The media (Interesting Guardian Article)

[Doh_boy]

After the current maxine carr thing (the media attempting to get the block on information pertaining to her lifted) I was thinking about the current state of the media. I believe it's gotten out of control and I figured it was down to the fact that they govern themselves. Anyway the article says it better than I do.

Guardian Article

What do people think? What would you do? I was thinking some sort of 'independant watchdog' but that would be another one of those of-X's (ofcom, oftel etc). And I kinda hate the idea of more bureaucracy.

 

[ArrrImmaPir8!]

There already is an independent watchdog; the Press Complaints Comission, however as I believe was stated in the other thread about Ms. Carr it doesn't have that much power. Something I feel it has in common with most of the agencies setup to supposedly curb the excesses of the field they are concerned with. Any sanctions they impose will be lower than the profit made from their claims.

 

[Doh_boy]

There already is an independent watchdog; the Press Complaints Comission, however as I believe was stated in the other thread about Ms. Carr it doesn't have that much power. Something I feel it has in common with most of the agencies setup to supposedly curb the excesses of the field they are concerned with. Any sanctions they impose will be lower than the profit made from their claims.

I was under the impression the press complaints commission wasn't indepentant. IIRC the press is 'self governed'. Which has always been a sticking point between politicians and the press. The politicians want the press to have a 'watchdog' but the press say that doing so will 'politicise' the press and remove it's 'freedom' or 'independance'.

I'll have a goose at the pcc when I get time.

 

[Munkey]

Actually the British press, unlike the US press, can be blocked from publishing stuff by the government. I think the government needs to excercise this right a bit more often tbh

 

[ArrrImmaPir8!]

In the US you can be gagged under state secrecy laws by the government or a court.

In light of the recent Michael Jackson furor a few of the press associations have asked the Supreme Court to overturn the gag order on the basis that it is against the freedom of speech garuntees in the US constitution. Written arguments were submitted last month I'm not sure when it's due to go before the grand jury.

 

[Munkey]

thats the thing with the US, there's the freedom of speech act. Unless it threatens the security of the state then they can print whatever the hell they like.

 

[ArrrImmaPir8!]

If they print ludicrously untrue claims they can and will be sued though. It all works pretty well for something which is an accident.

 

[Wij]

thats the thing with the US, there's the freedom of speech act. Unless it threatens the security of the state then they can print whatever the hell they like.

How else should things work ? Who gets to decide what's in the country's best interests ? Sounds like fascism or communism or something

FREE SPEECH 4 TEH WIN \o/

 

[Munkey]

So you're calling the leaders of the UK facists or communists?

 

[Wij]

So you're calling the leaders of the UK facists or communists?

Yes.

 

[Doh_boy]

How else should things work ? Who gets to decide what's in the country's best interests ? Sounds like fascism or communism or something

FREE SPEECH 4 TEH WIN \o/

Surely a persons individual freedom should be limited at the point where it adversely affects another persons life/human rights etc?

 

[TdC]

my freedom's bigger than yours

 

[Tom]

Surely a persons individual freedom should be limited at the point where it adversely affects another persons life/human rights etc?

That would remove the ability to effect political change though.

 

[SilverHood]

my freedom's bigger than yours

My freedom brings all the girls in the yard.
I could teach you, But I'd have to charge.

 

[Mazling]

The thing is, US press is owned by big evil corporations. Those corporations happen to be big sponsors of politicial parties. Go figure.
It's not just written press, TV is even worse. This is why such great offence was taken to the Hutton report over here - the BBC is pretty much apolitical. 99%.

 

[Tom]

Mazling, the UK press is owned by big evil corporations. Those corporations happen to be benefactors of our political parties. Go figure.

The BBC is not apolitical, its reporting is heavily biased by the fact that it relies on public money to operate, public money that can be cut off by a government of the future if they so wish. It cannot report independantly without considering its own future.

Oh, and the reason great offense was taken to the comments regarding the Hutton report, was because those comments were wrong.

 

[Collino]

Most of the stuff in the media today is over hyped and not reported correctly.

But how else are we gonna find stuff out? or do we really need to know stuff?

 

[Munkey]

the BBC do try to potray an unbiased viewpoint tho. It gets lambasted by the government quite a bit, may I indicate Simpson who was subjected to a smear campaign. But compared to other news channels i've watched, e.g. Fox, Sky, Orbit and CNN, the BBC is one hell of a lot less biased than that lot.

 

[Mazling]

Politicians are always going to try for more, though. It's a politician's job to change things. Anyway I'm not saying Britain is perfect, just that it could be worse: we've an example.

 

[Munkey]

Like Birmingham? Nothing can get as bad as birmingham.

But seriously, you'll always get some shit politicians, just as you'll always get some great politicians. The difference is that you can recognise one but not the other before sticking him/her into power.

Such is the way the die fall.

 

[Paradroid]

Freedom's a fiction, it's all in your mind.

/RANT

Of course, you're free to do whatever you want! - within preset boundaries.

Obviously, you can't be stopped overstepping those boundaries! - but if you do, you will be punished.

Simply knowing that these boundaries exist, is all that it takes to limit your freedom (of will)...(the concept, not the FH member ).

You're only truly free if you can live your whole life the way you want to and never naturally cross that boundary, or, if you are completely unaware of the boundaries as you cross them (ignorance is bliss?).

What's the end result of limiting peoples freedoms? A fekin chip in da head monitoring your every move? Allowing you just enough control to choose from a lunch menu and vote for the next world leader from a predefined list (thereby enforcing the notion of freedom)?

Think of the bright side, maybe you really are a criminal, but you're just afraid of the consequences. In which case, remember, God hates cowards! You'll be punished just the same as if you did do all those things you're thinking about! (P.S. I'm not religious, I just like telling that to people who are.) Have you never heard of thought crimes?!? "Coming soon, to a sociopath near you!".

I say, let the papers print WTF they like!!!
FH posters too! (read the CoC).

RANT/

 

[Tom]

Such is the way the die fall.

I think you mean cast tbh.

 

[Wij]

Actually, the BBC is quite heavily biased a lot of the time. Being in the position of not having to worry about it's sponsor's viewpoints (the general public aren't half as careful as Rupert Murdoch) it ends to attract a greater proportion of 'radical consciences' I always found ITN to be much less agenda-driven.

 

[Munkey]

I think you mean cast tbh.

Nah, I think mine is still applicable

 

[Mazling]

I've always found ITN (in fact, most TV news) to be ratings-driven. If some people don't want to stay informed and TV news has to resort the cat-stuck-up-tree or someone's-grandma-spontaneously-combusts-at-same-time-as-president-takes-number-two then let's just leave it to darwin. And I'm sure the majority viewpoints have no problem of making themselves heard.