The Leveson Enquiry, Hugh Grant and the Daily Mail

Interesting to listen to.

Think there could be a bit of panic at the Daily Mail this lunchtime...

Person representing Daily Mail complained no right to reply to Hugh Grants allegations.

Judge says it would be okay for journalists to come and respond?

Person for the Daily Mail says that fine but it would not be till January and the damage will have propagated by then.

Judge says I can move thing around as I feel fit so fine to get the journalists in to explain where they got the stories in question from in ASAP.

So now Daily Mail just about committed to put journo on the stand who will have to explain how they found out various details which at the moment they claim came from 'sources close to' someone who has denied they knew till the article was published.

Thought Hugh Grant was very good yesterday.

Allowing for the fact that this section of the inquiry is "emotive" as much as anything then he did a good job and did counteract many possible arguments back against him 'the I trade on my good name - lol I'm the guy arrested with a hooker" was perfect as was his where do I sign to never be in the press.

The Snail's rebuttal actually makes it more interesting - the source was a freelancer. Wasn't that technically the case quite often with the NOTW? How do they KNOW their freelancer wasn't into hacking?

Makes entertaining viewing on SkyNews while waiting for the evening movie to start down here

You can also watch it, at least in the UK at least, here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167512.stm

More fun promised this afternoon with Steve Coogan taking over the baton from Grant.

Interesting to listen to.

 

Think there could be a bit of panic at the Daily Mail this lunchtime...

 

 

Person representing Daily Mail complained no right to reply to Hugh Grants allegations.

 

Judge says it would be okay for journalists to come and respond?

 

Person for the Daily Mail says that fine but it would not be till January and the damage will have propagated by then.Judge says I can move thing around as I feel fit so fine to get the journalists in to explain where they got the stories in question from in ASAP.

 

 

So now Daily Mail just about committed to put journo on the stand who will have to explain how they found out various details which at the moment they claim came from 'sources close to' someone who has denied they knew till the article was published.

Yeah, the heart bleeds. Just like when they publish a story on the front page only to print a retraction buried away in the corner of page 15, weeks later. The damage is already done. I saw a quote yesterday from one person at the enquiry:

"The tabloid press seems to live in a 1950s world where everyone is supposed to get married and stay married and anything that happens outside that is a story.

"I think we have a tabloid press which is almost infantile in its attitude towards sex and private life."

Says it all.

Looks like the Daily Heil has got other things to worry about too

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15834927

Looks like the Daily Heil has got other things to worry about too

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15834927

Problem is even if they are found guilty they will only be fined about 50K which is small change compares to the kiss and tell scale.

amazing how people are happy to jump on the medias grave. If it wasnt for the media would Grant indiscretions with the hooker ever come to light and Coogans drug and cheating habit?

I am not hypocritcal in blasting the papers for their stories as i read them over the years.It would pretty crass now to complain.

The problem i see is the overstepping of the mark, as in the Milly Dowler case. I still find it hard to believe that the majority of these people were using un-savoury techniques to gain info

amazing how people are happy to jump on the medias grave. If it wasnt for the media would Grant indiscretions with the hooker ever come to light and Coogans drug and cheating habit?

I am not hypocritcal in blasting the papers for their stories as i read them over the years.It would pretty crass now to complain.

The problem i see is the overstepping of the mark, as in the Milly Dowler case. I still find it hard to believe that the majority of these people were using un-savoury techniques to gain info

And we're better for knowing about these occasions? I don't care and it's none of my business what they do in their private lives. As someone above has said, these rags are the most hypocritical vehicles of news ever with the 'morals' of a byegone era. I think the odds would be quite short on the probability of their journalists and editors doing the very things they lambast 'celebrities' for.

If it wasnt for the media would Grant indiscretions with the hooker ever come to light

...and so what if they hadn't? How would society have been any poorer had it never known that an actor paid for a blowie?

I think that's exactly the point, the tabloids have replaced the concept of 'public interest' with 'what the public might find interesting'

amazing how people are happy to jump on the medias grave. If it wasnt for the media would Grant indiscretions with the hooker ever come to light and Coogans drug and cheating habit?

