ChatterBank1 min ago
End Of A Free Press.....
17 Answers
http://
Or the necessary regulation of a group who have failed to put their own house in order?
Or the necessary regulation of a group who have failed to put their own house in order?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You don't give freedom to one group of people, by taking it away from others. The press have shown that they have no problems whatsoever with increasing their profits by fair means or foul. As they have shown that they are incapable of regulating themselves, our democratically-elected Government has no choice but to do it for them.
Cameron should pull his finger out and get on with it, instead of pussyfooting around the big powerful press barons.
Cameron should pull his finger out and get on with it, instead of pussyfooting around the big powerful press barons.
Free?
Free to bug people, to hack their phone mail boxes,?
Free to photograph people with long lenses?
Free to lie cheat and steal?
Yes
They will still be free to print the truth - free to accuse the guilty where they have evidence.
They will even be free within limits to break the law if there's a genuine public interest defense.
I think their outrage, indignation and frantic legal action gives me great hope that government has actually got this right and that it will work
Free to bug people, to hack their phone mail boxes,?
Free to photograph people with long lenses?
Free to lie cheat and steal?
Yes
They will still be free to print the truth - free to accuse the guilty where they have evidence.
They will even be free within limits to break the law if there's a genuine public interest defense.
I think their outrage, indignation and frantic legal action gives me great hope that government has actually got this right and that it will work
A senior journalist wrote to The Times to say that the Chartered Institute of Journalists, founded by Royal Charter in 1890, had, in its charter, a rule that journalists must act ethically at all times. He thought that sufficient. That any journalist can think that demonstrates just how wilfully blind the profession can be.
"You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God, the British journalist. But seeing what the man will do, unbribed, there's no occasion to" wrote Humbert Wolfe in the early part of the C20. And as Kipling famously said to Max Aitken, later Lord Beaverbrook, soon after the latter had acquired the Daily Express in 1916, Aitken's press wanted "Power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages". Both statements remain true.
"You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God, the British journalist. But seeing what the man will do, unbribed, there's no occasion to" wrote Humbert Wolfe in the early part of the C20. And as Kipling famously said to Max Aitken, later Lord Beaverbrook, soon after the latter had acquired the Daily Express in 1916, Aitken's press wanted "Power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages". Both statements remain true.
But if they bugged corrupt Tory MP's or photographed Tory MP's doing underhand deals would your view change Jake?
--------------
That sort of activity comes under the umbrella of investigative journalism.
Hacking the phone of a murdered schoolgirl, printing photos of the breasts of a member of the Royal family or besmirching the record of a dead man who despite his idealism served this country in a time of war do not, IMHO.
--------------
That sort of activity comes under the umbrella of investigative journalism.
Hacking the phone of a murdered schoolgirl, printing photos of the breasts of a member of the Royal family or besmirching the record of a dead man who despite his idealism served this country in a time of war do not, IMHO.
Cameron should pull his finger out and get on with it, instead of pussyfooting around the big powerful press barons.
-----------------
Maybe he's a little reluctant at the moment given that a jury has only just been selected to try his ginger coiffured former riding partner and her cohorts.
Perhaps it'll stay on the back burner until that trial is over and the dust has settled.
-----------------
Maybe he's a little reluctant at the moment given that a jury has only just been selected to try his ginger coiffured former riding partner and her cohorts.
Perhaps it'll stay on the back burner until that trial is over and the dust has settled.
Jake-the-peg
Free?
Free to bug people, to hack their phone mail boxes,?///
Aren't you being disingenuous.
They're not free to do these things, are they. In fact some of them are on trial at the moment.
People who break the law won't necessarily alter their ways because of new regulations.
I can't help thinking the MPs expenses scandal would never have seen the light of day under a government appointed regulator.
And before you say its not government appointed it will be comprised of the same old toadies who rely on these Gov. Sinecures to make a living and who know which side their bread is buttered on, imo.
Free?
Free to bug people, to hack their phone mail boxes,?///
Aren't you being disingenuous.
They're not free to do these things, are they. In fact some of them are on trial at the moment.
People who break the law won't necessarily alter their ways because of new regulations.
I can't help thinking the MPs expenses scandal would never have seen the light of day under a government appointed regulator.
And before you say its not government appointed it will be comprised of the same old toadies who rely on these Gov. Sinecures to make a living and who know which side their bread is buttered on, imo.
We could have new laws. It could be a criminal offence to invade privacy. It could be made criminal for the paparazzi to hound people or for hordes of journalists to follow them to their door or set up camp outside it. But whatever criminal offences we have , the press will be yelling about freedom to make money, sorry, to enable free speech, and be claiming that prosecutions are political.
Necessary regulation, I feel. The activities of some of the papers has been despicable, and their attempt to avoid more rigorous regulation desperate.
I think the expenses scandal would still have come out; Remember that "The Telegraph" were technically breaking the law anyway when they printed the original story, but they had a public interest defence. No regulator, even if indirectly appointed by politicians, could have prevented the publication of that story. The press are making far too much of this idea that somehow they will be gagged, stifled, by a cabal of politicians vetting which stories they can or cannot print.
The list of their excesses, their reluctance to issue prominent apologies or pay reasonable damages, and their weak and feeble defence of stories they print is endless. Long overdue for a change.
I think the expenses scandal would still have come out; Remember that "The Telegraph" were technically breaking the law anyway when they printed the original story, but they had a public interest defence. No regulator, even if indirectly appointed by politicians, could have prevented the publication of that story. The press are making far too much of this idea that somehow they will be gagged, stifled, by a cabal of politicians vetting which stories they can or cannot print.
The list of their excesses, their reluctance to issue prominent apologies or pay reasonable damages, and their weak and feeble defence of stories they print is endless. Long overdue for a change.
1 to 17 of 17
