The boy in the bubble

THE ALMOST continual media coverage of the birth of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's first child has finally started to settle down in the wake of some actual news happening.

By contrast, on Monday, it was relentless and largely unwatchable.

From the breakfast announcement that Kate had gone into labour and been taken to the private Lindo wing of St Mary's hospital in London - to the moment, 10 hours later, that she had popped out an 8lb 6oz sprog - the likes of the BBC and Sky provided all-day coverage of... nothing much.

That much was confirmed by the brilliantly frank BBC royal correspondent Simon McCoy, who was forced to wait outside the hospital to report on any news.

He admitted on air: "Plenty more to come from here, of course - none of it news because that will come from Buckingham Palace but that won't stop us."

Meanwhile, this was - we were told by Prime Minister David Cameron - "a very exciting occasion and the whole country is excited". 

And it was certainly afforded the sort of breathless coverage - both at home and, in fairness, elsewhere around the world - which befits a landmark event.

Surely, though, there was far too much fuss over what was - on a basic level - a woman in childbirth, something which has been happening for thousands of years.

Private Eye perhaps best summed up the arrival of the third-in-line to the throne on the front page of its latest edition, which states simply in large letters - "WOMAN HAS BABY" - adding in tiny print at the bottom, "INSIDE: Some other stuff".

Of course, for the likes of the Sun and the Daily Mail, baby George Alexander Louis was gold dust in the generally quiet summer season.

Top cringe marks must go to the Sun for taking the unprecedented step of changing its masthead for the day to 'The Son'.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail website benefited from its biggest ever audience - 10.5m unique users, and its print edition was unsurprisingly a "Royal Baby Souvenir Special".

Amusingly, though, in the midst of the copious amounts of print, the Mail had the nerve to criticise the BBC for its over-the-top coverage. Incredible.

At least those looking for an alternative view would have found some job with the Mirror and the mini version of the Independent.

The Mirror, though joining in the gushing of the new royal in its editorial, gave room to republican commentator Brian Reade - while, rather pointedly, 'The I' led with the headline: "Born to Rule".

Media Guardian commentator Roy Greenslade has claimed that the media was simply "giving people what they want" - and it is true that the baby has arrived at a time when the royal family is riding a wave of popularity.

An Ipsos Mori poll last week showed 77% of Britons were in favour of remaining a monarchy over a republic, close to its best-ever level of support.

However, another poll, by Yougov, found that only 14% of UK adults were "very interested" and 32% were "somewhat interested" in the royal baby.

As you may have guessed from the tone of this post, I fell into neither of those groups - though I should point out that this does not necessarily make me a strident republican either. It really was just too much coverage for something which is relatively insignificant to me.

Indeed, I have watched and read less news this week than in a long time but I will always remember it as a few days that Britain went baby bonkers.

And there has not even been the Sunday features or the ITV documentaries yet...

Cameron brokers long-awaited press regulation deal

PRIME MINISTER David Cameron has finally thrashed out a "historic" deal with his deputy Nick Clegg and Labour leader Ed Miliband over a new press watchdog this week.

The regulator will be established by royal charter, meaning there will be no need to pass statute in the Houses of Parliament.

Importantly, the charter can only be amended if there is a two-thirds majority in both the Commons and the Lords. This is unlike other charters which are altered by the Queen on the advice of Privy Council, which comprises of government ministers of the day.

So, almost two years since the News of the World phone-hacking story broke and over 100 days on since Lord Leveson published his £5m report, why has it taken so long just to get to this point?

Well, the main problem was that Mr Cameron was opposed to any statutory underpinning of regulation as suggested by Lord Leveson.

This contrasted with Mr Clegg and Mr Miliband who both thought that the judge's recommendations should be enforced in their entirety.

The schism caused a protracted period of political wrangling, which left the newspaper industry in limbo - and the gridlock reached its peak last Thursday when Mr Cameron called a halt to the cross-party talks.

Instead, the PM had planned to force a Commons vote on a royal charter on Monday evening - but, ultimately, the parties and victims campaign group Hacked Off were able to make a deal in the early hours of the same day.

Incredibly, though, the talks did not include a single member of the press.

Now, at this point, it must be accepted that the newspaper industry has caused a lot of damage over the years. Indeed, Lord Leveson himself stated it had "wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people".

But to exclude the whole industry from discussions over its future regulation seemed a pointless thing to do - especially when it ended up being some members of the press who actually could be said to have forced the breakthrough.

