I have often railed against the behaviour of “the left” when it comes to confusing intentions with outcome. I have on occasion even said that I really don’t care how heartless or cruel the motive is, as long as the outcome is good.

It seems to me that “the left” will adopt any stupid, dangerous, illiberal or nasty idea as long as the intent behind it is a good one. The latest stupidity is that journalists should be licensed and belong to a regulatory body, so that they can be struck off and barred from their chosen career. This is presumably in response to the nastiness of the Evil Murdoch Empire and blatantly ignores two things: 1) politicians of all stripes have been cosying up to Murdoch forever and 2) he wouldn’t care less if his journalists got struck off and he’d just buy more.

But worse than that, it is a profoundly dangerous mechanism that would place a lot of power in the hands of the regulator for less powerful media interests, who would be cowed into printing only things that made the regulator happy. And yet, there will be hundreds of grassroots Labour supporters who will cheer and applaud this authoritarian suggestion as eagerly as they would further human rights legislation.

So my questions are: why are people on the “the left” so entirely uncritical of the consequences of their policies, simply because they have noble intentions?

And why is Labour, ostensibly the party of human rights, always so keen to grasp at unpleasant, authoritarian measures?

A genuine question. Or two. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

The pace of life in the Blogosphere has changed. The house seems more serene; peaceful even – and purposeful.

I would venture to suggest that Bloggers have grown up; the truculent adolescents with their monosyllabic chant of ‘shan’t’, ‘won’t’, ‘don’t like it’ have left home, off to wave banners and utter two word comments on Twitter.

In their place is a new breed of Blogger. More thoughtful, less prone to knee jerk reactions, with a dedicated purpose to their prose – that of enlightenment in some corner of life that the main stream media are unable/unwilling to cover in any meaningful depth.

I have highlighted the excellent Saddleworth News before – no single element of the main stream media can begin to compete with the coverage Richard has been able to provide to those interested in the saga of the Saddleworth and Oldham by-election; informed, ahead of the pack, with unique photographs, biographies of all the main players – even the weather reports for those planning to visit the arena. Exemplary.

In a similar vein, we must commend James Doleman for his encyclopaedic coverage of the Sheridan trial. In the three months since it began, the blog has been mentioned in the Scottish parliament, received half a million page views and raised new questions about the role of social media in reporting the administration of Scottish justice. It was not just the blog itself, but the hundreds of comments which it attracted that gave an informed – and commendably balanced, given that Doleman is himself a committed socialist – insight into the myriad complexities of the internal power struggles surrounding the prosecution of Sheridan.

Who can doubt that amongst the 13,000 a day readers of Doleman’s blog were those whose profession is allegedly providing information to the public – the accredited journalists. As Doleman himself has said – “I knew that if I made a factual mistake someone would spot it and post a comment correcting it. I didn’t have any subeditors, but I had thousands of fact-checkers”. A self correcting authoritative source no less.

Dizzy has highlighted the multiple ‘coincidences’ of stories appearing in the Daily Mail which prove to have word for word similarities to his own blog entries – though I note this morning that The Telegraph has had the decency to at least credit Dizzy as its source – perhaps we are entering a new era?

My own story on Steven Neary attracted an incredible 43,684 readers for a single blog post – which completely spooked me at first, but then I realised that there are many, many people in the world who have an interest in autism, and the plural effect of the facility to deprive someone of their liberty occasioned by the Mental Capacity Act – with none of the provisions of the Mental Health Act. A subject that is avoided like the plague by the main stream media. I have little doubt that when they do get around to covering the subject, journalists will be accessing the many stories I have filed under the ‘Court of Protection’ tab for background information.

Much of the main stream media has disappeared behind a pay wall, apparently in revenge for the on-line community ‘getting their news for free’ – it would appear to be the other way round! It is the niche bloggers who are providing the news to the journalists. Guido’s site is regularly plundered for inspiration and entire story lines.

