llamatron Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 One problem I see is if the state controlled the press,would we learn about mp's fiddling expenses? there is a difference between state control and more regulation. ---------- Post added 30-11-2012 at 08:58 ---------- 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 ---------- That's exactly what legal requirements to do or not do certain things are, control. But when they have proved time and time again that they are not willing to allow the truth to get in the way of story that will sell they have shot themselves in the foot. ---------- Post added 30-11-2012 at 09:00 ---------- 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. the trouble is its not that we don't like what is written, its that they are destroying peoples lives. Frightening them, libelling them and the punishments they give to themselves when they are proved to be in the wrong are pathetic. As biotech said, no other profession gets away with behaviour like this but because they have given themselves the power to destroy peoples lives they know they can get away with anything. ---------- Post added 30-11-2012 at 09:05 ---------- 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. This is exactly why the press should be regulated. They should not be able to get away with deceiving us or to ruin the lives of innocent people. Why are you ignoring the fact that no-one is calling for government control of the press? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 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. There is no scientific regulatory body, ethical approval is something required by funding bodies normally, it's not government mandated or controlled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 There is no scientific regulatory body, ethical approval is something required by funding bodies normally, it's not government mandated or controlled. I guess the difference is that having your scientific research discredited is a huge embarrassment whereas labelling someone a murderer when they are innocent is an easy mistake to make-could have happened to anyone! Ur not if you actually did some research rather than just asking random people that live nearby whether the bloke was "creepy". The majority of the science community take their research seriously the majority of (at least tabloid) journalists don't. However I would like to see both "disbarred" if they are found to have lied. The bbc should be acting as the shining beacon that all the other papers have to keep up with but we can't even trust them. The journalists involved in that newsnight story should have been sacked with no pay off. The only intimate knowledge I have had of a story written on the bbc news website was a similar thing. The journalist did no investigation for themselves they just got a story second hand from a dodgy source and went with it. The people involved actually contacted the bbc to ensure they had the correct information but they didn't go with the factual version-it wasn't as juicy. Correct me if I am wrong but shouldn't the journalists that named christopher jeffries be in jail. They named a potential defendent in a murder. Doesn't that prejudice the case (not sure if that is an american thing?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 The solution to the problem you're highlighting is to make it easier for people wronged by the press to seek and get compensation through the courts. There is no way to 'disbar' a scientist, they'll just never be taken seriously again. Naming a defendant doesn't prejudice a case, facts about investigations are often published, if it were illegal courts would have no problem with slapping down the papers involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 there is a difference between state control and more regulation. ---------- Post added 30-11-2012 at 08:58 ---------- But when they have proved time and time again that they are not willing to allow the truth to get in the way of story that will sell they have shot themselves in the foot. ---------- Post added 30-11-2012 at 09:00 ---------- the trouble is its not that we don't like what is written, its that they are destroying peoples lives. Frightening them, libelling them and the punishments they give to themselves when they are proved to be in the wrong are pathetic. As biotech said, no other profession gets away with behaviour like this but because they have given themselves the power to destroy peoples lives they know they can get away with anything. ---------- Post added 30-11-2012 at 09:05 ---------- This is exactly why the press should be regulated. They should not be able to get away with deceiving us or to ruin the lives of innocent people. Why are you ignoring the fact that no-one is calling for government control of the press? The trouble is you have a place called Fleet Street, home to some of the most evil journalism on the planet, and a massively gullible population. Where else could the News of the World have come from. Murdoch has tried to infiltrate the US with his filth too, but only with little success. His NY Post has little to compete with the magnificent NY Times, and Fox Broadcasting appeals to the lowest common denominator. It is not for the government to regulate the press, it is for the reader to do so with his pocketbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.