UK: Newspaper Regulation "Will Be Imposed"

After politicians rejected a UK newspaper industry proposal for self-regulation, the government is poised to impose the first state regulation of the press in 300 years.

Lest you think that the industry's proposals were weak or self-serving, their proposal has been described at the toughest regulatory regime in the world, capable of imposing £1 million fines.  The main differences cited in the two proposals was that under the industry proposal, participation by news organizations was voluntary, that there would be someone with news experience on the main oversight panel, and that the government could not block or change regulations.  Officials, in rejecting the industry proposal would make news organization participation mandatory, have the industry fund the regulatory authority, prohibit anyone with news experience from serving on the oversight panel while allowing former MPs to serve, and provide a mechanism for political "involvement" in setting regulations and determining violations.  (Another concern was the overly broad definition of news outlet and the impact on small organizations, nonprofits, and bloggers).

As one might expect, the industry raised concerns about the action, and the fact that industry representatives were not involved in the decision-making process, while critics were.  Press opponents (who were involved in the initial late-night deal-making that resulted in the government's initial proposal) predictably indicated that rejection of news industry concerns was "long overdue." 

And one Labour member of Parliament, Tom Harris, expressed his concern eloquently in an opinion piece published in The Telegraph -

I sympathise with Ed Miliband’s call for “decency” from Fleet Street, especially in the wake of last week’s unedifying row between him and the Daily Mail over his late father. But the state should have no role in forcing its definition of “decency” on a free press. The British press is intrusive, arrogant, vicious, unfair, unbalanced and generally infuriating. What a relief! That is as it should be. Politicians and those in positions of power should be wary of journalists. We should worry about what will be reported about us and our actions. We should shudder on a Friday night when a reporter from a Sunday tabloid calls us at home to ask for “your side of the story”. 

By supporting Parliament’s Royal Charter for press regulation, to be agreed by the Privy Council at the end of this month, my party is turning its back on a core tenet of progressive politics: that a genuinely free press, however infuriating, is an indispensable foundation stone of democracy.

Even if the goal is worthy, the way the UK government has proceeded in this matter doesn't give much indication of a concern for fairness or the social, economic, and political value of a free press.  While there is no constitutional protection of a press free from government influence and control in the U.K. (such as the First Amendment in the U.S.), they are members of the EU and UN, both of which support the role of a free press as a fundamental human right.  Should these be disregarded because of the occasional bad act or embarrassing story?  I'd hope not, but I expect that they will.  It's one reason politicians are generally seen as even less ethical than the press.

Sources -  Regulation will be imposed on press as politicians reject self-regulation, The Telegraph
Labour should not be muzzling free speech with its support of the Royal Charter, The Telegraph

China tackles news apps

Regulators in China's State Internet Information Office have issued a new ruling designed to shut down mobile news apps that don't get their content pre-approved by government regulators.  The move is part of China's campaign to curb "online rumours" and unfettered social media.  In September, China's top court and prosecutor ruled that people will be charged with defamation if online rumors they create are visited by more than 5000 users, or reposted more than 500 times, and subject to prison terms of three years.  Of course, no precise definition of rumor was provided, nor was there any limitation of state agents boosting views or reposts.  The announcement calls for authorities to close down all mobile apps that refuse to "rectify" their gatekeeping in order to "maintain order of news dissemination on the mobile internet."

The apps under challenge include Zaker and Chouti, both of which re-publish content from non-official sources - including from Western media like the New York Times (whose articles have been blocked in China).  According to news accounts outside China, press freedom lawyers and activists called the latest move a significant (but crude) expansion of state power to regulate Internet content in line with its oversight of traditional media.  As such, it's likely to be seen as a significant blow to those relying on microblogs and social media for unfiltered news and information.

Source -  China threatens closure of mobile news apps amid Internet crackdown, Yahoo! News Canada

News from U.K. - Regulations and competition

Three tidbits to pass along -

The mad rush to establish a  press oversight/regulatory body by Royal charter has been sidetracked.  The Prime Minister's office announced that their proposed charter will not be presented to the Queen later this month, as previously scheduled.
  The delay comes after strong negative reactions from the press, and the presentation of an alternative charter for a self-regulatory body to the Privy Council.  The Privy Council posted the newspaper industry's proposal for open content.  After the initial comment period (ends May 23, 2013), the council will consider whether to hold a full consideration of both proposals before making a recommendation and forwarding a Charter to the Queen.

