Hugh Grant is urging Andy Burnham to revive state press regulation, and Lisa Nandy’s social media plans could open the door, says James Warrington in the Telegraph. Here’s an excerpt:
In a sweltering Westminster basement at the peak of last week’s heatwave, Hugh Grant, looking relaxed in shorts and loafers, was in optimistic mood.
“As we switch leadership of the Labour Party, switch prime ministers, there’s a chance finally to get something done,” the actor and press regulation campaigner told a gathering of like-minded activists….
Grant, who also goes by the online handle @HackedOffHugh in reference to the well-funded campaign group Hacked Off, is not a lone voice of optimism in these circles as Andy Burnham prepares for power.
For 15 years, Hacked Off has demanded state regulation of Fleet Street. It still wants ministers to push ahead with the second part of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture and ethics of the press, which was launched in the wake of the phone hacking scandal at Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper empire.
Yet their calls have met resistance across successive governments. Matt Hancock, the Culture Secretary at the time, confirmed in 2018 that the second phase had been scrapped. Sir Keir Starmer in his first month in power ruled out a Leveson revival….
As Team Burnham prepares to sweep into No 10, is @HackedOffHugh really on the cusp of a historic triumph over his tabloid tormentors in the form of state control of Britain’s free press?…
As Shadow Home Secretary under Jeremy Corbyn’s turbulent Labour leadership, Burnham was a vocal supporter of the proposed second stage of the Leveson Inquiry.
It was envisaged as an investigation of the relationship between the press and the police, which has become unrecognisably distant since the phone hacking scandal engulfed Rupert Murdoch’s titles in 2011….
The news business has completely transformed since Leveson’s report was published in November 2012, and not only in its dealings with the police.
Tabloids in particular, the target of most of the criticism in Lord Justice Leveson’s opus, are nowhere near the cultural or financial force they were a decade ago. The bundle of crime, celebrity gossip, sport, humour, soft pornography and games which built their power has unravelled in a digital explosion of choice.
Only quality journalism – broadsheet, in print parlance – which prioritises information over entertainment, has been able to build a sustainable digital future through subscriptions.
Meanwhile the aggressive and frequently illegal news-gathering techniques that fuelled scoops at the News of the World have been neutered by more powerful forces than Leveson’s press regulation.
Privacy laws and social media networks that allow celebrities to feed authorised images and stories direct to their public have turned the world ruled by Murdoch’s Sunday tabloid juggernaut into a distant foreign land.
Indeed social media and the warped priorities its algorithms impose are now the big concern in Whitehall, where it is increasingly blamed for fraying Britain’s social fabric in a more dangerous way than gossip about Grant ever could….
Now Labour has a plan to fight back. Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, another close ally of Burnham, published plans this week to force tech giants such as YouTube, Facebook and X to prominently display news from public-service broadcasters including the BBC, ITV and Channel 4….
Trump’s officials are increasingly attacking UK digital regulations as an assault on free speech, amid lobbying by the technology industry. Senior figures including J.D. Vance have also argued that curbs on social media are a sign of growing authoritarianism….
It is a critique with some grounding in history. Woven through Labour is an ancient thread of grievance about the media. It argues that the party has been less electorally successful than it otherwise would have because the most popular and influential newspapers tend to oppose socialism.
To this mindset, which is by no means prevailing in Labour, greater state control of the press has a siren appeal that is now extending to social media.
Newspaper proprietors were the enemy, and they are now joined by tech executives and especially Elon Musk as he wades in the dark waters of the digital hard Right.
Sir Keir Starmer’s official biographer, the former journalist Tom Baldwin, late last year reported concern inside No 10 that the press and social media were conspiring to make Britain ungovernable and perpetually angry. …
Nandy’s social-media prominence proposals appear to be partly the result of such concern. She signalled they may offer a new route for Burnham to impose state-backed regulation of the press….
Nandy’s green paper on social media, which carried the tellingly grandiose subtitle “a new strategic direction for UK media”, said the Government will examine “whether the benefit of prominence should be explicitly linked to further responsibilities for news providers”.
They added: “This could include greater transparency, effective complaints processes, more stringent standards in AI content use, promoting media literacy or adherence to evolving best practices.”
Ian Murray, the Media minister, this week refused to rule out the rumoured possibility that prominence for publishers in social media will be made conditional on their acceptance of state-backed regulation.