I am not hypocritcal in blasting the papers for their stories as i read them over the years.It would pretty crass now to complain.

The problem i see is the overstepping of the mark, as in the Milly Dowler case. I still find it hard to believe that the majority of these people were using un-savoury techniques to gain info

I didn't know about Coogan's infidelity until you said but couldn't care less. There are more important things to know and investigate than all this tittle-tattle. A sad state of affairs that so many are interested in this sort of thing though.

...and so what if they hadn't? How would society have been any poorer had it never known that an actor paid for a blowie?

 

I think that's exactly the point, the tabloids have replaced the concept of 'public interest' with 'what the public might find interesting'

These "celebs" are quite happy for inconsequential "personal" news about them to appear in the media when it's good news rather than bad news.

Yes, hearing about a film star;s new film is "work related" but to hear they've adopted a child (for example) is not "in the public interest".

There are plenty of "not in the public interest" news items that they are happy to see the light of day if it shows them in a good light.

Cake and eat it anyone?

Edit: indeed - the enquiry is covering this angle just now...sayign that Coogan was happy for a GQ interview by Piers Morgans to go to print even though it contained "private stuff" (it just happened to be private stuff that helped promote him at the time)

I think you're right to some extent Trousers ( agreeing with Trousers AGAIN)

But when publication causes such awful distress, not necessarily for the subject, but certainly for his / her family then something is badly wrong.

Today we've heard from a father whose son killed himself because of the awful publicity surrounding his sister's murder and of a father who also committed suicide because of the press expose of his son's behaviour.

I'm also of the opinion that the actions of the gutter press say a lot about our society in that some want to read this trash.

I think you're right to some extent Trousers ( agreeing with Trousers AGAIN)

 

But when publication causes such awful distress, not necessarily for the subject, but certainly for his / her family then something is badly wrong.

 

Today we've heard from a father whose son killed himself because of the awful publicity surrounding his sister's murder and of a father who also committed suicide because of the press expose of his son's behaviour.

 

I'm also of the opinion that the actions of the gutter press say a lot about our society in that some want to read this trash.

Yep, agree with all that

There are plenty of "not in the public interest" news items that they are happy to see the light of day if it shows them in a good light.

 

Cake and eat it anyone?

That doesn't really stand up as an argument.

The paper has a responsibility to apply the public interest test in any case, be it a positive or negative story. The subject is not the decision maker in either case.

The fact that they ran a worthless, but complementary, story previously is no defence or mitigation to running a worthless, and deprecatory story subsequently. In each case the story is valueless. And in each case, the paper is not doing it for the benefit of the subject, or the readership.

To draw a football analogy... when a ref makes a poor decision that hinders your team, it's not okay on the basis that he made a poor one that assisted you in a previous match. In each case the ref has failed. He gets no credit for failing the first time which is then written off against failing the second time.

Its a pity really that Grant and Coogan gave evidence on consecutive days as the press coverage tends to concentrates on them which has distracted from the evidence given by the other witnesses who are not celebrities but have suffered at the hands of the press.

You can debate for as long as you like about whether by choosing a profession in sports or the performing arts somehow cancels any protection you have against press intrusion but the testimony of normal people suffering from media intrusion should not be ignored.

If the British public didn't want the sex lives of slease balls like Grant and Coogan splashed across their breakfast tables, they wouldn't buy the papers that did it.

I find the whole thing hypocritical, we get the papers that the British public want to buy. The British public set the enviorment by buying these papers, did they really believe that storries were obtained by "good old fashioned journalism".Just for once I would like to hear a politicans tell the voters the simple fact, that had they refused to buy these rags, then this sort of journalism would have gone away. They can't of course, because they've got revenge in mind but also because it's their voters who were doing the buying.

Coogan was bleating on about them trying to set up a sting on him. Well a newspaper sting did for the cricketers as well as countless other illigal acts (like cocaine use, Mr Coogan).

When Coogan and Grant stop appearing in Fox films, perhaps then I'll start to take them seriously. Until then they are just hypercrites crying because their illigal acts couldn't be hushed up.

The McCann's are up tomorrow. That'll be interesting..