Alan Rusbridger, Chris Blackhurst and Lionel Barber - editors of the Guardian, the Independent and the Financial Times, respectively - broke ranks with other media titles by suggesting the way forward was to accept the idea of a charter.

In the end, the trio's proposal formed the basis for what politicians agreed on.

The politicians, bless'em, all seem rather pleased with themselves with Mr Cameron describing it as a "neat solution". However, there has already been dissent in the ranks of the Fourth Estate.

For, while some of the aforementioned newspapers have cautiously welcomed the plans, others remain virulently opposed to any external interference.

Associated Newspapers, owners of the Daily Mail, News International - representing the Sun and the Times - as well as the Telegraph Media Group are all exploring the possibility of setting up their own body.

The Mail branded the deal "a grim day for all who value freedom" and, like the Times, accused Mr Cameron of threatening press freedom for the first time since newspapers were licensed 300 years ago.

Tim Jotischky, deputy editor of the Telegraph, tweeted late on Monday: "We can never lecture a Mugabe or a Putin on freedom of expression again. Quite an achievement for Hacked Off et al."

Meanwhile, magazines Private Eye and the Spectator have already rejected signing up to the new regulator.

Spectator editor Fraser Nelson said: "Press regulation is too important an issue to be answered by some tawdry deal cooked up at two in the morning in Ed Miliband's office.

"The result is unacceptable, state licensing of the media, something we haven't had in this country for 300 years."

Eye editor and Have I Got News For You panellist Ian Hislop agreed, adding: "You can't really say this is a considered and thoughtful process when, in the middle of the night, two bits are added to other bills.

"This doesn't really look like thoughtful considered legislation which has been worked through."

Moreover, some of the other implications of the new regulator - such as the extent to which the new regulator monitors online content - are unclear. Will bloggers be affected at all, for example?

The local press, which was hitherto seldom in trouble, also fears a "crippling" rush of compensation claims under the new system of arbitration for small-scale complaints.

All in all, then, the situation still remains a rather messy one - but, despite the rushed nature of the deal, it is difficult from a media perspective not to disagree with Indy editor Mr Blackhurst.

He said: "I don't think it's too bad. It could've been a lot worse, it could've been better. I think we have to recognise the mess the industry got into. The industry did some bad things and our existing regulator just wasn't up to the task."

Only time will tell if the new one is.

Leveson leaves Cameron in a spot of bother

PRIME MINISTER David Cameron faced accusations of betrayal yesterday after he rejected Lord Justice Leveson's call to set up a press regulation body underpinned by law.

Lord Leveson wrote in his report that the press had "wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people" for many decades. He also described some of the behaviour of the Fourth Estate as "outrageous".

"There have been too many times when, chasing the story, parts of the press have acted as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist," the judge added.

However, Mr Cameron, speaking in the Commons shortly after the 2400-page document was published, said he had "serious concerns and misgivings" over bringing in laws to underpin any new body.

The Conservative leader added: "We should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and the free press."

Unsurprisingly, that has not gone down too well with Hacked Off, the campaign which represents all victims of press intrusion, both the rich and famous as well as ordinary members of the public.

Actor Steve Coogan was one of the first to speak out. "By rejecting Leveson's call for statutory regulation, [Mr] Cameron has hung the victims of crime out to dry," he said.

"He has passed on the opportunity to make history. He has revealed there isn't an ounce of substance in his body, that he has one eye on courting the press for elections in years to come, and doesn't know the meaning of conviction."

Gerry McCann, father of Madeleine, and Christopher Jefferies - who was subjected to all sorts of lurid and untrue allegations about the murder of his tenant Jo Yeates - have refused in protest to meet with Culture Secretary Maria Miller.

And the stand-off leaves the ball, as Lord Leveson himself, said in the Prime Minister's court. The only problem is that Mr Cameron does not seem keen to play.

That position very much put him at odds with his coalition partner. Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg revealed himself to be perhaps the least liberal Liberal leader in history by fully backing the recommendations.

Meanwhile, Labour leader Ed Miliband eyed the latest bandwagon to jump on by taking the same stance.

For, while it is ultimately difficult to tell Mr Cameron's exact motives, and it could all be to do with elections, Mr Coogan and the others might just be wrong on this one.

After all, the Prime Minister is hardly making a populist move, on the face of it.

