The motivation is clear, they want to lessen how accountable we are able to hold them.

Cameron blamed UK growth slowdown on Europe about 6 weeks ago… within 24 hours it had been fact checked and rubbished by a dozen blogs.

The print media and news stations caught up a few days later.

I need no commission, no oversight, no regulator or anything for my blog. Also, I wouldn’t even know under which jurisdiction I fall as I regularly move between countries.

If people don’t like my blog, they can (try to) sue me. That possibility should be enough of a quality control. Any offence caused below that standard can be remedied by simply ceasing to read my blog.

I don’t remember any bloggers hacking phones or blagging people’s personal medical data. Considering the amount of bloggers verses the amount sued for liable or criminal activity bloggers are “whiter than white” compared to the old media which was clearly rife with practices that not only broke the PCC code (and still do on a almost daily basis) but were also illegal. How about you get accuracy as the gold standard in the crappy old media first? Good luck with that

Certain blogs tempt this fate (we know who they are) but what about people like me? I write a blog about the design and nature of rented housing, which should be a political issue, but is often ignored. When I write a ‘political’ post, should I be regulated? It’s not like I can afford to pay. When blogs publish confidential information, disrupt trials, publish libellous, deliberately erroneous information and comments, how will this be controlled? Holding politicians to account comes with responsibility.

Most “trade bodies” that award certificates of compliance charge for the privilege, so the idea that blogs should pay for a publishing kitemark is not that radical an idea.

Whether anyone will want to though – that is a totally different issue, and I suspect that most wont.

Unlike, for example, plumbing, where people pay for accuracy and quality – and therefore are likely to seek out an accredited supplier, news and commentary is judged less on accuracy and more on compliance with the readers own prejudices.

Maybe a kitemark announcing that the blog has been certified by independent adjudicators as loony leftie or ranting right wing would be a better idea

If its not broken don’t try and fix it.

Stupid noises about an utterly unenforceable idea. It’s the print media that are dysfunctional, the blogosphere is much more diverse, open and independent. How many blogs are owned by UK tax efficient right-wing millionaires?

If a blog is highly opinionated, how is that to be measured against the yardstick of accuracy? Moreover,are you still accurate if you refer partially to a set of facts which back a certain opinion and leave out those which don’t.
I think this might end up closing down most of the gutter press.

I thought this new administration was supposed to be about freedom and escape from the control freak tendencies and obsession with predomination of the public from the last Labour government under the unelected Gordon Brown.

People are glad to see the back of ID Cards, 90 & 42 day detention without trial, less enforcement from unelected officials in Europe and all the other wheezes to oppress us so to allow this type of malarky is disgraceful.

Not that it will happen, being impossible to enforce. If they can’t stop people smuggling, unwanted rapid immigration and the illegal importation of drugs when we live on an island then they can’t stop freedom on the internet…

In the prevailing political context, we need to reflect that the fundamental issue is whether the proposed “kitemark” would be regarded in the blogsphere as a badge of quality or dishonourable compliance. After all, blogs are hardly reticent about criticising other blogs whereas newspapers were more inhibited about targeted criticism of other newspapers at least up to the phone hacking scandal and there are still unresolved doubts about how widespread the practice was.

From the time when I occasionally posted in Conservative Home, I recall the moment when a post critical of something silly said by John Redwood was censored out. Criticism of Israel posted there apparently turned me into a “friend of David Irving” and by implication a holocaust denier – which was ridiculous. Then I came across that quote from JS Mill:

“I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.”

Would a post such as this scrape past the regulator or result in the withdrawal of the blog’s kitemark or the threat of that? How big an army of blog inspectors on the regulator’s payroll would be required to maintain the surveillance operation on the blogsphere? What about blogs migrating offshore to maintain their political integrity? How long before blog regulation becomes mandatory – to “protect the innocent”, of course?

“I don’t have a problem with a voluntary regulation per se, ”

Nor do I. I’m regulated by my readers. If they don’t like what I write then they can and do go elsewhere.

End of, no more needed.

Perhaps the PCC should try regulating the traditional press first?

Zing!

In these times, if anything the important need is to preserve open debate.

Any government regulation of the Internet, however well-meaning & seemingly benign, is an unacceptable violation of Free Speech & a threat to the emergence of Truth.

Also, once the legitimacy of their regulation has been conceded, governments have a compulsion to “refine” & extend it – just consider how much freedom of speech you’ll have if AIPAC & the ADL get their way (as they almost invariably do, eventually).