One of the UK Newspaper Society's concern with the original charter proposal was the lack of any clear statement against government interference.  That concern was supported by a new Transparency Report from YouTube, which showed that UK government and police requests for removal of YouTube videos doubled in 2012.  These requests were made for alleged violation of national security or hate speech laws, or were critical of police practices.  The 124 cited requests did not include requests based on copyright violation or court orders.  Google reported rejecting about half of the requests.
  Some of the examples provided were basically requests to remove content that officials thought made them look bad.  If that's the standard that the government's hoping to be applied under the proposed News Regulatory body, that's something to worry about.

BT, formerly known as British Telecomm, announced a deal with the Press Association to provide news and editorial content for their relaunched website.  BT's been transitioning from phone service provider to online content service, having acquired ESPN's UK sports channels earlier and sports licensing deals with major European soccer associations.  The Press Association is UK's national news agency, providing news feeds to newspapers, newsrooms, and businesses across UK and Ireland.

PA's managing director, Tony Watson, said: "The agreement with PA and BT represents a significant moment in our evolution from traditional content supplier to provider and manager of multi-platform content and solutions."

Sources - Royal charter for press regulation delayed by ministers,  The Drum
UK requests removal of 124 YouTube videos,  CBR
Deal with Press Association will provide news and editorial content on relaunched BT website,  The Drum

China Moves to Censor Online Video

According to the AP, broadcast and internet regulators in China have told online video providers that all programs must be pre-screened before they are made publicly available, ostensibly in response to the growing number of online videos with "vulgar content, excessive violence, or pornography."  The regulatory agencies claimed that the new rules would protect young people and promote high-quality online programs.
  China has a long history of censoring content - from banning or limiting imports, setting standards for traditional media (and punishing perceived transgressions), to restricting access to a number of foreign Internet sites (including YouTube), and monitoring online content.  Still, China also relies heavily on self-censorship from outlets to make sure that only "appropriate" content is made available.
  In this case, someone in the PR office for a major online video provider in China, commented on her company's policy

"Nothing with vulgar or violent materials will pass," said the woman, who did not give her name because she said she was not authorized to speak on the record. "Political speech? If it is anti-party and anti-society, it definitely will not pass. No website will allow such content."

Source -  China wants to censor online video content,  Broadcast Newsroom

China steps up effort to control microblogging

The People's Republic of China is taking some official steps to exert more control over the use of social media and microblogging services (like Twitter), in advance of a critical Communist Party Congress next year.  In the wake of a series of major scandals, it's anticipated that the Congress will be used to announce significant changes in party and political leadership  Chinese authorities traditionally try to keep such machinations behind the scenes, and are worried that these services might become a source of unfiltered reporting and speculation, or inconveniently timed reporting of new scandals..
Weibo,the largest microblogging site in China with over 200 million users, has already emerged as a freewheeling forum for breaking news, exposés and edgy opinion — often to the chagrin of censors.  For now, the pressure consists of leading politicians and regulators making official statements warning Internet users to “show self discipline and refrain from spreading rumors" and that the "Internet should not be used to jeopardize the national or public interest."
That's sufficient threat for Weibo hosts like Sina to start removing "unsubstantiated rumours" from the system, and blocking accounts of users who post or share them.  Sina also announced that it would  “put more effort into attacking all kinds of rumors.”

Source - China moves to rein in microblogs,  Washington Post

Gatekeeping, China-Style

If it was good enough for Hearst, it's good enough for authoritarian regimes, I guess. 
One of the stories oft told of William Randolph Hearst was that he would regularly send notes to the editors of his newspapers, listing stories they must run, and stories they must not.  It's been thought that authoritarian regimes often did the same, but thanks to the Internet, you can read what the weekly "do's and don'ts" for journalists and news organizations in China.  Here's last week's "directions."

Source: "Chinese editors, and a Web site, detail censors' hidden hand," Washington Post