Page 1 of 1

Mail Online Editor appears at Leveson Inquiry

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 1:49 pm
by Broke in Britain
The Guardian is running a pretty good liveblog of his appearance ... some gems in there (The Fail employs 70 full-time journalists, their US stories are checked against US libel laws - which differ greatly from the UK's, they do not shy away from publishing stories which originated with other news sources) ... in other words, a lot of what we know already, but interesting to see it happening under oath.

Of course the online home page today is the usual tawdry mix of scare stories, Z-list celebrities and dross.

Here is a link to the Guardian's coverage:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/ma ... larke-live

Re: Mail Online Editor appears at Leveson Inquiry

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 1:53 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
Discussed
forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3512&start=4020" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Welcome aboard.

Re: Mail Online Editor appears at Leveson Inquiry

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 2:21 pm
by Patrick100
Can't really follow it all of it live at the mo, I will look forward to watching it all on the Leveson site later.
http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/hearing/2012-05-09pm/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Mail Online Editor appears at Leveson Inquiry

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 5:08 pm
by Broke in Britain
Thanks guys - longtime lurker, first-time poster etc. etc.

Sorry to have broken in with a new post on an old topic!

Re: Mail Online Editor appears at Leveson Inquiry

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 5:47 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
Come over and chuck in your opinions. Especially on the subject of sausages.

Re: Mail Online Editor appears at Leveson Inquiry

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 6:25 am
by ezinra
Here's the Mail's very brief résumé.
Martin Clarke said the British Press regularly holds back from publishing information or photographs that rival foreign media organisations use because of the already stringent media standards in the UK.

He cited a volunteer code of practice which meant that the Daily Mail and MailOnline used pictures of Pippa Middleton only when she was at a public event, whereas US news websites frequently published photos of her taken when she was going to work or shopping.
The royal family has a bit more clout than the cast of The only way is Essex. Even so, does it really matter where the photos were taken when the headline (not Pippa, but close) is:

Be careful sitting down in that dress Kate! Duchess wows in a floor-length cream gown... with a daring thigh-high split

Mail Online is guiding its readers to search for the royal modesty. It's the non-stop titillation that is objectionable, the endless voyeurism and the repetitive news angles which reduce celebrity women to concealers/revealers of underwear and boob flesh. It doesn't always matter where the photo is taken; the content is the problem.