If the government wants to approve certain blogs, let them set up an “Approved Blogs” website that lists & links to the ones they approve – it’ll be known as the “Kiss of Death” site.

I wonder which Stalinist official will be in charge of determining what is regarded as “accurate” outside of science blogs…

Allegations against newspapers:

Phone hacking
Witness intimidation
obtaining medical records by deception
breaking numerous traffic laws to obtain photos
stalking
perverting the course of justice
making up stories routinely
Violating privacy of families of murder victims
Fiddling expenses
etc

allegations against bloggers:

Using swear words
Spending too much time with spreadsheets
Being mean about politicians.

This new PCC sure has its priorities right.

Like many bloggers I question things including legality, ethics and behaviour. It makes uncomfortable reading for those in the employ of or associated with the organisations I blog about. I need no kitemark for my opinions and I certainly will not pay for something that I consider irrelevant. I also have no wish to be associated with something with as questionable a reputation as the PCC.

I deal in facts. By their definition facts are accurate. Not once have the people or organisations I blogged about responded substantively to prove me (and others) wrong. Anything I write is my considered opinion based on the facts. If someone has evidence to substantively prove my contentions wrong (i.e. considerably more than just an e-mail saying “I think you’re wrong, please shut up”) then I will happily consider what they have to say and publish that evidence along with my response to that evidence.

Lord Hunt should also be reminded that etiquette is a two way street. If I contact someone about an issue I am polite even if I am critical. That politeness must extend to a sensible, considered and non-boilerplate response from the person/organisation concerned.

2 years ago I wrote a response to Baroness Buscombe’s ideas about PCC regulation for blogs (search for Buscombe on my blog) – the government of the day may have changed but the sentiments remain the same. Blogging allows people to highlight those behaving unethically and try to hold them to account.

@1 That was my first thought too. The Government ain’t too keen on being held to account, and the press has long regarded blogs as stealing their rightful online readership, so it comes as little surprise to see the new head of the industry self regulator charge into the breach.

Voluntary is great. If no-one buys in to their fanciful scheme then who gives a stuff about the kitemark? It’s only a differentiator if people want to differentiate. The public won’t start thinking “oh yes, I trust this because of this kite-like symbol on the blog.” They’ll think, “WTF some guy’s invented his own ‘symbol of trust’”.

So let Lord Hunt do what the hell he wants. If he comes to the wrong conclusion, we’re left with the status quo, which really isn’t that bad, and miles better than the morally bankrupt gutter press.

@17

I’ve never read your blog but looking at this one I would suggest the notion of ‘fact’ is a fairly variable one. A bit like the notion of reality,it differs,often quite substantially from one observer to another.

Define “political blogger”.

@20: “I’ve never read your blog but looking at this one I would suggest the notion of ‘fact’ is a fairly variable one. ”

For some, rather like beauty, facts, especially political facts, tend to depend on the eye of the beholder.

Compare the once celebrated philosopher Bishop Berkeley:

“In the Principles and the Three Dialogues Berkeley defends two metaphysical theses: idealism (the claim that everything that exists either is a mind or depends on a mind for its existence) and immaterialism (the claim that matter does not exist). His contention that all physical objects are composed of ideas is encapsulated in his motto esse is percipi (to be is to be perceived).”
http://www.iep.utm.edu/berkeley/

I don’t have a problem with a voluntary regulation per se

Controlling tendencies emerging again, Sunny.

Free speech is not about people coming together and agreeing what is, or is not, acceptable. It is about individuals saying whatever they want to say.

That does not mean that people should speak or write irresponsibly, without taking account of what they are saying and the potential consequences for themselves and for others. But that judgement has to remain a matter of personal responsibility and “voluntary regulation” is nothing more than a euphemism for censorship.

This may be controversial, but I would be quite willing to subscribe to a variant of Hunt’s plan.

I agree to be overseen by him and the PCC. In return I get a Press card and a salary.

Of course, given how effective the PCC has shown itself in the past over ethical and other abuses by professional journalists, perhaps he thinks they’s got more of a chance of being taken seriously by amateurs. Trouble is, the amateurs are already doing his job for him, cf the recent Burzynski stink.

“I want accuracy to be the new gold standard for blogs.”

Setting the benchmark at the level of the average tabloid?

