The Leveson Inquiry

[ahinton]

thanks for trypo-spotting

No problem; heaven knows, I do more than enough of that kind of thing meself!

[Anna]

And tomorrow Rebekah Brooks and her husband will know if they are to be charged with perverting the course of justice

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18062485

[Flosshilde]

Whether or not or to what exent it may be "difficult to tell", as you put it - and whether or not The Guardian is indeed the only British newspaper to be owned by a trust (which may indeed be the case but I do not know for sure and I'm uncertain as to what difference it might make in the present context if indeed it is so owned), I still question your assumption that it does not "exert undue influnce", as you suggest is the case; if indeed it doesn't do so, that may be bad for it to the extent that insufficient people take due notice of what it publishes and if, on the other hand, it does, who's to say that among those influences are no corrupt or otherwise suspect ones? No, flossie, you can't have it all ways, any more than can The Guardian or any other British newspaper!

I'm not trying to 'have it all ways' (whatever that might mean). The Scott Trust, as owner of the Guardian Media Group, is committed to "journalism that is free from commercial or political interference, and to uphold a set of values laid down by CP Scott, the great Manchester Guardian editor." (my emphasis). This makes it unique among British Newspapers.

By 'undue influence' I, of course, meant the sort of influence over politicians and policy wielded by the Murdochs - although they dispute such influence I think we can be pretty sure it is there, either overt or implicit in their dealings with politicians. There is no evidence of the Guardian using its position to influence politicians or governments in the way that News International does; if, as you argue, the ownership model doesn't inhibit such influence, then it must be down to the principles of the newspaper - ie the editor & journalists.

[ahinton]

I'm not trying to 'have it all ways' (whatever that might mean). The Scott Trust, as owner of the Guardian Media Group, is committed to "journalism that is free from commercial or political interference, and to uphold a set of values laid down by CP Scott, the great Manchester Guardian editor." (my emphasis). This makes it unique among British Newspapers.

OK, fine - at least in principle - but what I actually wrote was that this kind of thing is and indeed can be no more a guarantee of reliability and accuracy or journalistic content than it is or can be of corruption-free practice in the gathering of content or indeed any other activities that are part of the day-to-day running of that or any other newspaper, regardless of what ny particular newspaper-owning trust might claim or purport to be "committed to".

By 'undue influence' I, of course, meant the sort of influence over politicians and policy wielded by the Murdochs - although they dispute such influence I think we can be pretty sure it is there, either overt or implicit in their dealings with politicians. There is no evidence of the Guardian using its position to influence politicians or governments in the way that News International does; if, as you argue, the ownership model doesn't inhibit such influence, then it must be down to the principles of the newspaper - ie the editor & journalists.

By "no evidence" I presume you to mean - or at least to imply - that none such has been produced yet, but that's hardly surprising in the present context, since the activities of Guardian executives and journalists are not (at least yet) the subject of scrutiny as part of the Leveson inquiry; that inquiry may go on indefinitely and it and some of the possible subsequent inquiries that it may spawn could well focuse attention on the Guardian or indeed any other newspaper in terms of the deep detail of its/their conduct at all levels.

[LHC]

But as a Trust this money saved will be ploughed back into the company, unlike My Mate Dave's dad's money which gave MMD at £300,000 lump sdum start in life - We're All In This Together, Eh?

When you say, 'I believe GMG made profits of £300M in 2008, but paid £0 in corporation tax that year' is that a guess, a known fact or wishful thinking, LHC?

The use the Trust makes of its profits is not a justification for it avoiding tax in the UK and the amounts quoted above are correct. I suppose they need all the money they can get to fund Rusbridger's salary and pay rise (up 7% last year to £605,000).

Having said that, I think Flossie is right to say that the Guardian's ownership arrangements do serve to protect it from accusations of proprietorial influence. For example, The Independent seems considerably less independent now that it is owned by a Russian oligarch

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

ms Brooks and her husband are being charged with perverting the course of justice ......

Mr and Mrs Brooks said: "We deplore this weak and unjust decision. After the further unprecedented posturing of the CPS we will respond later today after our return from the police station."

[amateur51]

ms Brooks and her husband are being charged with perverting the course of justice ......

Deepjoy

[french frank]

The situation of the Scott Trust (now, properly, the Scott Trust Ltd) seems ambiguous.

But it really is no more than a continuation of the original intentions of the owners of the Manchester Guardian: in a world where the major press media are predominantly owned by right-wing, profit-motivated private proprietors/moguls, the Scotts wanted to safeguard the continuance of a rare, independent liberal voice. The Trust was set up to 'avoid' tax in order that the profits could prop up the newspaper, not relying on huge injections of private cash into loss-making concerns which would make the editorial line vulnerable; by virtue of the profit/shareholder relationship, that line would inevitably alter both the independence and the political slant. It's what capitalism does.

This, without being terribly clued up, is how I would see the situation.

I can't believe that any reasonable (I stress that point, since it seems to me that the concept of 'reasonability' is embodied in the view) person, however much they might dislike, hate, despise the Guardian's politics, would want to have its voice silenced. No one can say that as an influence on public opinion in the UK (still less globally) it is 'too powerful'.

ms Brooks and her husband are being charged with perverting the course of justice ......

Nevertheless, I'm surprised. And shall be more surprised if they're found guilty. A view which you can interpret as you wish ...

[MrGongGong]

ms Brooks and her husband are being charged with perverting the course of justice ......

how sad
and to think that they only achieved their positions through diligent hard work and merit ?

[french frank]

Okay, so we bear in mind that proceedings are 'active'.

[Beef Oven]

No problem; heaven knows, I do more than enough of that kind of thing meself!

indeed

[Lateralthinking1]

Okay, so we bear in mind that proceedings are 'active'.

Three new inquiries running until 2015. Now that's what I call job security in a growth industry.



Obviously it is important news but they never really questioned them about Shergar.

[Mr Pee]

Okay, so we bear in mind that proceedings are 'active'.

Indeed. Nobody has been found guilty of anything yet, except on these messageboards.

[Lateralthinking1]

Indeed. Nobody has been found guilty of anything yet, except on these messageboards.

Guilt?



Tony Blair - A million a year as strategy adviser to JP Morgan

[ahinton]

Indeed. Nobody has been found guilty of anything yet, except on these messageboards.

Mr Pee, the Leveson inquiry is an inquiry, not a Court trial; surely you know that? In any case, it is still in its relatively early stages and I will be not at all surprised if its ongoing findings spread the net of its remit ever wider, to the point that there may never actually be a watertight guarantee that it will end at all. I am accusing no one of anything - either messageboarders for their comments or those under scrutiny at the inquiry (although no findings would really surprise me) - however, there's no smoke without fire and if everything in the garden were lovely in this matter (pardon the mixed metaphor) there would not only be no need for this inquiry but there would almost certainly be no such inquiry taking place. You have on a number of past occasions expressed douts over and even barely masked contempt for the inquiry as a waste of time, expertise and public money; at the present stage of its progress, do you still believe that it is any or all of those things and that it should not continue because there's nothing of sufficient importance to unearth to merit its long-term continuation?