If the British public didn't want the sex lives of slease balls like Grant and Coogan splashed across their breakfast tables, they wouldn't buy the papers that did it.

 

I find the whole thing hypocritical, we get the papers that the British public want to buy. The British public set the enviorment by buying these papers, did they really believe that storries were obtained by "good old fashioned journalism".Just for once I would like to hear a politicans tell the voters the simple fact, that had they refused to buy these rags, then this sort of journalism would have gone away. They can't of course, because they've got revenge in mind but also because it's their voters who were doing the buying.

 

Coogan was bleating on about them trying to set up a sting on him. Well a newspaper sting did for the cricketers as well as countless other illigal acts (like cocaine use, Mr Coogan).

When Coogan and Grant stop appearing in Fox films, perhaps then I'll start to take them seriously. Until then they are just hypercrites crying because their illigal acts couldn't be hushed up.

the public finding things interesting doesn't make them "in the public interest". I for one never buy tabloids so I'm certainly not interested in celebrity gossip so not guilty on the hypocritical front.

I'm not sure what your comment about "illegal acts couldn't be hushed up" has got to do with anything. The sting that Coogan's complains about was related to a sexual relationship - nothing illegal there. And how is uncovering Coogan taking cocaine in the public interest? The ultimate hypocrites are the hacks that write this stuff - substance abuse, and no doubt infidelity, is rife in Fleet Street. Also Grant has always been really honest about that incident with the hooker. I don't think any of his complaints have been in relation to this.

I think the thing that sums up for me is that there was a warning before the inquiry started that the press could take revenge on those that give evidence and that a eye would be kept on the press to try and make sure they did not and then the Daily Mail basically come out and call Grant a liar and got themselves in hot water because of it. As the judge said he would have been okay if they had just said why they disagreed but even at this most delicate of times for the press they just decided to let loose with both barrels.

It will be interesting if Coogan gets a mention in the mail editorial tomorrow.

the public finding things interesting doesn't make them "in the public interest". I for one never buy tabloids so I'm certainly not interested in celebrity gossip so not guilty on the hypocritical front.

 

I'm not sure what your comment about "illegal acts couldn't be hushed up" has got to do with anything. The sting that Coogan's complains about was related to a sexual relationship - nothing illegal there. And how is uncovering Coogan taking cocaine in the public interest? The ultimate hypocrites are the hacks that write this stuff - substance abuse, and no doubt infidelity, is rife in Fleet Street. Also Grant has always been really honest about that incident with the hooker. I don't think any of his complaints have been in relation to this.

Grant had no choice but to front up. Had there been a privacy law, would he have been quite so up front about it.

You may not be interested in this sort of stuff, but thousends of your fellow countrymen are, they have given us the press we have now, because had they followed your lead and not bought the papers until they stop printing this stuff, they would have stopped.

I happen to find Coogan, who starred in Fox's Night at the Museum, calling News International a "protection racket" and talking of Rupert Murdoch's toxic legacy,a complete and utter hypercrite. "Your Company is a protection racket, you will leave a toxic legacy,but thanks for the cheque"

I wonder how much the readers of tabloids (I also fall into the possible sanctimonious group who have never bought one and avoid things such as xfactor like the plague) are truly ignorant of the methods used to get them the stories they like and how many play blindfully ignorant (i.e. sort of know how they are obtained but choose not to think about it)?

There is one thing to say people continue to buy papers because the story says:

"A close friend of the family said they were distraught"

but would they if the truth was told:

"We listened to their voice mail, door stepped their 86 year old grannie, pretended to be someone from the council and blagged their details from various official sources and can tell you they are distraught"

Another interesting day today. Especially as it was a relatively 'celebrity free' day (Unless you count the solicitor, Gazza's ex-wife, random journo and the McCann's as celebrities).

Interesting bit when Gazza's ex-wife taking papers to court over libel. She had to put the house on the market to get to the point where they could get to court and when she presented her detailed evidence all the paper could provide is tape recordings of someone phoning in and making the accusations reported.

Hoping for another interesting day of this today. Headline acts as far as some sections of the media are concerned are JK Rowling and Sienna Miller but fully expecting Max Mosley to be the most forceful in his comments.

