andygardener Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 It's the start of state regulation though. One step, and each one after it will be well justified... As I understand it Cameron isn't going to put in place the legal parts so it's still not going to be state regulation. The press have had 8 chances at self regulation, an independant body is well overdue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck 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.Absolutely, I can't believe anyone in a free society would want suppression of the press because they didn't like what was written. We are all free to not read a paper we don't like or seek a counter opinion from one we do like. It's as simple as that. You have a choice of morning papers in Britain larger than anywhere else. Some are pure garbage in my opinion, but some very good ones too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Quote: Originally Posted by biotechpete 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? I wasn't suggesting that anyone on here said that, but I did hear a similar position staked out by several commentators in the run up to the report. I'm not usually the one calling for statutory regulation but in this case, I can't honestly see what makes the print media a special case. Why shouldn't they be subject to exactly the same rules as TV journalists? What I want is for the press to be answerable to all of us, especially when they wield such power so irresponsibly. Whilst SF hasn't broken stories about moat cleaning, it's probably the best medium locally for accurate news, to keep our council honest and to motivate communities into action. Equally Twitter is changing the rules of the game every day. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 As I understand it Cameron isn't going to put in place the legal parts so it's still not going to be state regulation. The press have had 8 chances at self regulation, an independant body is well overdue. When this thread was started the report wasn't even out. I haven't actually heard the response from Cameron on the report today, but if he's going to avoid legislation then I think that's a good thing. That doesn't alter my argument about why legislation would be a bad thing though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Absolutely, I can't believe anyone in a free society would want suppression of the press because they didn't like what was written. We are all free to not read a paper we don't like or seek a counter opinion from one we do like. It's as simple as that. You have a choice of morning papers in Britain larger than anywhere else. Some are pure garbage in my opinion, but some very good ones too. It's not opinion pieces I mind, it the "facts" within them that turn out to be big fat lies. There have been some fantastic pieces of investigate journalism in recent years but that is out weighed by spiteful, inaccurate tattle. In the words of spiderman ;) (well, his uncle) with great power comes great responsability. They have power to influence and harass and ruin with little comeback unless you are already minted and powerful. If you aren't, the best you can hope for from the press in way of apology is a tiny box in page 6. This is well overdue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Quote: Originally Posted by Cyclone Once the press becomes controlled, even in a minor way, it sets a very dangerous precedent IMO. Absolutely, I can't believe anyone in a free society would want suppression of the press because they didn't like what was written. We are all free to not read a paper we don't like or seek a counter opinion from one we do like. It's as simple as that. You have a choice of morning papers in Britain larger than anywhere else. Some are pure garbage in my opinion, but some very good ones too. And yet we happily accept regulation of our lawyers, doctors, scientists, teachers etc. So why? If we can trust journalists to regulate themselves why not the rest of them? Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Doctors aren't in a position to hold the government to account. That's something the press can do though. They can and do publish stories that the people running the country would rather they didn't. And that's why it's important that they are not and are not thought to be controlled by the government. Doctors on the other hand, we expect to be regulated in order to ensure that we are safe. I'm not sure how lawyers or teachers or scientists are controlled by the government though. There is no need to register as a scientist and only work on approved experiments... Teachers are free to teach whatever they wish (if not employed by the state). Lawyers can and do sue the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Doctors aren't in a position to hold the government to account. That's something the press can do though. They can and do publish stories that the people running the country would rather they didn't. And that's why it's important that they are not and are not thought to be controlled by the government. Doctors on the other hand, we expect to be regulated in order to ensure that we are safe. I'm not sure how lawyers or teachers or scientists are controlled by the government though. There is no need to register as a scientist and only work on approved experiments... Teachers are free to teach whatever they wish (if not employed by the state). Lawyers can and do sue the government. Scientists are regulated in that they can't just do any experiment they want - e.g. in some cases they need ethical approval. There is no mechanism to hold them to account of they commit scientific fraud though. So yes in general they are far less regulated than e.g. doctors, but its not zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 And yet we happily accept regulation of our lawyers, doctors, scientists, teachers etc. So why? If we can trust journalists to regulate themselves why not the rest of them? Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android It is the responsibility of the professions you have named, along with others, to serve the public by their professionalism. It is the job of journalists to be watchdogs over that professionalism to make sure the public doesn't get hurt. They serve no other purpose. Once they go beyond that premise they are no longer journalists, but columnists, and I don't much like columnists unless, of course, I agree with them:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 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. I think this right. I thought in the HofC today that Milliband looked stupid saying we should just follow what the report says. It's yesterday's news I think, the real power coming into force is social media, and that lack of control in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.