Those that know me will understand why I might shudder at reading the BBC report claiming that the electoral commission will not be able to police the expected explosion in spoof videos at the next election.
I think politicians can probably live with it, but there is a slightly more worrying matter.
Mark Pack of Lib Dem fame has recently highlighted the problem of electoral imprints when it comes to the internet and, in particular, social networking sites like Facebook.
As Mark says:
“….the general principles of election imprints on printed items are clear and widely followed, which is why you frequently see leaflets with wording such as “Printed, published and promoted by Mark Pack on behalf of William Woodings (Liberal Democrats), both at 17 Lever Arch View, London, N1 3AH”.
“However, it’s far from clear how these rules should be applied to the online world. The question of emails and websites is moderately straightforward, in that they have space for a full imprint and you can interpret the “printer” required on leaflets to mean the computer firm that hosts the website or provided the email server used to send messages.
“It becomes less straightforward for social networking services, where it is often either hard to find somewhere to put suitable information (e.g. is putting an “imprint” on the non-default tab on a Facebook page acceptable?) or where there are problems over the length of messages involved (e.g. you can’t really expect a full imprint in each tweet).”
The good news is that the law allows the Secretary of State to take powers that will allow rules to be drawn up to clarify what should be done with imprints in the digital space. The bad news is that six years after the electoral commission pointed out the problem, the powers have still not been used.
I’m going to write to Jack Straw to ask him to sort it out. It strikes me that between us, we could knock up a set of guidelines quite quickly. I nominate Mark to get the ball rolling with a draft. Anyone else got ideas?
This might not please my fellow scrutineers of the BBC on the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee nor my friends in the Government for that matter, but I quite like it when the BBC flexes a bit of muscle. And that’s exactly what Mark Thompson has done today, with a no holds barred speech to delegates at the Royal Television Society in Cambridge this afternoon.
Here’s his opening paragraph on the Murdochs:
“I want to start with a few words in defence of that highly but also I’m afraid much and misunderstood public institution, the Murdoch family.
“In many ways, if your name’s Murdoch you can’t win. Every time you open your mouth, people start looking for a hidden agenda. Institutional self-interest. A secret plan to influence current or future political leaders. A lust for world domination.
“Almost no one takes what you say at face value. As Director-General of the BBC, I can’t imagine what that must be like.
“Well, in my view James Murdoch meant every word of his MacTaggart lecture. Admittedly, it can’t be a complete coincidence that every proposal in it is fully aligned with the economic interests of News Corporation. Nonetheless I’m quite certain that he said what he said not because of that, but because he genuinely indeed passionately believes that his ideas, if adopted, would lead not just to a better media sector but a better world.”
And here’s his opening riposte to Ben Bradshaw:
“There was much in what Ben said last night that I could agree wholeheartedly with. His pride in the public service journalism he’d been involved in himself – and which he knows audiences here and around the world still trust and depend on. His scepticism about whether market-solutions alone can deliver the quality, range and plurality that the British public deserve. His determination to build a strong and balanced creative sector for the UK.
“But there was plenty that was frankly puzzling as well. He set out a long list of the current BBC public services. By the way, I don’t know many broadcasters who haven’t launched multiple services over the past decade. But with one or two exceptions, these new BBC services weren’t approved by the BBC Trust. They were approved by the Government of which Ben is a member. Indeed, the Government asked the BBC to launch a range of new services to help with their policy of encouraging the public to move to digital television and radio. Ben’s surprise at these services is itself surprising.”
I don’t agree with everything the BBC does but I admire their spirit for the fight. I also find these debates insular and a little cliquey. Still, once you’re in a fight, you’re in. And the BBC is now well and truly, in.
The Beeb have written up their own story about plans to encrypt certain information from set top boxes. They’ve quoted my blog post for a few days ago. For completenes, I feel should say that I should have added an update to the blog a few day ago. I never got round to it and didn’t expect the issue to become a news story today. So, I’ve updated the post that you can read again here.