J K Rowling!!!

Why are they stalking her?? She was merely a kiddies author who did well, what's the public interest in making her life hell??

As for planting stuff in her daughter's bag so that she would pick it up later on, well how low will they stoop??

J K Rowling!!!

 

Why are they stalking her?? She was merely a kiddies author who did well, what's the public interest in making her life hell??

 

As for planting stuff in her daughter's bag so that she would pick it up later on, well how low will they stoop??

It appears they had it in for her because she refused to play their games. The longer this inquiry goes on the more the papers come out as being playground bullies. The fact that the NOTW chief reporter could blatantly try and blackmail people and that his editor appears to have thought nothing of it shows the complete lack of a moral compass in certain sections of the press.

J K Rowling!!!

 

Why are they stalking her?? She was merely a kiddies author who did well, what's the public interest in making her life hell??

 

As for planting stuff in her daughter's bag so that she would pick it up later on, well how low will they stoop??

J.K Rowling evidence was nothing short of shocking. Something has to change.

Sent from my HTC Hero using Tapatalk

Very interesting session today from different ends of the spectrum. First up was the ex Daily Star journalist about how they just made up stories and had to follow a particular line (Most people realise that that was the case but a lot more forceful when one of the perpetrators confirms it). Also good that they went through the Star's denial and he explained in some detail why each accusation was false. After that Nick Davis of the guardian explaining the number of confirming sources he got for everything he published and generally giving a masterclass in how a good journalist should work. The afternoon could prove the light relief with Paul McMullan taking the stand.

Very interesting session today from different ends of the spectrum. First up was the ex Daily Star journalist about how they just made up stories and had to follow a particular line (Most people realise that that was the case but a lot more forceful when one of the perpetrators confirms it). Also good that they went through the Star's denial and he explained in some detail why each accusation was false. After that Nick Davis of the guardian explaining the number of confirming sources he got for everything he published and generally giving a masterclass in how a good journalist should work. The afternoon could prove the light relief with Paul McMullan taking the stand.

Anyone following his evidence? Its almost like he's trying to conform to the stereotype of the scumbag journalist. The guy has no morals

4.27pm: McMullan says the News of the World stories have repercussions - he remembers one TV star being sacked.

 

Jefferson King – a Gladiator on TV. [i'd say] 'Tell me all about it and I'll turn you into a role model' and got him to say, 'Yeah I've done a line of cocaine' and immediately I rang up ITV and got him the sack.

 

It was a sacking offence not to do an interview that wasn't recorded

 

.

 

4.22pm: McMullan says he regrets the stories he did on Jennifer Elliott, the daughter of actor Denholm Elliott.

 

She became a drug user and started begging following the death of her father and the News of the World exposed this.

 

I really regret it because I'd got to know her very well and I really quite liked her. The fact she was begging outside Chalk Farm station came from a police officer, who had been surprised when he asked her to move on.

 

I went too far on that story. Someone crying out for help, not crying out for a News of the World reporter.

 

I then took her back to her flat and took a load of pictures of her topless.

 

Then she went on TV and described me as her boyfriend.

 

He adds:

 

When I heard a few years later that she'd killed herself I thought 'Yeah that's one I really regret.' But there's not many.

 

 

... Leveson interjects and read backs part of McMullan's statement slowly to make sure he heard correctly.

 

"I felt slightly proud that I had written something that created a riot and got a paediatrician beaten up."

 

Anyone following his evidence? Its almost like he's trying to conform to the stereotype of the scumbag journalist. The guy has no morals

I watched the feed when the other journalists were on but had to stop watching for McMullan as I can't stand comedy based on watching someone being embarrassing without them realising. Followed it on the guardian blog instead and if he does not find himself face down in a river soon I will be surprised.

Here's a round up of McMullan's evidence

• Former NoW deputy features editor brands Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks 'the scum of journalism'.

• Paul McMullan: hacking Milly Dowler's phone was "not a bad thing"

• He says Coulson and Brooks knew about hacking

• Privacy is for paedos says McMullan

• Car chases when Diana was alive was "such great fun"