hundal the moment he spots it because he has banned me from this site which gives you sime idea of what a chilly time I am in for if he ever had any say in it .

I agree. This looks like old-fashioned empire building. The PCC costs £2m a year and would be looking for subs. The next stage would be, if you don’t pay your sub you lose your licence to blog. And given its fear of its larger members, it’s predictable it would pick on the ‘easy’ target of bloggers rather than the commercial press.

Signed.

Signed.

Signed.

Signed.

Signed.

Newmania,

Your whining is reminiscent of a child who, after repeatedly throwing bricks through windows, can’t comprehend why he’s not allowed to go near the greenhouse.

It says a lot about you that you apparently don’t understand why you are banned.

I’m in!

Count me in too.

Reminds me of my post from last year – “Three ways bloggers regularly beat traditional journalists when it comes to reporting standards” – http://www.libdemvoice.org/three-ways-bloggers-regularly-beat-traditional-journalists-when-it-comes-to-reporting-standards-5230.html

Been blogging a week.

Would stop very quickly.

Signed

(signed)

Same Difference http://www.samedifference1.com

Signed – good letter and agree with various additions in the comments.

Signed.

(signed)

Excellent letter. PCC’s land-grab is dangerous.

Signed. If anyone has a problem with my blog, they know where to find me.

Signed out of solidarity.

signed

Signed.

Signed. Any blog I guest post on would be in the same situation as Jack of Kent.

Signed.

By the way, isn’t self-regulation by the PCC sort of voluntary?

It’s late so I’ll keep it brief for tonight.

1. Fantastic response so far – keep it coming.

2. Paul’s comments will be worked into the final letter as the potential conflicts of interest that would arise were the PCC to regulate blogs is an issue that needs to be addressed.

3. I’ve no problems with people playing Devil’s Advocate on this – I can see how and why the idea of bloggers sitting on the PCC code committee would sound good in principle. In practice, if the PCC can screw the Groan over to protect the NOTW then that tells us how much there would be of bloggers exerting an influence in that arena, unless things change dramatically over the next few years. Still, its fun to speculate so by all means play with the idea.

4. I do think its inevitable that, at some point, one or more blogs will cross over so far into mainstream journalism that they’ll need to consider whether to sign-up to the PCC, or whatever mainstream regulator exists at that point in time.

When that day comes, it won’t be one of the existing high traffic solo blogs like Ian Dale or Guido, it’ll be a group blog that either emerges out of niche market or steps up to fill a gap in the news market that’s been vacated by the MSM. As things stand, the decline in local newspapers may be the engine that drives that development, although that could easily change if Murdoch gets his way as persuades a majority of the national dailies to retreat behind paywalls, in which case something similar in scale to HuffPo, which has arguably already crossed that line in the US, could develop and bridge the gap into the mainstream.

Signed.

Can I suggest that this is kept open for a few days – we need others beyond political folks on this, particularly journalist/media bloggers, and it will take a few days to permeate.

>4. I do think its inevitable that, at some point, one or more blogs will cross over so far into mainstream journalism that they’ll need to consider whether to sign-up to the PCC, or whatever mainstream regulator exists at that point in time.

Yep. I’d note that blogs on MSM sires are already (presumably) regulated, since the PCC decided to regulate newspaper websites last year.

I’d predict that regulation would be driven by:

a – A newsy not comment blog which aims for comprehensive coverage. In politics that is probably Slugger.
b – Something which has *replaced* or is surpassing its local paper. Best examples at present are perhaps The Lichfield Blog or the Ventnor site.
c – I can see PCC regulation being demanded as a condition of Lobby access.
d – Yes, it’ll be a blog with an editorial team, and the driver may well be “you have full time paid staff”.

Robert – #131

You are right, we are a loose collection of bloggers, not a political party or pressure group, so I will condemn whomsoever I wish, over whatever I wish, regardless of anyone else agreeing to anything.

Not that I had considered condemning non signers, just making the point.

Sheesh, some people just don’t understand what being a free individual means. Talk about a desperate need to try and hurd cats.

Signed.

Please add my name to the list of signatories. Thanks.

Funnily enough, my wife has two PCC meetings this week, she’s chairing them both. She’s a vicar: vicars do this, for better or for worse.

Seriously, though, 100% agreed: please add my name. Four blogs I’ll own up to, if that counts for anything:
http://philgroom.wordpress.com
http://spckssg.wordpress.com
http://christianbookshopsblog.org.uk
http://biggleswadebooks.co.uk

Signed.

