
Is the Daily Mail killing children?
No. Obviously not. Saying such a thing would constitute sensationalist reporting of the crudest kind, and I’m not going to resort to that.
But remember this:

No. Obviously not. Saying such a thing would constitute sensationalist reporting of the crudest kind, and I’m not going to resort to that.
But remember this:

The Daily Mail’s reaction today to the tragedy of Michael Philpott’s multiple manslaughter of his six children is not only quite disgusting, but it also shows the paper’s double standards:

Lucy Meadows, a transsexual woman formerly called Nathan Upton, committed suicide earlier this month, the victim of a media witch-hunt. In December, Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn published an attack on her that aimed to hound her out of her job as a primary school teacher.

Left Foot Forward has been broadly supportive of the Leveson process and has stood by the victims of hacking and press intrusion. But the amendment as it stands, which was passed by the House of Commons on Monday, has the potential to capture bloggers and other small publishers through its definition of what is a “relevant publisher”.

A cross-party deal for a new press regulator underpinned by statute has been struck after overnight talks between the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservatives.
Here’s how the twittersphere has reacted.

As Westminster debates how best to secure an effective new system of press regulation, Alex Salmond has sought to distance himself from a report his own government commissioned into how to implement the recommendations of Lord Justice Leveson north of the border.

Among a large part of the population, ‘Labour’ still means ‘authoritarian’. Over Leveson, it has once again revealed its authoritarian streak.

Opinion is divided over the government’s official response to the Leveson inquiry, with some calling for tougher legislation and others breathing a sigh of relief.

The resignation of Pope Benedict XVI divides opinion in the media.

James Delingpole is in trouble after the Met Office has eviscerated a number of claims he made in a bizarre Daily Mail article. The Met Office writes: “This article contains a series of factual inaccuracies about the Met Office andtest