Yougov polling for the Media Standards Trust shows that 79% of the public agree with the statement: "There should be an independent body, established by law, which deals with complaints and decides what sanctions there should be if journalists break agreed codes of conduct."

However, the situation is not quite as clear as that. Another poll by the firm for The Sun newspaper found that only 24% of people agreed that there should be "a regulatory body set up through law by Parliament, with rules agreed by MPs".

Against that, 42% think that the body should be "set up through legally binding contracts by the media industry, with rules agreed by newspaper owners".

Peter Kellner, head of Yougov, explained this apparent contradiction by the framing of the two questions: "In short, we don’t like the idea of politicians curbing the freedom of speech. But neither do we want editors and publishers remaining in charge of regulation."

Kellner added: "Ideally, we would like a new law to force the media to behave better – but don’t want MPs making that law.

"The trouble with that, of course, is that law-making is the central function of MPs. More than anything else, that is what we elect them to do."

Meanwhile, even Lord Leveson has said that “press freedom in Britain, hard won over 300 years ago” should not be jeopardised, and that all of the press served the country "very well for the vast majority of the time".

But, quite how the judge squares those sentiments with the need for new legislation remains unclear.

The simple fact is that existing laws dealing with phone-hacking, libel, harassment, and invasion of privacy were not enforced.

Of course, in many cases, completely appropriate existing law has been implemented. Just this week, former News International boss Rebekah Brooks and ex-News of the World editor Andy Coulson appeared in court accused of making payments to public officials for information.

They, and others formerly in News International, have also been charged with phone hacking.

Additionally, Mr Coogan, Mr Jefferies, the McCanns and many others have all been successful in libel suits against the press.

Understandably, victory in the courts rarely fully compensates the initial feeling of mistreatment by the press. It does, however, show that there is already a procedure in place to keep the press in check.

Even the broadcast media, which is independently regulated by Ofcom and the BBC Trust, slips up from time to time, as recent events have shown.

The fact remains that there will always be some downright nasty people, and therefore some downright nasty journalists, willing to push the boundaries too far.

It is a shame that the industry seems to attract more than a proportional share of those sorts but the vast majority are good eggs including almost all of them in the local press which is seldom in trouble.

Moreover, it must be pointed out that not all the figures in the media opposing statutory regulation are exactly Mr Cameron fans.

Private Eye editor Ian Hislop spends most of his lifetime mocking the Prime Minister but wonders, like myself, why we cannot just enforce the laws we "already have against phone hacking, harassment, libel, bribery etc".

Of course, ultimately, it may be the case that MPs from Labour, the Lib Dems, the Scottish Nationalists, and some Tories, will begin the legislative process by winning a vote, expected to be held at the end of January.

Even if the vote were non-binding, Mr Cameron would then be under extreme pressure not to set the wheels in motion for the introduction of statutory regulation.

Now, another law on the statute book would be a blow for the free press of this country and investigative journalism, in particular.

Nevertheless, the effect has already been exaggerated in some quarters - after all, we would hardly be living in North Korea.

Frankly, though, it is hard to see the new law being anything other than a law which asks for other existing laws already to be enforced.

In other words - just like the 16-month-long, £5m Leveson Inquiry, it will probably be a bit of a waste of time.

Private Eye still packs a punch at 50

SATIRICAL mouthpiece Private Eye celebrated its 50th birthday this week in time-honoured fashion.

Featured on the front page of the latest edition, no. 1300, is David Cameron and his Conservative counterpart from 1961, Harold Macmillan.

It is the 23rd occasion that the current Prime Minister has been put on the cover though that is some way behind another of his predecessors, Margaret Thatcher, who leads with 95 appearances.

Famous front covers include a picture of Adolf Hitler telling us he is in fancy dress as Prince Harry after the young Royal's faux pas, and the hugely controversial 'Media to Blame' headline when Princess Diana died.

Other examples can be found on the Private Eye website which has a comprehensive index of its back issues.

Digging a little deeper, the Eye supplies fortnightly an irrepressible run of recurring in-jokes, regular columns, cartoons, and parodies of politicians, celebrities and, indeed, the newspaper industry.

Yes, journalism does not escape the clutches of the Eye: the Sun is oft-parodied for its SENSATIONALIST style, the Daily Mail mocked for its right-wing leanings and the Guardian - or Grauniad - for its spelling.

However, Private Eye is not just a joke mag but also a source itself of serious investigative journalism and a sanctuary for whistleblowers.