Have now blogged on this: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/11/against-pcc-regulation-of-blogs.html

Signed, as I told you yesterday.

I see Guido is suggesting that this is a storm in a teacup. Nonetheless, send the letter.

Count me in.

Carmenego

Signed

Signed – brilliant work

Signed

If the MSM can self-regulate, why non self-regulation of blogs with readership over a given figure – and with pointedly higher standards than the MSM.

Signed

Bob O’Hara

You have my support:
http://www.biggerpictureresearch.net/

Jim Barratt

Signed – the PCC are seeking to regulate the free speech of individual citezens, an utterly abhorrent suggestion.

Signed

You have our total backing…

Bloggers, sign here please… http://bit.ly/41YLYW

SIgned.

ignorance->fear->hate->violence/coercion/control

I see Guido is suggesting that this is a storm in a teacup. Nonetheless, send the letter.

Guido can suggest what he likes – as the spectre of PCC regulation has been raised, however tentatively, its in our interests to put down a very clear marker.

Signed

Sign me up, please. Nice letter – one or two grammatical errors in there, though, that would benefit from a proofreader.

Perhaps Baroness Buscombe has got the wrong way round. Perhaps it would be more prudent, for the Blogsphere to police the press, as the majority of us have better ethical standards, than the majority in the Darcsphere, which of course is more perverse than the Darkside!

The flaw in the attempt to regulate blogs through the PCC is that it assumes that blogs are journalism, when this is not, in fact, the case.

I blog as an academic, putting reviews, discussion pieces, conference papers, works in progress, and opinions on my blog on film studies (Research into Film – http://nickredfern.wordpress.com/). By extending the remit of the PCC to cover my blog this has potentially serious consequences for academic freedom. In effect, my research will be regulated by the PCC, which is wholly inappropriate.

Academic research clearly lies beyond the remit of the PCC – a self-appointed fig leaf for the press. It’s influence should not be extended into areas where it does not belong.

I support the argument that stopping PCC regulation of blogs is a matter of press freedom, but there are a whole series of other problems that also need to be addressed.

Signed.

Signed with a flourish

More than happy to sign.

Signed.

Agree.

The normal practice on my blog and all other Shanghai based English language blogs of quality is to add corrections and additions as ‘updates’ on the original post at the head.

And/or leave all comments that are responses or corrections intact on the post for all to see.

Finally, significant comments that add information or links or challenge the content are often ‘reposted’ in their own new post for further comment.

This kind of openness is unthinkable to the print media who tend to regard challenges to their existing news items or articles as bothersome or annoyances from the proles.

signed

Hasn’t the PCC, until very recently, been chaired by the Dark Lord himself (aka editor of the Daily Fail)?

Oi, Paspartout – pass me my quill, ink me up, and point me at this bloody petition thingy!

We are already bound by laws such as libel already and this inhibits freedom of speech.

Someone gizza pen!

Signed.

signed

More than pleased to sign up.

The PCC?
(It amazes me how often they fail to properly address issues which a reasonable person would consider to be wide off the mark. However, we should not be surprised, it’s all part the rest of our useless, week in and week out, failing Regulatory system)

I smell a would be blog tax and reams of red tape in the air.

No way. Dream on, Baroness, hands off our human rights!

We, in the blogosphere, more than adequately regulate ourselves and we will fight any attacks on our self regulated freedom of speech.

Well said, Unity, with a few typo corrections, I totally back your petition

Blogging promotes free speech and points of view from all points of the compass. Printed media tends to favour and push one slant, at times deliberately censoring their responses to protect favoured ones.

Does the PCC have or is it going to be given the resources to police all bloggers, the scale of the blogosphere is enormous. My bet is the PCC will never have the resources and it will purely become a tool of the establishment to reduce or eliminate valid criticism that needs to be placed before the general public.

Get the PCC house in order before trying to undertake mission impossible.

Small edit I think, this stood out as needing an editor

newspaper’s print edition and on its website on a page utterly divorced the article to which it relates, which was removed its entirely, and in such a way that only

needs a brief change, edits in bold

newspaper’s print edition and on its website on a page utterly divorced FROM the article to which it relates, which was removed IN its ENTIRETY, and in such a way that only

Hope that helps.

Rather than look to add ‘creep’ to the mission of the PPC it should focus on improving its effectiveness.

Too many sections of the media are out of step with the views of the vast majority of the UK. Were the broadsheets and state broadcast media lead with politics & politicians, the tabloids lead with celebrity and celebrities. Yet both do so at the cost of fact, truth and context.

signed

Are they scared of knowing what the public really think….

