Printable View
Will the British Government continue to rely on the tired old argument of freedom of speech and the idea of maintaining a healthy sharp toothed skeptical press to propagate an unhealthy nepotistic relationship with the press in which they allow an incestuous press complaints commission to regulate it's own rabid pack of press hounds, all led by the same hunt masters who simultaneously apparently represent the league against cruel sports ?
Dunno.:-\
I'm not really sure what is being asked, but the whole process seems convoluted and I don't see why. Phone hacking is a criminal act and stalking a person is immoral and I think the press needs to be accountable for these two things. Anyone caught for doing these things needs to be put in prison when you see people being put away then the message gets hammered home.
I just don't understand the need to stalk celebrities 24/7. They are not that interesting. If I did that I would be given a restraining order, but the press get a free pass. If I was famous there would be a lot of broken cameras. Not cool.
You are right that accountability is not something that can be avoided by declaring some random public interest cause when a media organisation is harassing the bereaved families of dead innocents. Self regulation is a joke in which an increasingly seedy and frivolous tabloid culture is seeking to ignore any code of dignity and carries on as it likes safe in the knowledge that it's own editors are running the press complaints commission. It has to change but Politicians are so deeply inserted into media barons cosy crevices that I fear they will pontificate and bring up a silly muzzling argument to protect the bastards that violate the rights of dead murder victims. I am not so much posing a question as trying to stimulate a discussion in an interesting ethical debate that is happening right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
My previous post was somewhat simplistic concerning a multi faceted issue. I agree with you, you have a bed in with politicians and newspapers and the trouble with enquiries is that nothing tends to change. They are largely about telling the people something is being done, but really things get swept under the carpet and nothing much really changes.
The British tabloids in particular are a venomous and out of control species of media and unfortunately are the papers most people read. The only defence is that I think the better newspapers in the UK are pretty darn good. Far from perfect as any news source is, but a world away from the dross that crawls beneath.
They shouldn't be allowed to restrain the press in any qway. The government restricts so much information already that anything that does get out is worth any price in terms of press intrusion etc. My only complaint about the press is that they hacked the phones of a bunch of fucking celebrities. They should have hacked some consequential people instead.
So you are quite happy with a society in which murder victims phones are hacked? A system of self regulation in which an innocent person can be presumed guilty of murder and painted as such by a hungry media eager to fulfill the baying hounds bloodlust ? You seem to be arguing for the continuation of the status quo in which the government serves not the public but the media barons who dictate their own agenda. This is not about preventing the investigation of governments , powerful individuals and organisations it is about not harassing bereaved relatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Have some sort of compensation ystem where anything like that means massive fines and money paid to the family by the paper, but don't stop the papers from shining light where the authorities don't want it. If they allow this commission it'll neuter the press worse than it already is. Not good for democracy at all. Dragging murder victims into it just help the powerful get what they want, which is a muzzle for the press.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenbeanzSo you are quite happy with a society in which murder victims phones are hacked? A system of self regulation in which an innocent person can be presumed guilty of murder and painted as such by a hungry media eager to fulfill the baying hounds bloodlust ? You seem to be arguing for the continuation of the status quo in which the government serves not the public but the media barons who dictate their own agenda. This is not about preventing the investigation of governments , powerful individuals and organisations it is about not harassing bereaved relatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
That's not a good argument. Privacy is important and a paper has no right to hack your phone. As a private person as all people are then you have a right to not have your texts form the basis of a news story. Twitter is for self hanging, a phone text is between you and the person you are texting. It isn't about fines or compensation.
Kirkland, you usually make good points, but I find you a bit odd on this one.
OK then, ban press intrusion for things like murder cases and celebrities or whatever. But not for consequential stuff.