They – the MSM – are the first to cry when they think their stories are being lifted; there is currently a complaint registered with the Press Association concerning an exclusive interview with David Yeates, father of the murdered Joanna Yeates, carried out by the Solent News and Photo Agency. One of the papers that the agency sold its story to was the Southern Daily Echo. Within minutes it reappeared on the Press Association wire under the by-line ‘Rod Minchin’. From there it propagated to the Daily Mirror and on to multiple news sites – with ne’er a mention of the names of the reporters who had secured the original story, let alone payment.  Solent is now considering taking legal action for breach of copyright.

It is time to break down the artificial walls between blogging and journalism; I have reported before on the laughable efforts to see access to parliament for bloggers defeated. Doleman reports in the Guardian today on the initial efforts to ‘lock him out’ of reporting on the case on the grounds that he wasn’t an accredited member of the press.

Elsewhere we have the case of the bribery and extradition case at Westminster Magistrates court, where Guardian journalists have challenged the rejection of their appeal to have access to skeleton arguments, affidavits, witness statements, and correspondence relevant to the trail. This in itself has thrown up the curious and, I suspect, previously unknown fact, that in civil litigation the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 allows them access to documentation that has not been read aloud in open court. Not just journalists either – but members of the public – this is surely a rich seam of factual information for an enterprising blogger? However, for some reason, the Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 do not provide such access; an anomaly given that when the State is prosecuting a citizen and possibly depriving him of his liberty, there is a greater need for transparency?

The Blog Society has changed – it is way past time for the main stream media to reflect that change and acknowledge their sources. Their current attitude is just making them look petty.

We have changed – you should too.

UPDATE: You may never see this again - HERE - Anna Raccoon more highly ranked than Guido or Iain Dale? Who’d a thought it?

The downside is that the only way forward from here is downwards……

I might even have a glass of champagne on the strength of that! Cheers readers!

Blogarithms. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

The language of persuasion is subtle. With so many journalists chasing a by-line in the media’s favourite subject – serial killers! – the message is becoming muddled.

The Daily Mail, usually a source of clear-cut bias, veers between the victims being prostitutes and sex workers on alternate lines in the same article – too many contributors confuses the sub-eds.

They are in no doubt though, that you should know Steven Griffiths went to the same school as John Haigh – the ‘acid bath killer’ – and lived but a short hop from Peter Sutcliffe’s home. This is what the courts would term circumstantial irrelevance, but the newspapers have no doubt as to its relevance. He could well live but a short hop from the Archbishop of Canterbury too, but if he does, we are unlikely to be told.

Former neighbours step forward to describe Griffiths as ‘very weird’

He shared a council semi in Wakefield with his two siblings and mother Moira. The children never played outside and were considered ‘nerds’.

‘’Nerds’ – a common term used to describe those who study diligently and read a lot of books, in Griffiths’ case it is evidence of his ‘weirdness’.

Faced with near identical evidence of the behaviour of one of the victims, Suzanne Blamires, such habits take on different complexion.

She enjoyed the cultural side of life – friends remember her reading philosophy and Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses in her spare time.

Be sure we would have known all about it in the headline had Griffiths been found reading the Satanic Verses. Or anything else with ‘Satanic’ in the title.

Griffiths had other ‘habits’ too.

Stephen was once seen out in the garden killing and dissecting birds.

We are not told when, how old he was; he read psychology at University, so presumably did a Biology ‘A’ level…but the phrase ‘dissecting birds’ is left hanging in the air, willing us to see him as a cruel and thoughtless man.

Griffiths went on to take a degree in psychology and developed an obsessive interest in serial killers.

Could that be because he went on to do a PhD on investigations into serial killers? He would be a ‘weird’ PhD student if he wasn’t obsessed with his subject. PhD students obsess, it’s what they do. They spend years obsessing, driven on by Professors who are convinced that they are not obsessing sufficiently. I once shared a sleeping compartment on the overnight train to Wiesbaden with a PhD student who had spent 8 years obsessing over the differences between two near identical examples of the genital warts suffered by Sea Lions. 12 hours passed and he still hadn’t finished explaining his thesis.