Has the internet given us all the power of social comment that can be read by millions

Will all have opinions but we have a better moral fibre

I’m signing…..I’m signing for a freedom that should not be regulated

Signed

Signed.

signed

Signed.

Signed

My signature is added, although I reckon a recipe blog is unlikely to cause many ripples!

Signed, but please, all sentences need verbs. At least two seem to be without. But maybe they are there somewhere and just need several more minutes to find. (Of course, I might be thicker than I make out.) And please, the verb is ‘to practise’, with an ‘s’, as in ‘practising’

Nothing more to add, just sign me up.
@JacBlack
Also, check out this new blog on Scottish political affairs.

sorry!! thescotsjournal.co.uk :-0 Maybe I need regulated.

My signature is added but I object to it being called a ‘liberal conspiracy’ – there is nothing liberal about censorship and it seems a pitty to sully true liberalism with authoritarian practices.

Slightly too wordy, but I agree with everything in it. Sign me up!

Dr. Aidan Byrne

Oops – forgot my blog:
http://www.plashingvole.blogspot.com

Please add my signature

Late, but with you all.

Signed

Signed for http://www.realwestdorset.co.uk

Signed because it’s true that most papers have a very bad attitude towards corrections.

Matt Wardman at 159 makes some interesting comments. “Gatekeepers” like local authorities often like to have the reassurance of rectitude that they think something like obeisance to the PCC provides. But it’s such a delusion. The number of press officers I’ve spoken to over the years who complain furiously about how inaccurate and unfair their local newspaper is! And then they say: “I’ve given up complaining, unless it’s really bad. There’s no point. We have to live with them. Sometimes we get our own back in other ways…”

Signed.

Signed.

Wholehearted support.

The PCC is ill-qualified to regulate the internet when it can’t even keep its members in check.

In addition, the PCC is meant to be an example of self-regulation. If bloggers don’t wish to be regulated by the body, and don’t sign up to it, by definition, it can’t be self-regulation.

Please consider me a signatory to your letter.

petition signed. sean

Signed

Signed up

Signed – The Tone of Our Oppression

Signed.

Hear hear

Excellent letter, keep up the good work.

Signed!

signed.

Fabulous letter, with my wholehearted endorsement.

You’ve my full support as well, and thank you for writing this.

Signed

Oh that our tabloids really could be regulated. A slightly long-winded and repetitive letter but anything that raises standards of published debate is to be welcome. thank you.

Signed

The world started to make sense when I put newspapers to one side, got rid of my TV and resorted to the web and informative blog sites to get a much bigger picture of the world – one that enabled me to join the dots together!

We must fight to preserve our God-given right of free-speech devoid of establishment busy bodies editing our heartfelt views attempting to mould us into line with their agenda.

signed

Agreed.

A few typos in the letter, but it does make a lot of sense. The NotW story highlighted in the letter also shows that the PCC is, in its present form, utterly worthless.

I support this response to PCC

Three blogs:
http://robertsaunders.org.uk – Flies&Bikes
http://teamgrumpy.blogspot.com – The Team Grumpy Blog, Cycle racing
http://robertsaunders.org.uk/wordpress – Wonderful Life, biology and atheism

Robert

Great letter. Sign me up too please.

God help us – she wants to apply the same standards to bloggers as those that apply in the advertising industry!

Signed.

Even as someone who is just starting a blog (and so from the perspective of a current blogging outsider), the whole idea of the PCC’s intrusion into this sphere is laughable – not least the because the PCC is so toothless and morally questionable in undertaken their given duties, let alone in assuming new areas in which to be incompetent.

Rusbridger has just resigned from involvement with the PCC given the recent whitewash relating to the Guardian reporting on NotW’s persistent mobile tapping. According to the PCC, the Guardian’s report was unfair to NotW, despite expert witnesses and evidence to the contrary supporting the case that there was a persistent culture of (at least) immoral information gathering and reporting practices.

In the debate over that topic, Lady Buscombe seriously misrepresented those who gave evidence against the NotW, which indicates a level of involvement inappropriate and unhealthy for independent guardians of the press. An organisation supposed to uphold proper practice will not have relevance or authority unless it behaves in a manner which deserves it. And until it is able to apply this behaviour to its own sphere, it shouldn’t even consider whether it has any relevancy to other public communication sources.

Sign me up!

Yet another example of authority figures demonstrating their inability to grasp the social and technical nuances of the online medium.

Or simply a tactic to divert attention from the News of the World/PCC story…

Or both.

Sigh.

