There was a worrying development this week when the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) announced that they would like to establish an "independent external body" which would oversee the output of blogs.
Here's an extract from their submission (page 37) to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport:
"The internet poses further challenges. A lot of poor quality information is circulated, with the presentation of rumours, conspiracy theories or propaganda as fact, and many sites devoted to gossip and innuendo. Such material cannot be directly regulated in a free society. It has been said that you might as well try to regulate conversation in a pub. The challenge here is not to require such sites or blogs to abide by a set of agreed rules, but to help the consumer distinguish between the different sources of information so that they are aware of their relative reliability. One way to do this, for commercial information providers who wish to enhance user trust in their products, is to agree to subscribe to a set of rules covering accuracy, intrusion and so on - policed by an independent external body - which reassures the user that certain standards apply."
In effect this will be a kitemark, issued (for a fee) by a body which is likely to consist of a group of establishment figures and one or two high profile bloggers in order to keep the wider blogging community on board.
My biggest fear about this sort of censorship is being told I can't discuss John Prescott's chipolata, David Cameron's youthful indiscretions or Mark Oaten's rent boys without breaching some sort of code. Not to mention the thought of Tim Ireland, Iain Dale or Stephen Tall acting as de facto editors of the political blogosphere.
There's a clear message here - the Press Complaints Commission want to censor you and if they can't censor you they want to silence you.
Don't let it happen.
6 comments:
If the government said it was ok then i wouldnt belive it.
If such a thing ever comes to pass, I shall refuse to use the kitemark on my blog. Perhaps blogs with the kitemark will come to be seen as 'on message' status quo blogs, totally lacking in independent thought. The unruly, unkitemarked blogs like mine will carry on doing as they please. Whatever reputation I establish for myself as a blogger will not be be enhanced one iota by carrying a kitemark saying that my utterances meet the approval of some quango somewhere.
And as to blogging policemen, they fill me with such distaste, pontificating over what we may or may not do. As long as you are honest with your readers, and operate with integrity, that is all that matters. Believe me, readers can tell bulls**t a mile off. And if they sense that in a blog, they stop coming back. No internet policeman needed.
If they want to censure me - they'll have to find me first. And even then I'll just go offshore (not that my blog is in the UK anyway).
This looks like the first attempt that they will then say failed and requires EU wide registration ( you need your ID card for a blog etc ).
Mind you its not like the MSM isn't running rings round the courts right now anyway. You'd think the press complaints commission had more important things on their hands.
Bel: well said. It will definitely be a quango, definitely be 'establishment', and definitely include one or two 'establishment'
bloggers who could well try and close a blog down because a particular blogger doesn't support the right party.
MIAS: EU wide registration - I think you're probably right.
I don't think that the PCC quite "get" blogging and their voluntary code will almost undoubtedly fail.
I think that the inaccuracies, innuendo, and lies that are peddled on a number of political blogs will pay dividends for the mainstream media in the long run though. The recent problems with wikipedia illustrate how easy it is to pitch any old nonsense around the globe. Ultimately this will lead to people understanding the value of, and being prepared to pay for, verifiable, fact checked, well sourced stories.
Don't you also think that there is room for political bloggers to discuss some basic principles - a kind of unwritten constitution if you like?
For example, allowing anonymous commenters to abuse third parties is not nice. It's something we're all guilty of - partly because it is often difficult to quickly verify whether an email address is real. I've taken to emailing people who post comments for the first time, just to check whether their address is fictitous.
Just a thought.
It's a difficult one Tom. I don't think an unwritten constitution is workable. As soon as any elections were underway the gloves would be off again.
I agree about allowing anonymous commenters to abuse third parties. Some blogs are particularly adept at that. How you stop it is anyone's guess. But I would imagine blogs of that nature are littered with racist or homophobic comments, and fortunately there are plenty of laws in place to deal with that sort of thing.
Post a Comment