Cyclone Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 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 You are of course free to not believe anything that any of them print or report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Id like to see the PCC be replaced with people on a panel that are chosen by the people and or automatic seats for particular job roles. For example, Which magazine customers chooses its Council members, and it aims to make individuals as powerful as the organisations they have to deal with in their daily lives, which is exactly what we want the Independent panel to be. Therefore, offering 2 spaces on the panel to Which? would benefit us. In our digital age, organising voting online is hardly a difficult ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I'm really not convinced any longer that newspapers; which AFAIK is all these proposals affect, are essential for a free society. The notion that the printed press are somehow the last bastion of freedom against state imposed tyranny is laughable. They are no more representative of the general public than politicians and often act to uphold the values of the elites and their own self interest. The internet provides the freedom of speech required for democratic discourse much more effectively than the press. The idea of press freedom was only vital when it was the only form of dissemination of ideas and dissent. There are much better alternatives now. It's internet regulation which is a bigger threat to our democracy. It seems to me what we need is a press which is answerable to the public as opposed to the state, and certainly not only to themselves. There are no other professions which are allowed such a free reign to damage peoples lives like the press. Arguably there are some that are equally as vital to our societal fabric. Yet the notion of the freedom of scientists or doctors or teachers is an anathema. In science prior to any investigation, even giving people a questionnaire, a proposal must be considered by a ethical review board. That approval must appear in any publication. And the investigator must undergo mandatory training in ethics. The panel is made of both experts and lay members who sometimes judge, however unfairly, on the merits of the investigation in question. I see no practical difference between the question my colleague might ask and the far more intrusive questions a journalist might ask. They are both published in print but only one is likely to identify the subject. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiteowl Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 The notion that the printed press are somehow the last bastion of freedom against state imposed tyranny is laughable. They are no more representative of the general public than politicians and often act to uphold the values of the elites and their own self interest. The internet provides the freedom of speech required for democratic discourse much more effectively than the press. The idea of press freedom was only vital when it was the only form of dissemination of ideas and dissent. There are much better alternatives now. It's internet regulation which is a bigger threat to our democracy. The best couple of paragraphs I've read on here in a long while, bravo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I'm really not convinced any longer that newspapers; which AFAIK is all these proposals affect, are essential for a free society. The notion that the printed press are somehow the last bastion of freedom against state imposed tyranny is laughable. They are no more representative of the general public than politicians and often act to uphold the values of the elites and their own self interest. The internet provides the freedom of speech required for democratic discourse much more effectively than the press. The idea of press freedom was only vital when it was the only form of dissemination of ideas and dissent. There are much better alternatives now. It's internet regulation which is a bigger threat to our democracy. It seems to me what we need is a press which is answerable to the public as opposed to the state, and certainly not only to themselves. There are no other professions which are allowed such a free reign to damage peoples lives like the press. Arguably there are some that are equally as vital to our societal fabric. Yet the notion of the freedom of scientists or doctors or teachers is an anathema. In science prior to any investigation, even giving people a questionnaire, a proposal must be considered by a ethical review board. That approval must appear in any publication. And the investigator must undergo mandatory training in ethics. The panel is made of both experts and lay members who sometimes judge, however unfairly, on the merits of the investigation in question. I see no practical difference between the question my colleague might ask and the far more intrusive questions a journalist might ask. They are both published in print but only one is likely to identify the subject. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android I don't think I (or anyone) suggested they were "the last bastion" of free speech. They do enjoy some level of free speech though, and they do help, far more than bloggers and posters on forums to hold the government to account. Perhaps you can tell us about the last time a government scandal was blown open by a collection of posters on SF as opposed to the Telegraph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Politicians are also elected by the majority of the electorate or at least the majority of the electorate participate in general elections. Do the majority take daft undisciplined bloggers like Guido Fawkes and his pals seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 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. I agree with you entirely and lets not forget the law is already tough enought to deal with press misdemeanours such as the investigation into Rebekah Brooks and that tory press aid (his name escapes me). Why do we need more legislation. Guess whos spearheading the campaing for this Hugh (I cheated on my hot girlfriend with a prostitute) Grant. Also lets look at the serious misjustice "Superinjunctions" where rich Celebs CTB (Welsh idiot who plays for Man U) had an affair with Imogen Thomas yet the press couldnt release the information. Also the restrictions placed on the press of mentioning the name of the Child who ran off with the Maths teacher to France. Yet I have mentioned on another thread google "teen ran off with Maths teacher" and you will find her name everywhere. Press freedoms have never been so restricted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 29, 2012 Author Share Posted November 29, 2012 I don't think I (or anyone) suggested they were "the last bastion" of free speech. They do enjoy some level of free speech though, and they do help, far more than bloggers and posters on forums to hold the government to account. Perhaps you can tell us about the last time a government scandal was blown open by a collection of posters on SF as opposed to the Telegraph? Do you not think the fact that our politicians have to suck up to them in order to stay in politics is a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 29, 2012 Author Share Posted November 29, 2012 I agree with you entirely and lets not forget the law is already tough enought to deal with press misdemeanours such as the investigation into Rebekah Brooks and that tory press aid (his name escapes me). Why do we need more legislation. Guess whos spearheading the campaing for this Hugh (I cheated on my hot girlfriend with a prostitute) Grant. Also lets look at the serious misjustice "Superinjunctions" where rich Celebs CTB (Welsh idiot who plays for Man U) had an affair with Imogen Thomas yet the press couldnt release the information. Also the restrictions placed on the press of mentioning the name of the Child who ran off with the Maths teacher to France. Yet I have mentioned on another thread google "teen ran off with Maths teacher" and you will find her name everywhere. Press freedoms have never been so restricted. The thing is we really don't need to know who hugh grant has sex with. Its not vital or relevant information. The current laws seem entirely enough for me (if enforced-which they aren't!) when talking about harrassment and criminal activity such as the voice mails. Part of it could be a method of ensuring police arrest journalists and photographers that harrass celebrities by chasing them or their children and photographing them in private places. I think there should be a massive change in libel cases and when private photos and information are printed when they are just not relevant to anyone. Until there is some way we can stop them from lying and fabricating stories I don't really see their worth. The internet is much better. Lets face it if they have proof of their stories they have nothing to fear. If they have no proof why are they printing them? (Newsnight suddenly springs to mind) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Once the press becomes controlled, even in a minor way, it sets a very dangerous precedent IMO. But saying 'controlled' is the error there. Being subject to legal requirements is not being 'controlled'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.