Good response though!

signed

This report move by the PPC is totally out of order until they get their own house in order in reference to tabloid news paper practices. We done and well said “Liberal Conspiracy”.

Cheers,
Jakomi

Please count this is my signature.
Stephen Newton
http://www.stephennewton.com
http://www.pr-consultant.co.uk
http://www.buffthebanana.co.uk

While the end of this letter may be considered a little strongly worded it is without doubt true that Bloggers have to account for their work far more closely than do any other form of “journalist”. We are by our very nature accountable to the people who read our work because of their ability to respond to us personally. I also wonder where such regulation would stop, would it be with journalistic blogs or would it stretch so far as to include individuals personal blogs on sites such as Myspace and Facebook and if those sites came under the remit of these proposals then how soon afterwards would status updates come under it as well? This country is founded on the ability of every indiviual to have and voice an opinion which differs from the majority if they so wish and it seems to me that this could be used to take that ability away.

(Signed)

Signed.

*signs*

I’m not signing this! You write:

Should you succeed in raising the ethical standards and practices of the majority of the national press, particularly the tabloids, to our level then we may be inclined to reconsider our position.

That means that when the national press has been regulated to death, us bloggers will be quite happy to have it done to us. Not me. Seems to me that individual bloggers are not essentially different from pubgoers sitting on bar stools and sounding off about the state of the world. Next there’ll be regulation of that too FFS. And that used to be called Free Speech.

That means that when the national press has been regulated to death, us bloggers will be quite happy to have it done to us.

No, that line is simply a rhetorical device intended to draw the reader in so I can rabbit punch them with the next sentence…

*signed*

Have to say, this is *excellent* linkbait

I’m off to try and energise the J-bloggers…

Signed:

The whole idea seems to rest on a hilarious misunderstanding of what electronic media are and how they work.

This document is a masterpiece of the English language and a tribute to the immense worth of the blogosphere. I wholeheartedly endorse it… etc etc … although I decline to sign it because it I am almost crying into my keyboard …

My LEGIONS of Warrior readors would destroy paliament if I was CENSORED…so STEP OFF BITCH!

My LEGIONS of Warrior readers would destroy parliament if I was CENSORED…so STEP OFF BITCH!

I do not have a blog, but can I sign too please? Because I have been thinking about writing one.

Perhaps the PCC should look after the press complaints quickly forcefully and more forcefull,meaningfully. Slaps over the wrist to newspapers are hardly felt,If they were denyed a days advertising revenue it might make them more circumspect. Freedom of speech would be severly curtailed.

Sign me up!

The blogs tell the truth. It is where the REAL news is. Sorry barnoness whoever.

Sign me up. Blog name – Sci-Ence! Justice Leak! at http://andrewhickey.info

Signed.

Signed

Count me in as signed

A thought experiment.

Suppose blogs were signed up to the PCC – or even their own regulator. And suppose Laurie Penny had made a complaint about Harry’s Place and it had been upheld. The guys who run HP just do a Rusbridger (among other things). What is achieved?

Signed

Signed!

Signed.

Signed

Signed.

Love the notion that readers of blogs will enter “an ecosystem” that they may take as “news” and truth … What a concept to mirror against the paid-for “fourth estate” – licensed by government, literally – with its constant defining of the political and social paradigms we are force-fed.

And I believe the Indy – a paper particularly in trouble financially – is largely written by interns … A section editor supposedly conceded this … Anyone know if it’s true?

… and count me as signed!

Signed

Signed!

Signed

Signed.

Signed.

Ridiculous.

Signed.

Signed. And sent round to the Witanagemot Club bloggers.

I agree that the PCC attempting to extend its regulation to the blogosphere would be horrific. However, this is simply not an effective or serious response to that proposal. You spend much of it trying to be cutely humorous, implying that blog standards are higher than those of national newspapers.

This is fundamentally unserious and the proposal deserves a serious response. An effective response would be based on the defence of freedom. There are no “blogger standards” which apply to all bloggers. That is the whole point. The blogosphere is free. People can apply whatever standards they think are appropriate, including none.

Your response is also too perfused with leftie political correctness to win broad support (and on an issue like this you should be seeking maximal support across the political spectrum). For example you use the term “utterly racist myth” in relation to some anti-immigrant tirade. Sorry, but you can be opposed to immigration without being racist. The author of the original article may or may not have been a racist. If so, it is not brought out in your response and there is simply no need to introduce politically controversial matters into what ought to be a serious response.

In fact, the Malone article is given way too much space in your response, considered in relation to everything else.