But this is all grist to The Daily Mail’s thesis that ‘the police have got the right man’ and we have but a few hours to dig the dirt before he is charged and we must shut up.

Miss Blamires fares somewhat better at the Mail hands, as you would imagine befits the victim.

Her life as a sex worker/prostitute, depending on which line you are on, was as a result of ‘addiction to Heroin’ and an evil boyfriend who ‘allegedly’ – careful now folks, don’t want a libel tort for insinuating he was a pimp, do we? – sent her out on the streets to earn money to pay for their joint addiction. Who introduced who to Heroin? Nobody asks. Certainly not the journalists. It just ‘appeared’ in her life, and we are invited to think that someone – probably ‘Shifty Ifty’, we are helpfully given his descriptive nickname, and the fact that he is Asian – was responsible. Not her. Good God no. She’s a victim. Even though ‘she’s a bright articulate girl’ who might have been expected to make some sensible choices for herself.

But ‘she protected her family’ by keeping ‘herself to herself so people knew very little about her’ – unlike Griffiths, who, displaying the same habits, ended up being described as ‘secretive and introverted’.

Griffiths fares somewhat better at the hands of the Telegraph. They had also discovered his interest in serial killers, but as ‘in keeping with his university studies’ and noted that these consisted of “aggregate homicide, multiple homicide, capital punishment and targeted political homicide”.

“For the past six years he had been studying for his PhD in the history of homicide in 19th century England from 1847-99, comparing Victorian investigative techniques with modern policing methods.”

Alone amongst the prowling journalists, they had uncovered his previous mental health issues – in December 1991 he was sent to Rampton Special Hospital for assessment.  I await the discovery of his frequent attempts to get help for his mental health issues – it is almost inevitable. Meanwhile we must content ourselves with demonising him.

The Telegraph journalists had also been more thorough on the subject of Suzanne Blamires.

She had worked as a prostitute for about a decade and had taken heroin for a similar period. She also had a long-standing alcohol problem.

Although once again – ‘she wanted to stop but was forced to continue to fund her pimp’s drug habit’. Not her own drug habit, nor her alcohol problem, you understand, it’s that ‘Shifty Ifty’s’ fault again.

Onto the Guardian, where the sex workers/prostitutes metamorphose into just ‘women’. Hurrah!  Even Griffiths is only an ‘oddball’ PhD student, in parenthesis, least any of their readers think that they are labelling all PhD students as oddballs – although they are delighted to describe the three years out of his entire education, three years which may or may not have been paid for by bursary as ‘privately educated’ – and we are given the current figure of £9,000 a year for the fees, not the fees of 18 years ago – if they were applicable. The Guardian have diligently perused Amazon’s book site and report back breathlessly that he was reading a book on Cross cultural Homicide in North America – and the story of the trial of Lizzie Borden. Still diligently attending to his studies then?

The Times discovers that on Griffiths’ web site he had listed ‘more than 50 serial killers’ – is this evidence of evil intent? Careful folks. He is doing a PhD in the subject remember? The Telegraph writer Andrew Hough has helpfully posted this morning a list of 8 serial killers. A small step in the same direction? Perhaps we should keep Mr Hough udner observation?

The Yorkshire Post is at pains to tell us that the families of all three women were ‘being supported by police family liaison officers’ – as well they might be, it is surely a traumatic time for them. Whatever the cause or background to the cause, they are grieving families.

But what of Griffiths’ family? Is anyone supporting them? They lost a bright articulate son to mental illness and must now watch from the sidelines as he – and by implication, they – are vilified and demonised. Does any journalist care to ask them of their anguish and dismay?

All we are told is that:

His mother, now 61, lives in a run-down block of flats behind Dewsbury station.

As Mother of a villain, she doesn’t get the chance to paint a rosy picture of her offspring.

It wouldn’t be popular with the readers.