Stalking celebrities is not on, but you do need good political coverage. We likely agree strongly on the later. Wikileaks is great, but coverage of the maturation Charlotte Church? Not so worthwhile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
I thought you were in the business of knowing what is right ? You sound like a spin doctor for a politician or a patsy for some big media baron. "Muzzle for the Press" ? Nobody is suggesting for one moment that the press should not be able to be exhaustive in its research of and vociferous in it's opposition to Government or Politicians. Your telling phrase "Dragging murder victims into it" suggests you have no interest in the issue and have read or even watched nothing about it, within this thread or anywhere else. The inquiry itself was started in part by the illegal hacking of the voicemail of school girl murder victim Millie Dowler a process which led her distraught Mother to believe she was still alive because her voicemail had been accessed. The press have continued to behave unethically and because of it's easy access to top lawyers, Illegally and this has left innocent victims little redress. The suggestion that a body other than it's own editors can call it to account on such occasions with fines and threats of legal redress seems perfectly sane and one wonders what those who use "muzzle the Press" arguments have to hide and lose in such situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingHave some sort of compensation ystem where anything like that means massive fines and money paid to the family by the paper, but don't stop the papers from shining light where the authorities don't want it. If they allow this commission it'll neuter the press worse than it already is. Not good for democracy at all. Dragging murder victims into it just help the powerful get what they want, which is a muzzle for the press.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenbeanzSo you are quite happy with a society in which murder victims phones are hacked? A system of self regulation in which an innocent person can be presumed guilty of murder and painted as such by a hungry media eager to fulfill the baying hounds bloodlust ? You seem to be arguing for the continuation of the status quo in which the government serves not the public but the media barons who dictate their own agenda. This is not about preventing the investigation of governments , powerful individuals and organisations it is about not harassing bereaved relatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
I am not a huge fan but Church was very eloquent and well versed in all the issues and did really well on question time in presenting some salient facts. As for her own case well it turns out there are some really mean old bitches about ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by GandalfStalking celebrities is not on, but you do need good political coverage. We likely agree strongly on the later. Wikileaks is great, but coverage of the maturation Charlotte Church? Not so worthwhile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT8GP3xB-Pc
Yes, bloody hell! What a mean old bitch! :o;D
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenbeanzI thought you were in the business of knowing what is right ? You sound like a spin doctor for a politician or a patsy for some big media baron. "Muzzle for the Press" ? Nobody is suggesting for one moment that the press should not be able to be exhaustive in its research of and vociferous in it's opposition to Government or Politicians. Your telling phrase "Dragging murder victims into it" suggests you have no interest in the issue and have read or even watched nothing about it, within this thread or anywhere else. The inquiry itself was started in part by the illegal hacking of the voicemail of school girl murder victim Millie Dowler a process which led her distraught Mother to believe she was still alive because her voicemail had been accessed. The press have continued to behave unethically and because of it's easy access to top lawyers, Illegally and this has left innocent victims little redress. The suggestion that a body other than it's own editors can call it to account on such occasions with fines and threats of legal redress seems perfectly sane and one wonders what those who use "muzzle the Press" arguments have to hide and lose in such situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingHave some sort of compensation ystem where anything like that means massive fines and money paid to the family by the paper, but don't stop the papers from shining light where the authorities don't want it. If they allow this commission it'll neuter the press worse than it already is. Not good for democracy at all. Dragging murder victims into it just help the powerful get what they want, which is a muzzle for the press.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenbeanzSo you are quite happy with a society in which murder victims phones are hacked? A system of self regulation in which an innocent person can be presumed guilty of murder and painted as such by a hungry media eager to fulfill the baying hounds bloodlust ? You seem to be arguing for the continuation of the status quo in which the government serves not the public but the media barons who dictate their own agenda. This is not about preventing the investigation of governments , powerful individuals and organisations it is about not harassing bereaved relatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Look, this inquiry is currently trying to push for an anti-democratic law and it's using emotive cases like Milly Dowler to get public support. The government and the political class in general would like nothing better than to muzzle the press.
Remember the parliamentary expenses scandal? Some fucker billing the cost of cleaning his moat to the taxpaer? You'd never have heard of that with this law. We'd be like France where politicians can do what they want, take any kind of bribes, openly live with mistresses and it doesn't get reported. If Milly Dowler is the best reason you can come up with to make a law like this, I rest my case.