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. — A.F. Hayek

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[There is no such thing as an independent press. -- John Swinton, Editor in Chief, New York Times, '53.]

Pretty stupid, even for a political hack. (Quoting @Laird’s comment.)

- and other comments seem to suggest the same.

But supposing (just supposing) that the comment was, on the contrary, deliberate, calculated and very smart. What might that achieve?
It could achieve what seems to have been achieved in this case – i.e, the provision of exactly the kind of example that was necessary to illustrate the corruption and erosion of freedom you can get by giving the State control over “press freedoms”. It probably couldn’t have been better-timed if it had been planned.
So, rather than pillory the spad (Joanna Hindley), let’s hold her high with a “Well done!” – regardless of whether she said what she said out of stupidity or cleverness.

So is this the new URL, final?

Hopefully the impact is not too big, and the better technology / lack of ‘smiting’ should make up for it.

I happened to hear the treatment of this on Radio 4′s PM last night. The treatment was exactly what you’d expect – it’s all a bit of a laugh really, and absolutely nothing anyone could possibly find alarming.

Given that this treatment was decided by BBC ‘journalists’, we must assume that they’d find it merely a bit of a laugh if ministers tried to lean on them like that over their reporting?

Of course they wouldn’t – they’d be second to none in their self-righteous disapproval. But of course, since it runs so totally against the ‘narrative’ they’re running on Leveson, it has to be merely laughed off. Can’t think of this as anything but deeply, deeply corrupt.

bgates is right. As I said the other day – to guffaws of disblief from the usual Eyeores – libertarians should use the Leveson episode as a teachable moment to point out to journalists the downsides of regulation. Call me naive if you want, but ideas tend to advance through two things: having better ideas than the other side; and appeal to self interest.

Journalists now have a strong self interest in supporting
a free media, more so than ever before. Sure, some Big Media types might want to shaft small competitors through red tape, but as MSM business models corrode and the internet continues its extraordinary impact, this argument loses force. Now is the time to press hard in favour of “citizen journalism”; to chip away at the conceit of the established media, to encourage new business models, etc. If we don’t seize the opportunity now, it might not be repeated for years.