British journalism has been battered by an unrelenting power grab on the part of the country's political classes. The move to foist an "all-party agreed" infrastructure of regulation by Royal Charter underpinned by punitive statutory sanction is part of a pattern of attack.
The fact of the matter is, rightly or wrongly, footballers and top sportsmen enjoy very little privacy, opinions on this will vary drastically. Nowadays, it comes with the job and lifestyle that your private life as a star football player is in the public interest, so you could argue that if you don't want your privacy infringed upon, don't become a pro footballer.
There is a wonderfully funny scene in the film Groundhog Day. The main character - played with laconic, dead-pan charm by Bill Murray - has been co...
The weekly email exchanges I have with the HuffPost mothership in America are usually fairly straightforward; we swap ideas for global reporting features, maybe pass requests on for a new piece of functionality. And then, every now and again, I have to explain an odd British quirk to a befuddled Yank reading an article on the UK version of the site and coming up against a brick wall of comprehension. We may share a common language, but there's still plenty of translating that needs doing.
These days, television programmes come round and round like race cars on a track. Gone are the days when, if you missed them, you missed them. And you can pause and rewind programmes too which means, if anyone says anything sensible, you can think about and transcribe what has been said.
It is an ugly spectacle: a Cabinet minister being pushed around in public by a powerful and unscrupulous vested interest. But that seems to be what is happening to Maria Miller, and she is not putting up much of a fight. This week she announced that she would give precedence to the wishes of PressBoF, an organisation of newspaper bosses roundly condemned in the Leveson Report, over the wishes of every single party in our elected Parliament, as expressed in a formal motion on 18 March.
The Media Reform Coalition are pressing for something Curran refers to as the "elephant in the room". A 15 percent cap on cross-media ownership, giving up 20 percent of any given news market to public service obligations, and in the case of the 15 percent threshold, diluting share ownership to further undermine the power of publishers.
The fact is that quality, independent, varied media, in which a wide range of voices and public views can be heard, are essential for our democracy. Given our current problems with democracy, with sinking election turnouts and widespread disillusionment, this is an issue that cannot be ignored.
Lots of journalists and politicians have had their say about the bad state of the British tabloid press after the phone hacking scandal that closed do...
As an activity, journalism cannot and should not be licensed by the state or any professional body, any more than art or political protest should.
Russia is a country that's never short of jaw-dropping stories. Be it Moscow traffic police calling on drivers to form a human road block to stop a f...
We have a Royal Charter that has been approved by every single party in Parliament. It is backed by the mass of public opinion. And it is based on the recommendations of a year-long, judge-led public inquiry of remarkable thoroughness. And now the people who run some of our big newspaper corporations - an industry condemned by that inquiry for 'wreaking havoc in the lives of innocent people' - say they have made a concession towards it.
What business is it of ours if Mr David Sherborne, barrister to the victims of phone hacking and other alleged press abuses at the Leveson Inquiry, stamps his feet, warbles his throat and unfurls his tail feathers to attract a mate? If a relationship is explored during a public inquiry between two counsel on different sides of such a high profile event then there is a genuine public interest in the timing and extent of those rituals.
This is not a story that can be understood from headlines alone, partly because in Britain the headlines have so often wildly distorted the truth. Despite what you may have read, there is no threat by British politicians to interfere with press freedom. There is, however, a powerful consensus for change.
As a practicing lawyer frequently representing a cross-section of victims ranging from A-listers to politicians, while at the same time also having a significant number of journalists and publishers on my client list, I often have to change hats when arguing for press freedom on the one hand, and striving to protect the basic reputational and other rights of the ordinary man on the street on the other.
Liberty's website declares on its home page "Working to PROTECT CIVIL LIBERTIES, and PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS for everyone". But does that "everyone" not include journalists?