We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Bravo and Bravo again for ‘The Spectator’

The Spectator have made it clear that regardless of what state regulation parliament imposes upon the press…

They will not not cooperate.

We say in our leading article that we would happily sign up to any new form of self-regulation which the industry proposes, no matter how onerous. But we would have no part in any regulatory structure mandated by the state. That is to say: we would not attend its meetings, pay its fines nor heed its menaces. To do so would simply betray everything that The Spectator has stood for since 1828.

To say this is ‘admirable’ would be to damn it with faint praise. It is magnificent.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VK

19 comments to Bravo and Bravo again for ‘The Spectator’

  • The regulation will come via a quango which looks independent but isn’t.

  • Regional

    There should be no Meeja regulation as it’ll identify first against the wall come the revolution

  • PersonFromPorlock

    Very nice, but wait until they’ve actually defied an actual regulation before bestowing “magnificent” on them.

  • Tedd

    Ted S. is probably right, but congratulations to The Spectator, nevertheless.

  • Paul Marks

    Agreed Perry.

    A stand must be made.

  • Very nice, but wait until they’ve actually defied an actual regulation before bestowing “magnificent” on them.

    No. Taking a stand *NOW* is nothing less than magnificent. Telling them to their faces you will defy them regardless of their damn laws is magnificent.

    And if they actually do, I will also call them heroic.

  • Yes, there is indeed something good about them saying it now, when saying it might make quite a bit of difference.

    There is the distinct possibility that other significant publications might join them. Now. That would really make a difference.

  • Paul Marks

    Agreed Brian.

  • Michael

    The position stated is so much more than even magnificent. Even if it were only rhetoric, and I doubt that with such a tradition it is only rhetoric, those words were so needed because they were not compromise or compliant.
    Tyranny comes in many forms.

  • llamas

    So one tiny-circulation weekly magazine states its determination to resist. Big F*ckin’ Deal.

    What counts are the mass-circulation red-tops and the major broadcasters. Many of the tabloids are already on board with the idea, and of course the BBC is practically soiling itself with joy over the prospect of being regulated by the state.

    I believe that von Hayek had something to say about this idea. Oh, yes, here we are:

    “Everything which might cause doubt about the wisdom of the government or create discontent will be kept from the people. The basis of unfavorable comparisons with elsewhere, the knowledge of possible alternatives to the course actually taken, information which might suggest failure on the part of the government to live up to its promises or to take advantage of opportunities to improve conditions–all will be suppressed. There is consequently no field where the systematic control of information will not be practiced and uniformity of views not enforced.”

    Good luck with that.

    llater,

    llamas

  • Tenn

    It may only take one magazine to expose the hollowness of this legislation, so good on The Speccy.

  • Johanthan Pearce

    I note that Private Eye, which nowadays likes to bash AGW skeptics, has not made a similar announcement, unless I am missing something. Shame, one would expect such a “satirical” magazine to show some balls.

    Instead, on its front page(Link) it prefers to go after Boris, the Sun, etc. What a bunch of wankers the PE lot are these days.

    Meanwhile, I see that Cameron has come out against statutory regulation. Bravo.

  • john in cheshire

    one argument could be that we just sit back and let these imbeciles impose as many restrictions as they can conjure, as quickly as they can pass the legislation. Why? Because until the impact of the dictatorial intent of the elite is felt by the lumpen masses (to use a well-worn term), then nothing will change. Better to have a short, sharp, violent antiperistalsis of the bile that the national body is suffering from. Let the bastards do their worst; it will be worse for them in the end, that’s my suggestion.

  • Rob

    We’ll all be reassured about how independent it is, and about all of the safeguards, yet one morning we’ll all wake up and it will all be run by current or ex-BBC and Guardian types, again.

    The moment you create a single authority, the entryists flock to it and start burrowing. The Long March is so much shorter when you have only one fortress to conquer.

  • Godarni

    Calling the bland Spectator making a somewhat camp, and hilariously hyperbolic statement “magnificent” and “brave”, is like calling an X-Factor contestant “heroic”.

    How easily people forget that the “free speech” loving press viciously attacked Brass Eye, because it mocked them so gloriously. The hypocrisy stinks.

    Free speech?
    Things like 4Chan and YouTube represent true free speech, the “press” does not, because it in fact represents the “speech” of its owners (or what they deem acceptable) and a small self-appointed elite.

    Private Eye is the only print publication in the UK that truly speaks truth to power. Certainly, Private Eye’s Street of Shame shows how hypocritical and censorious the British press is, as well as exposing the sheer venality and corruption of the ruling elite.

    As for the rozzers…the police commit treason against the British taxpayer by kneeling before the crotches of foreign media moguls, and get away with it. No systemic corruption? Has Leveson not heard of Hillsborough, De Menezes, and numerous other police smear campaigns conducted with the collusion of the press?

    The funniest part of Leveson’s summary was his naive, child-like belief that there is not systemic corruption in Britain’s incompetent, bent, and failing police force, who form an Uroboros with the British press, each one’s head firmly lodged in the other’s anus.

    Still, Leveson, like all these overpaid, pompous Judges, only cares about his enormous pension (which you and I, bizarrely, have to pay for…ffs why?)

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Godarni, you are wrong to mock the Spectator: that magazine could just as easily issued some sort of mealy-mouthed editorial, or hoped it would gain some advantage by taking another course, but it has not. And NOW is the time to take a stand when it can influence public and political opinion.

    Private Eye has stopped speaking truth to power for years. Its treatment of AGW skeptics, for instance and its covering for the Green lobby, is an example of how that journal has lost much of its fizz in recent years, despite hilarious covers.

  • Calling the bland Spectator making a somewhat camp, and hilariously hyperbolic statement “magnificent” and “brave”, is like calling an X-Factor contestant “heroic”.

    Utter bullshit.

    To openly promise to defy their laws is indeed magnificent. And if they actually make good on that promise and put their arses on the line, risking their wealth and freedom by not complying, that would indeed be both brave and heroic.

  • Paul Marks

    Agreed.

  • The Spectator stand got a mention on Question Time. Guido has video, entitled something like: “What do you do about Guido?”, because Guido got a mention as well.