Sociagility
  • Home
  • Services
  • Our Work
  • About
  • Contact





Leveson & the Royal Charter – vested interest squabbling means collateral damage for social media

On 21 Mar, 2013
Social Agility
By : Tony Burgess-Webb
No Comments
Views : 12313

The implementation of the Leveson Report’s conclusions was always going to be fraught by difficulties: different vested interests; short-term emotional vs long term needs; political faction; and the emotional context of the debate. But, as far as social media and networks are concerned, we maybe had a right to expect that simple ignorance would not be added to this list.

Yet, as discussed on this blog before, a 2,000 word media report with one paragraph  on social media is not a great way to start. In January we noted:

“any legislation produced by politicians and civil servants who are largely ignorant of the day-to-day workings and impact of social media, based on a report which ignores it, will not produce a great result”

Indeed, in social media terms the debate seems to have concluded before it has really started – with a ‘deal’ between fragmented political parties which has found both support and opposition from a fragmented mainstream media. But where is the voice of social media – OUR voice – in all this? Well, lost, really with unintended consequences to come.

Personally, like many I remain ambivalent about the ‘free speech vs privacy/decency’ debate in terms of the mainstream media. I understand the visceral concern over ‘red top’ dirty tricks in respect of vulnerable individuals – and the media appeal of hacked (and Hacked Off) celebrities. But I also fear that we have not thought through the implications of a regulatory regime which is ultimately controlled by government through appointments to the panel and by politicians through legislative oversight. So I also understand the concerns of the liberal (and conservative) free speech lobby.

But my main concern here is the last minute tacking on of ‘the Internet’ to the terms of reference in the Royal Charter with social media suffering inevitable collateral damage. It seems the thought behind this reflects the same minimal attention devoted by Leveson.

It’s not that easy to find the Royal Charter draft text (see here) – and you have to go to appendix 4 for the relevant definitions. Here they are:

b)  “relevant publisher” means a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom:

  1. a newspaper or magazine containing news-related material, or
  2. a website containing news-related material (whether or not related to a 
newspaper or magazine);

d)  a person “publishes in the United Kingdom” if the publication takes place in the United Kingdom or is targeted primarily at an audience in the United Kingdom;

e)  “news-related material” means:

  1. news or information about current affairs;
  2. opinion about matters relating to the news or current affairs; or
  3. gossip about celebrities, other public figures or other persons in the news.

Now this is very scary stuff. There are all kinds of opportunities for confusion and cock-ups. Taking each of these clauses in turn.

First, who is liable,  ie what’s a website, these days? How does that differ from a ‘platform’?  We’ve heard various unofficial statements this week from that this does not mean an individual. So:

  • What about an individual journalist who just happens to publish on his own blog?
  • And, conversely, what about shared blogs – is two contributors OK, or three or 10?
  • What about shared accounts on other platforms, Twitter, Facebook etc which may also be deemed ‘websites’?

Second, it only matters if it is ‘in the UK or targeted primarily at UK citizens’Good grief, how dumb. That warm feeling you’re getting is reflected heat from international lawyers rubbing there hands together with glee.

Third, it applies to news, opinion or gossip.

So in effect this Charter, and its regulations and million Pound penalties, although intended for UK mainstream press offenders, will also apply to ALL individuals and groups who publish anything interesting.

Of course the get out clause is the definition of a UK publisher. From now on my blog’s gonna be in Bhasa Indonesia or Esperanto – from a ‘website’ in Finland.

Share this:

  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Related



Previous Post Next Post 

About The Author

Tony Burgess-Webb


Number of Posts : 55
All Posts by : Tony Burgess-Webb

Leave a Reply Cancel reply




Latest posts

  • Rape and reputation risks in Rio

    29 May, 2016
  • Why social media + Rule 40 could make Rio 2016 the Ambush Games

    26 May, 2016
  • Leveson & the Royal Charter – vested interest squabbling means collateral damage for social media

    21 Mar, 2013

Latest comments

  • Why social media + Rule 40 could make Rio 2016 the Ambush Games | Sociagility on The London 2012 ‘Socialympics’
  • Students Are Choosing Colleges With Social Media Clout | ISmartNetwork on The transatlantic university divide
  • Social media as a marketing tool - who does it best? - ICEF Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment on The transatlantic university divide

About us

Sociagility is an independent consultancy that helps organisations use data and analytics to maximise their return on investment from digital and social media.

Find out more

© Copyright 2016 Sociagility Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.