truman Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 But saying 'controlled' is the error there. Being subject to legal requirements is not being 'controlled'. Doesn't that depend what the legal requirements are? As an extreme what if one of the legal requirements was to not publish anything about MPs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 29, 2012 Author Share Posted November 29, 2012 Overall it seems what leveson has said is pretty sensible: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20543936 The more I think about it the more I blame the bbc. They get our money in order that they can be unbiased and independant-they should be setting the standards and not dressing up gossip as news. If we could rely on them for reporting unbiased truths other newspapers would have to up their standards. At the moment it feels like the bbc is just at the back of the race to the bottom. The enquiry was one of the most interesting (and disturbing things I have watched in a long time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I don't think I've ever seen the BBC as biased and incompetent as they have been of late. BBC Breakfast News has now become dumbed down to a shocking level, Panorama is in becoming a laughing stock and turning into Watchdog and the less said about Newsnight the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilldig Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 One problem I see is if the state controlled the press,would we learn about mp's fiddling expenses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 One problem I see is if the state controlled the press,would we learn about mp's fiddling expenses? I don't think anyone is suggesting that the state should control the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Doesn't that depend what the legal requirements are? Yes, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 The more I think about it the more I blame the bbc. They get our money in order that they can be unbiased and independant-they should be setting the standards and not dressing up gossip as news. If we could rely on them for reporting unbiased truths other newspapers would have to up their standards. At the moment it feels like the bbc is just at the back of the race to the bottom. The BBC is in more trouble tonight for promoting the cull of badgers, and attacking the government and suggesting farmers take the matter into their own hands - in Welsh soap Pobol-Y-Cwm. The government are trying to get tonight's episode taken off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 The report doesn't seem to suggest any muzzling, just a quicker and more efficient system for innocent victims of bad reporting to get redress without expensive legal action. Seems sensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 You are of course free to not believe anything that any of them print or report. Absolutely. The sad thing is that the press seem to be able to influence how people vote in elections for example. I always thought this was limited to papers like the Sun with a malleable readership. Then in the last election the Guardian urged its readers to back the LibDems. To this day almost every week you will see comments on Guardian site demanding that the Guardian editors apologise for duping readers into voting LibDem. It makes me chuckle - the Guardian readers are supposed to be free thinking and intelligent but some of them still did what the paper told them to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 The report doesn't seem to suggest any muzzling, just a quicker and more efficient system for innocent victims of bad reporting to get redress without expensive legal action. Seems sensible. It's the start of state regulation though. One step, and each one after it will be well justified... ---------- Post added 29-11-2012 at 21:35 ---------- But saying 'controlled' is the error there. Being subject to legal requirements is not being 'controlled'. That's exactly what legal requirements to do or not do certain things are, control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.