llamatron Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 if you can't trust they are telling the truth. Thinking about leveson. I am for some legislation because I never wholly believe what I read so what is the point? I also think there should be severe punishments for wrong doing by the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 The power of the press is disappearing fast. Leverson really only exposed what we already knew, journalists make stuff up to sell papers and in some cases push their own predujices, and they've been doing it for years. If they had the circulation figures of 10 years ago I'd want stiffer regulation, but in 10 years time half of them will, if we're lucky be gone. They don't think they have any responsability and leverson hasnt changed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 if you can't trust they are telling the truth. Thinking about leveson. I am for some legislation because I never wholly believe what I read so what is the point? I also think there should be severe punishments for wrong doing by the press. I don't see why we need more regulation. In the case where journalists hacked celebrity phones this is illegal and they can already be prosecuted - so why does this not happen? Why not enforce the law instead of introducing new regulation to do the same thing? In the case where journalists illegally purchased stolen documents that resulted in us finding out what MPs were up to with their expenses there should be a public interest defence introduced so they cannot be prosecuted. Unfortunately many people will love it if the Leveson enquiry results in the introduction of new regulations that outlaw illegal activity, especially in cases such as this (possibly why many MPs support it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 I don't see why we need more regulation. In the case where journalists hacked celebrity phones this is illegal and they can already be prosecuted - so why does this not happen? Why not enforce the law instead of introducing new regulation to do the same thing? In the case where journalists illegally purchased stolen documents that resulted in us finding out what MPs were up to with their expenses there should be a public interest defence introduced so they cannot be prosecuted. Unfortunately many people will love it if the Leveson enquiry results in the introduction of new regulations that outlaw illegal activity, especially in cases such as this (possibly why many MPs support it). I was thinking more along the lines of the fabricated and deliberately misleading stories rather than the criminal activity. The worst I can think of being christopher jeffries. The press accused him of murder and printed libelous rumours when he was only being held for questioning. I remember at the time thinking it was disgusting behaviour and that was when for all I knew he was guilty. The fact is the little people will have trouble getting justice because they cannot afford to sue the papers-thats one of the things that bothers me. The other major thing is that printing a retraction is just not good enough when you have accused someone of murder/paedophilia or published private pictures etc I also think the bbc should set a standard and it seems to be failing at that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 if you can't trust they are telling the truth. Thinking about leveson. I am for some legislation because I never wholly believe what I read so what is the point? I also think there should be severe punishments for wrong doing by the press. There are good reasons to have a free press, whilst they should be regulated and should be forced to obey the law, their freedom helps to keep our democracy honest (reasonably so). A non free press in the traditional sense could never have reported on the expenses scandal and so no thieving MPs could have been prosecuted and no change in the culture could have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 There are good reasons to have a free press, whilst they should be regulated and should be forced to obey the law, their freedom helps to keep our democracy honest (reasonably so). A non free press in the traditional sense could never have reported on the expenses scandal and so no thieving MPs could have been prosecuted and no change in the culture could have happened. it should clearly be free from government control but I would like to know they are regulated enough that I actually believe whats written. Stage 1 could be separating the trash from real news I guess. The trash could be regulated to the point where only nice staged photos of celebrities are allowed and the real news can be as free as it is now. Why do we have to have the same set of rules for proper journalism and the photographers with super long lenses taking bikini shots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I was thinking more along the lines of the fabricated and deliberately misleading stories rather than the criminal activity. The worst I can think of being christopher jeffries. The press accused him of murder and printed libelous rumours when he was only being held for questioning. I remember at the time thinking it was disgusting behaviour and that was when for all I knew he was guilty. The fact is the little people will have trouble getting justice because they cannot afford to sue the papers-thats one of the things that bothers me. He did sue and got a huge payout from a number of newspapers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 He did sue and got a huge payout from a number of newspapers.... but its too late, the damage was done. Also the fines will not have been enough to make them more careful in the future. I just think a lot of newspapers are using freedom of the press as an excuse for lazy stories and lazy reporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I agree. I think it's dreadful, what we should do is introduce state regulation, in fact why don't we just have one source of news vetted by the government to make sure it's all true and not scurrilous and doesn't contain dangerous prejudice or any ideas which are against the current dominant way of thinking. We could call it Pravda. :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 I agree. I think it's dreadful, what we should do is introduce state regulation, in fact why don't we just have one source of news vetted by the government to make sure it's all true and not scurrilous and doesn't contain dangerous prejudice or any ideas which are against the current dominant way of thinking. We could call it Pravda. :roll: The world is actually not black and white:roll::roll: I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you only read the headline (this is why headlines that mislead you about the story should be banned) hopefully you will never find out what it was like to be christopher jeffries. Or have a daughter that becomes famous for having an amazing talent and the press do a countdown to when she is "legal"-another particularly disgusting one! or a daughter that is kidnapped and the press decide you did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.