Indeed, the anniversary edition of the Eye has a list of 50 stories which it has broke over the years from the Profumo affair to Andrew Marr's more recent infidelity.

Among the magazine's current set of targets is former HM Revenue & Customs boss Dave Hartnett for his dodgy tax dealings with investment bank Goldman Sachs.

Of course, the Eye's propensity to push the boundaries has made it a few enemies in high places over the past half-century.

The proof of that comes in the fact that current editor - and Have I Got News For You panellist - Ian Hislop holds the unenviable record for being the most sued man in Britain.

Nevertheless, the Eye, with a circulation of more than 200,000, remains pretty well-regarded among political anoraks in this country, if not perhaps the British public at large.

Liberal Democrat MP Bob Russell even tabled an Early Day Motion at Westminster, proposing: "That this House congratulates satirical magazine Private Eye on its 50th anniversary".

The motion attracted 22 signatories, though the Eye notes that this total is five fewer MPs than the 27 who signed a similar proposal for its 1000th edition, 11 years ago.

Perhaps the recent scandals surrounding lobbying and MPs expenses means the Eye has got up a few more politicians' noses - but, in that respect, Mr Hislop and his team are only doing their jobs.

The American author and journalist Finley Peter Dunne once wrote that the job of a newspaper is "to comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable".

And it would seem that Private... (cont. p94)

(That's enough, Ed.)

Superinjunction farce leaves Giggs exposed

THE WORST-kept secret in Britain was blown out the water yesterday when a Liberal Democrat MP used parliamentary privilege to expose Ryan Giggs as the married Premier League footballer hiding his affair behind a superinjunction.

John Hemming, MP for Birmingham Yardley, revealed that Giggs was the man at the centre of the gagging order during an urgent questions session at the House of Commons.

But, while Mr Hemming's revelation was an unexpected part of the debate, it came as no great surprise to the many people who were already aware of Giggs' name being used in relation to this on Twitter.

Mr Hemming was able to make his statement without fear of prosecution for contempt of court as he is afforded the protection of absolute privilege in the Commons.

However, that protection does not extend to the media in areas of strict liability such as contempt.

And so that meant the BBC was originally in the frankly farcical position of being able to tell us an MP had blown Giggs' cover but without using the Welsh footballer's name.

Meanwhile, the superinjunction officially remained in place, much to the frustration of the Sun newspaper who had appealed twice to the High Court to have it removed - but failed both times.

The second of these failures came just minutes before Mr Hemming stood to speak in the Commons. 

And so, this morning, in a rare show of unity in strength by the national press - albeit perhaps an unintentional one - every newspaper had Giggs on its front page.

But, despite the Sun's attempts in the courts, top marks must actually go to the sub editors at the Mirror for their brilliant pun, 'Naming Private Ryan'.

Of course, Giggs is not the only philanderer failing to keep his name out of the public eye with the use of a superinjunction.

Last week, the former boss of collapsed bank RBS, Fred Goodwin, was similarly 'outed' in Parliament when Lib Dem peer Lord Stoneham used absolute privilege to reveal his name during a debate in the Lords.

And, earlier this month, BBC presenter Andrew Marr was technically in contempt of his own gagging order after he performed a spectacular U-turn by revealing the details of his affair himself.

"I did not come into journalism to go around gagging journalists," Marr told the Daily Mail, rendering his superinjunction invalid.

But, as the latest issue of Private Eye magazine succinctly pointed out, he had in fact spent the last three years of his career doing exactly that.

Now, the real issue here - as is often the case with media furores - is one of the public interest - i.e. is it in the public interest that people know about these affairs or is the right to a private life a more important consideration?

Well, the answer usually lies somewhere in between but, in the Marr case, the superinjunction should surely never have been imposed as the sheer hypocrisy of it absolutely wreaked.

As Private Eye notes, Marr is "a hack of three decades-standing, a respected writer on the history of journalism and a former political editor responsible for countless ministerial grillings".

And the satirical fortnightly magazine also reveals a Marr quote in which he opposes exactly the sort of gagging order which he himself had used.

"There is an argument about whether to allow a judge-made law to accumulate or to have a clean, honest, open debate in Parliament," Marr has said.

"I'm on enough of a traditionalist to believe that is what should happen rather than allow it to be settled by judges."