The potential battle with Burnham comes at a painful moment for traditional news publishers, which are grappling with a sharp decline in online readership as changes to Google search and social media algorithms upend traffic. …
For some newspaper executives, the timing appears opportunistic – if not downright exploitative. With many publishers on their knees, the offer of greater prominence online will simply be too valuable to turn down. Submitting to tougher regulation may seem like a small price to pay in exchange. …
The new momentum for Hacked Off’s long quest for state-backed regulation of the press has come at a good moment for the group.
It is awaiting the judgment in Prince Harry’s phone hacking claim against the publisher of the Daily Mail, which had been a focus for the campaign. …
Victory for the prince over the Daily Mail could breathe new life into Hacked Off and an old story by confirming phones were hacked at another Fleet Street publisher. However the defeat could risk a mortal wound for the campaign, albeit it is well funded.
Now though, it has Burnham, “if he has the influence”.
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Prick. End of.
Is that what Hugh said to Divine Brown?
Grant should stick to pretending to be someone else.
I thought he only played a ‘Hugh Grant’ character? You mean his repeated role isn’t himself?
Any “celeb” who want exposure of all sorts to suit their careers and vanity must not be allowed to drive censorship. If (say) a celeb has a propensity to hire women off the street the media are entitled to publish it. If celebs chose to engage in sexual activity in a car parked in a public place they should expect it to be published.
I am not interested in “celebs” and generally cannot name actors or actresses whose work I have liked. I don’t read scandal sheets. But censorship must be resisted.
For the sake of clarity I have never been interested in ladies off the street or in the back delay of a car in a public place.
On the other hand maybe he’s still a bit upset at how his intended “tet a tet” with an undercover police officer (there really is no accounting for taste, forgive the pun) possibly prejudiced his career.
On the other hand there’s no such thing as bad publicity…
Now why would Hugh want the free press curbed…? Nope, can’t think of anything at all…
Spike always made a lot more sense than William, and he was high as a kite most of the time.
Spike? William?
Notting Hill.
Ah thanks. I don’t remember it well enough to get the joke.
You should watch it again. It’s fun. Rhys Ifans especially. Hugh, less so, but still just about bearable, before he felt the need to compensate for his wrinkles by saving the planet and whatnot.
I thought he was good in “About a Boy”. I like some of Nick Hornby’s work.
You get the apple!
Controls to be applied to the Telegraph and Daily Mail – but not the Guardian, perhaps? Or is that too obvious even for Labour?
These celebs (if Hugh Grant still qualifies as one) that complain aboit media intrusion bring to mind women who dress in barely there clothing and complain about men’s prying eyes and unwanted attention..
I don’t know for sure but I imagine “phone hacking” was probably illegal at the time and still is. It seems like a case of wanting to create more laws where existing ones are sufficient if properly enforced. I presume Grant’s agenda is that he suffered from unwanted media attention, rather than being political (though I would guess he is a lefty, like most “celebrities” and people in “the arts”. I wonder if he’s clever enough to think it through and see that Labour enthusiasm for more state control of the press is nothing to do with them wanting to protect luvvies from tittle tattle.
I doubt very much he has thought through the implications of his “good” censorship on anything other than what he wants. Like most of the rest of the population who don’t get it. That goes without saying.
My comment was more about how tiresome I find it that some celebs expect fame to work only in their favour. They fail to understand that their skills have very little intrinsic value and that the only reason they can get vast sums for their work is precisely because of people’s fascination with them.
So they want/need people’s attention, but they want to switch it on and off and control it as they please.
If Hugh Grant just wanted to act and not have people’s obsessive attention, he could just do theatre. The big movie pay days come with all the attention.
Some big name actors seem to manage to stay out of the headlines – perhaps they just have boring lives, or perhaps they don’t seek publicity where others do. I agree that it’s hard to divorce the money from the whole hoop-la. I find it weird personally – I like a good film but am not especially interested in the private lives or political views of the actors. I like to watch them talk about their work – the “Inside the Actors Studio” series was a good example of that.
The ‘hacking’ was mainly the result of the users not changing their voicemail PIN from the default 0000 which allowed ‘journalists’ to listen to voicemails….maybe a compulsory PIN change would achieve something?
I think that loophole will have long since been closed. I wonder what law if any that was breaking – misuse of telecommunications? Probably violating terms of service though that is a civil matter.