llamatron Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 I just think its a waste of time reading these stories when you can't even trust the bbc news. I think tighter regulation from an independant regulator could make the press more useful. Only if it is done well obviously. Would it be possible to license journalists and revoke their licenses when they fabricate stories etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 For the Press to be free involves it in self-regulation. That's failed repeatedly- journalists cannot be trusted to behave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 And statutory regulation would not mean HMG having any say: only that an aggrieved person could have redress (unlike now). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 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? How do you propose to separate them practically and in the law, and who gets to decide? You are of course free to not believe anything that comes out of a tabloid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I just think its a waste of time reading these stories when you can't even trust the bbc news. I think tighter regulation from an independant regulator could make the press more useful. Only if it is done well obviously. Would it be possible to license journalists and revoke their licenses when they fabricate stories etc? Libel laws that were accesible to the public would take care of that problem. If investigative journalism takes place, who is to vet it's 'truth' before it's been published? Is there any way to determine the truth of some things before the press blows the issue wide open? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 And statutory regulation would not mean HMG having any say: only that an aggrieved person could have redress (unlike now). Once the press becomes controlled, even in a minor way, it sets a very dangerous precedent IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I just think its a waste of time reading these stories when you can't even trust the bbc news. I think tighter regulation from an independant regulator could make the press more useful. Only if it is done well obviously. Would it be possible to license journalists and revoke their licenses when they fabricate stories etc? Probably not. However Prescott suggested a statutory body with three judges who decide if a press story is a whopper or not. It was once suggested in a one off comedy drama 'Mr White Goes to Westminster' that the law should state that if a paper is proven to have lied then it must devote equal space for the victim to write their own article e.g. a Sun headline screaming THIS PAPER IS TRASH for example. Sounds good to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 How do you propose to separate them practically and in the law, and who gets to decide? You are of course free to not believe anything that comes out of a tabloid. are you claiming that only the tabloids mislead and lie? I only read and listen to the bbc generally and they do the same as all the tabloids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 Libel laws that were accesible to the public would take care of that problem. If investigative journalism takes place, who is to vet it's 'truth' before it's been published? Is there any way to determine the truth of some things before the press blows the issue wide open? suing the tabloid press would be extremely dangerous and prohibitively expensive for your average person. Bear in mind the celebrities were too intimidated to speak out because of the power the press have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 Probably not. However Prescott suggested a statutory body with three judges who decide if a press story is a whopper or not. It was once suggested in a one off comedy drama 'Mr White Goes to Westminster' that the law should state that if a paper is proven to have lied then it must devote equal space for the victim to write their own article e.g. a Sun headline screaming THIS PAPER IS TRASH for example. Sounds good to me. all you need is judges to decide whether there is enough evidence to give an injunction to halt the story until it can be proven. I like this idea:D The trouble with the free speech argument is that for it to be valid you have to accept that the press are out to get at the truth. This is no longer true. They are out to make as much cash as possible. They have massive control over our government and they are proven to lie regularly. I don't know why we should trust them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.