An effective response to the proposal would be based on the principle of free speech. Or is it impossible for you to construct a response on that basis because you, like many left-wingers, actually don’t believe in free speech?

Signed

Signed.

Signed!

Signed.

Signed.

Signed

Do they realise how hard it would be to enforce? More clueless frothing by ignorant bureaucrats about the nature of blogging and the internet.

The Carole Malone part is highly overplayed. Apart from the “free cars” part I can’t see much factually incorrect seeing as she was talking about the “illegal immigrants”.

Free houses, free cars, free health care and free money. Hell, they don’t even have to work or speak the language. Even the suggestion they should is seen as racist in Brown’s Britain. They can just live as they did before, only with a whole heap more money and zero responsibility to the country providing it.

They do get free accommodation – not necessarily a house to be fair – could be a flat
Free cars – I really cannot believe that
Free health care – yep
Free money – yep
Whole heap more money – in absolute terms yes, but not when you take relative cost of living into consideration. However they disappear into the grey economy and end up being employed by Baroness Scotland.
Zero responsibility – yes.
Do you get called a racist for disagreeing with illegal immigration? Yes.

I have no problem whatsoever with people genuinely seeking asylum in this country. We have a long and proud tradition of offering safety to those who need it. I do have an issue with people coming in with certain skills as it can deprive their country of origin of those, often much needed, skills. We should be training our own medical staff, not leaching doctors and nurses from Africa.

On a different note, who can the PPC regulate “blogs”? If a blog’s server is hosted outside the UK then they have no way to control what is published. Presumably every blogger will have to pay a registration fee to cover the cost of the wonderful control. I’d like to see them try to force every account set up on Facebook, Myspace, WordPress etc to pay £50 for the privilege as all those are, essentially, blogs or have blogs built right in.

I suspect that the only way round this is to set up a national firewall to block Facebook, et al. making us rather more like China than a supposedly free country.

However, my comments above not withstanding, I support the general gist of what you are trying to say.

signed

Mr Tyke:

They do get free accommodation – not necessarily a house to be fair – could be a flat
Free cars – I really cannot believe that
Free health care – yep
Free money – yep
Whole heap more money – in absolute terms yes, but not when you take relative cost of living into consideration. However they disappear into the grey economy and end up being employed by Baroness Scotland.
Zero responsibility – yes.
Do you get called a racist for disagreeing with illegal immigration? Yes.

Racist? Not necessarily but ill-informed certainly.

Of your package deal the only thing that illegal immigrants might get is free emergency health care, if they ship up at A&E and only at the risk of being detained by the Police/Immigration Officials.

If they do get nicked then they’ll get free temporary accommodation, meals and basic health care…

…at a detention centre next door to the airport they’ll be shipped out off when all the deportation paperwork’s in order – because they’re here illegally and have no right to stay.

Before commenting on immigration, do try to ensure that you’re talking about the right type of migrants – illegals get fuck all but for the basics while awaiting their flight home because we’re civilised like that.

signed

Signed.

Signs and sighs.

signed

Wholly agree, particularly with the points made at comment 183.

I want to observe that being held to account for writing opinionated gibberish, such as is frequently found on my blog, is ridiculous as I write anonymously under my blogger name. An imaginary persona has little credibility or gravitas (for example, according to my personal info, I have been 28 years old for three years). My blog, and that of many others, are merely channel for relieving the tension and frustration experienced by any reasonably intelligent person living in the 21st century. The PCC has no conceivable right to cast judgement on the veracity, or otherwise, of my witterings.

Sign me up. And Word.

Signed.

Signed

Signed

Signed!!!!

The pcc need to prove that they can regulate the tabloids first, before they try and regulate anything else. Regulation of the printed media is a joke!
This sounds like the government are trying to control blogging via the pcc, and the pcc are more than happy to exert some control over their online rivals. Rivals who constantly highlight the lies and mistakes of the printed media.

consider me signed up.

b’shalom

bananabrain

On points 293 et cetera, could someone (perhaps sympathetic with Carole Malone’s article) explain what is meant by “zero responsibility to the country providing it”?

What are the responsibilities that, say, I have to the country (by which she presumably means government), that an immigrant (deemed “illegal” or otherwise) does not have? And are these responsibilities that our government would allow an immigrant to have?

Signed

Sign me up please!

John Q. Publican, blogging by that name and at PSUK. Signed.

Signed

Signed

signed

Signed

Signed.

Signed.

signed

Signed.

Signed

Signed

Am I too late? Consider me signed up – http://jockcoats.me