As for the other cases detailed in this blog, there is a compelling argument for Goodwin's injunction being overturned in that his affair took place in the months leading up to the collapse of his ailing bank.

The Giggs case is less clear cut than those of 'jug ears' Marr and Fred 'the Bed' Goodwin - but it is still wrong that some rich people use the law as a playtoy while other less fortunate have their private lives exposed.

Of course, the three cases mentioned here are just a drop in an ocean of gagging orders.

For a start, Private Eye states it is aware of no fewer than 53 superinjunctions and the nature of these instruments often means that the media cannot even mention that there is a court order in place.

Perhaps most importantly, it should be pointed out that not all of these injunctions will simply be a Who's Who gallery of shaggers.

Some of the orders will be protecting companies like Trafigura who used a superinjunction to hide the fact that they had been charged with dumping toxic waste off the coast of west Africa.

In line with events this week, this gag was also unmasked by a combination of 'mischievous' Twitter users and Paul Farrelly MP in Parliament.

It is becoming pretty clear that even superinjunctions are no guarantor of keeping your name out of the public spotlight.

That news will not sadden any journalists out there - especially considering the fact that these gagging orders are often evidently being used when the details are in the public interest.

Perhaps those who feel they have been mistreated by the media should use the law already in place to make their point, rather than hiding behind the gagging orders.

For the avoidance of doubt, the existing law is article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to privacy...

This is balanced, of course, by article 10 - the right to freedom of expression.

The alternative Royal Wedding

Five alternative ways to enjoy Friday's big occasion as future King of England Prince William marries Catherine 'Kate' Middleton who he met at the University of St Andrews.

1. PLAY the Royal Wedding Drinking Game.
WITH now more than a quarter of a million 'Likes' on Facebook, it is fair to say a good proportion of the population will be literally raising a glass to the happy couple. Rules include:
"(1) If the Queen is on the screen you must be drinking. The woman has ruled the country for over 50 years, the least you can do is get destroyed in her honour.
(2) Any time Prince Harry appears all players must produce a Nazi salute. The last player to do so must consume 5 fingers/mouthfuls for their poor reactions."
Full details can be found on this Facebook page.

2. PUT a silly bet on
ALL manner of Royal Wedding Special bets are being offered by the bookmakers including the chance of anyone dropping the wedding ring, Kate Middleton jilting Prince William at the altar, the weather and - of course - the colour of the Queen's hat.
Oddschecker has a comprehensive guide to the bets available from each bookmaker.

3. PASS the sick bag
ALTHOUGH the wedding ceremony is finished just after midday and the fly-past by the Royal Air Force and Battle of Britain Memorial Flight takes place at 1.30pm, coverage on the BBC, ITV and Sky will continue until 4pm. There are more hours devoted on the evening.
But do not despair. Cumbrian graphic artist Lydia Leith has designed the perfect accessory for those who think they might get queasy at a series of commentators being rolled out to pass the time by giving their meaningless platitudes upon the wedding.
It may also be useful to deal with any fallout from anyone playing the Royal Wedding Drinking Game (see above) and can double up as a souvenir of the event.
Sick bags, in red or blue, are available from her website here for £3.00 each +£1.20p&p - as seen on the BBC here.

4. AVOID the suffocating coverage of every media outlet by taking a sideways look
RATHER than leafing through pages upon pages of Royal Wedding guides produced by every single newspaper in the UK, sit down with a cuppa and read The Guardian's G2 Not the Royal Wedding guide - including a special TV Go Home column by Charlie Brooker.
Alternatively, Friday 29 April is the latest release date for the bi-weekly satirical magazine Private Eye. It is bound to be a bumper issue on the basis of this front-page from when Prince William proposed in November last year.
Finally, one publication unlikely to carry a special edition is the Scottish newspaper Caledonian Mercury who reported the announcement of their engagement, as follows:
"Two people who went to university together are to get married, it has emerged.
"William Windsor (or possibly Wales or possibly Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) and Kate Middleton, both 28, met at St Andrews University eight years ago."  

5. ATTEND an alternative street party
FOR those with a great enough sense of injustice about using taxpayers' money to fund the Royal Wedding, political pressure group Republic is holding a street party from 11.30am at Red Lion Square in London.
The website says: "We've taken a 'traditional' royalist street party as our inspiration, but there will be one key difference. We'll be celebrating democracy and people-power rather than inherited privilege."
Full details of the event in the Holburn area on Republic's website here.