I think some of your commentators are getting a little too over excited about David Hunt’s plans. As I understand from talking to him yesterday.
1. it is voluntary – so you can just ignore it.
2.It’s not even signing up to the whole PCC code -iust the accuracy stuff ( so you can carry on in way you like on the rest of the code you are not bound by it)
3. if someone comes to me now after I have put up a piece – and says I have got something wrong-like someone’s age – I correct it anyway-just change the wording on the blog and leave their comment up.
4.Sometimes when you are having a go at someone or some lousy authority – it is worth giving them the chance to comment themselves. If they won’t they look bad and also it doesn’t help them shd they be foolish enough to bring in lawyers. ( it severely damages their chance of winning anything!)
5. The cost is the one bad thing – but for what I can gather it wd be pretty minimal – probably a few quid- but he needs more chasing on that!

@26

The suggestion that a proposed token is voluntary is spurious. We saw it with ID cards and it was rightly opposed. Once such things exist they become a requirement by stealth.

If I print 1,000 political fliers and distribute them on the street, I am a political publisher. During elections, different rules apply, but for most of 365 days I can give away my fliers. The content of my flier is not subject to PCC judgment because it is not a newspaper and I am not a PCC member.

Which is how political blogs work.

If my circulation increases or my hit count rises, I would apply logic. I am here in my bedroom with Fred who also writes stuff; we are not potential PCC members. I have an office and an accountant and staff that I do not recognise; I must join PCC.

remember that the boys in blue depend on their backhanders from the MSM….bloggers don’t pay so well. we might actually end up with an effective police force.

This is hilarious. A couple of questions for @DavidHencke…

1. Did this “Lord” Hunt guy give any evidence to back up his claim that the blogosphere is like the “wild west”? I take it he’s aware that bloggers don’t actually (for the most part) go round stealing cows and shooting each other, so he’s using the term “wild west” in the same way that right-wing journalists use the term “witch-hunt” – ie. it’s slanted and overblown rhetoric? And this is the guy who we’re being asked to believe is going to restore balance and accuracy to the UK media?

2. Can “Lord” Hunt substantiate his claim that inaccurate reporting by bloggers is a more serious problem than inaccurate reporting by the tabloid press? Can he provide some specific examples of inaccurate reporting by bloggers that he believes warrants his position?

3. Can “Lord” Hunt provide some examples of blogs that are anywhere near as routinely inaccurate or misleading as, say, the Daily Mail or the Daily Express (not counting blogs that are actually attached to a mainstream media outlet, eg. Telegraph blogs)?

4. I successfully took the Daily Mail to the PCC after they published an article downplaying the health risks of white asbestos: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/27/asbestos-press-watchdog-pcc

Can “Lord” Hunt provide an example of a similarly toxic false health claim made on a blog?

5. Does “Lord” Hunt think that his kitemarking scheme will apply to all blogs read in the UK (eg. not just this blog but also boingboing, the US edition of Huffpo etc) or only to blogs written by people living in the UK?

6. Will “Lord” Hunt’s kitemarking scheme apply to all organisations that publish a blog (eg. including the Cancer Research UK blog and promotional blogs published by big companies) or only to blogs by ordinary people that are deemed “political”?

7. Will “Lord” Hunt’s kitemarking scheme apply to publicly visible postings on Facebook and Twitter?

8. “Lord” Hunt is an unelected political appointee to the House of Lords. He is reportedly a “major figure in the world of insurance and financial services”. And he fronts up an organisation widely understood to be run by the Daily Mail and the Murdoch press. On what basis does he suppose that a “kitemarking” scheme endorsed by him and his outfit would carry any kind of credibility?

I run a small but influential blog on smoking and the science involved in lifestyle choices. For example drinking alcohol in moderation will let you live longer than someone who is tee total. However with the smoking bans it is mainly on the basis of the supposed dangers of second hand smoke (SHS) in which I believe we have been misled of a Biblical scale. My blog is entirely unmoderated and vigorous, intelligent debate encouraged. It is widely read by my opponents in tobacco control and they often comment and have made their comments front page articles to give balance. Examples are Professor Simon Chapman and Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)

I personally would be happy to pay ‘a few quid’ to get a kite mark as I sincerely want to be objective in presenting the evidence.

On the other hand most governmental initiatives do come attached with a slippery slope tag and I can more than understand people’s objections.

Thanks for this great opportunity to discuss this, I feel fervently about this and I like learning about this subject. If possible, as you gain information, please update this blog with more information. I have found it really useful.

Blogs have become so popular because newspapers can’t be trusted to provide accurate information. My interest is the Smoking Ban and the anti tobacco campaign. Journalist make no attempt to do their own research into the claims made for the health risks of passive smoking and invariably just print the press releases issued by medical groups and anti tobacco Fake Charities.