Victims and Villains. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Is Nick Robinson a blogger? Is Guido Fawkes a journalist? The Question has been hotly debated on the internet. Last week, for the first time, a New Jersey Judge dipped his toe into these turbulent waters, and arrived at a conclusion that is likely to reach accord with the judiciary on this side of the Atlantic.

In the case of  ‘Too Much Media’ LCC v Hale the judge was being asked to decide whether a journalist, whilst acting as a blogger, was entitled to rely on journalistic privilege, specifically the right to protect sources, and further whether someone defamed under these circumstances could reclaim damages without having to prove pecuniary loss.

Shellee Hale, the defendant, is a published author and a member of Society of Professional Journalism, The National Writers Union and maintains a corporate account with PR Newswire. The issue was not whether she was a journalist, but whether she was entitled to the privileges and protection (called the Shield Law in the case report) accorded to that profession when blogging on her own account.

“Courts are now being faced with the task of evaluating a virtually limitless number of people who claim to be reporting on issues, but who are, many times, doing little more than shouting from atop a digital soapbox. When New Jersey’s legislature enacted the Shield Law, it could not have anticipated the instantaneity with which people now transmit information. (Here at page 7)

There is no fact-checking required, no editorial review, and so little accountability for the statements posted that it is virtually impossible to discern the author or source of the posts.  To extend the newsperson’s privilege to such posters would mean anyone with an email address, with no connection to any legitimate news publication, could post anything on the internet and hide behind the Shield Law’s protections.  Certainly, this was not the intention of the Legislature in passing the statute.” (Here at page 9).

The judges decision, whilst not binding in the UK, will send a shiver down the spine of many a journalist who blogs in addition to his main employment, or perhaps following redundancy. The decision, as always, turns on its own facts, and cannot be taken as a blanket ruling that bloggers are not journalists unless employed by a bonafide news organization and are not then covered by New Jersey’s Shield Law, which legally protects reporters from disclosing their sources. However, taken in conjunction with the recent case of Nightjack (The author of a blog v Times newspaper [2009] EWHC 1358 (QB) where Mr Justice Eady refused to protect the anonymity of a blogger, it is an indication of how the judiciary on both sides of the Atlantic are attempting to draw a firm line between the rights and privileges accorded to those who work for the accredited establishment media, and the voices of the citizens that ‘shout from atop the digital soapbox’.

The second part of the decision is interesting, in that not only was the defamation suit bought under a head of Slander rather than Libel, which accords with Mr Justice Eady’s ruling in Smith v ADVFN & Others [2008] All ER (D) 335 (Jul) that in the context of defamation law, postings and communications of this kind are more “akin to slanders”. Mr Justice Eady said that such comments are “contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out.” The distinction between the two causes of action is important because slander is only actionable if the claimant can prove special (monetary) damage caused by the imputation – however injurious to reputation, however malicious the motive of the defendant.

In the Hale case the Judge ruled that where she had alleged that the plaintiffs had ‘threatened someones life’ and ‘committed theft’ (of e-mail addresses) this came under the heading of:

One who publishes a slander that imputes to another conduct constituting a criminal offense is subject to liability to the other without proof of special harm if the offense imputed is of a type which, if committed in the place of publication would be (a) punishable by imprisonment in a state or federal institution, or (b) regarded by public opinion as involving moral turpitude.

[Restatement (Second) of Torts §571 (1977)]

and thus, because ‘the defendant’s message board postings allege that plaintiff’s have engaged in criminal conduct and are incompetent with respect to their business practices, the complaint is actionable without proof of pecuniary damages’.

In plain English, at the moment, this ruling only applies to those within the Washington jurisdiction, but if the cross fertilisation continues between the US and UK judiciary, as seems likely, and a similar set of circumstances is brought before a UK court, then bloggers will find that even if they are journalists ‘in real life’, then they are not covered by journalistic privilege when blogging or commenting on message boards, and furthermore those who comment on message boards are liable for comments such as ‘I will kill her’ or ‘he’s a thieving git’, even where no financial loss can be proved.

Blogger v. Journalist (Part IV) is a post from: Anna Raccoon