Will the Press be regulated in UK? Should it be?

[andyh4]

Like Nomoss, I too have been indirectly involved in events that have made the press.  I too am staggered by their ability to misreport fact and where no fact exists to make it up.  As a consequence I have not bought a UK paper since the mid-70s.  If they can make up the trivial and distort it so far, what about those things that really matter?

 

Since then things have become significantly worse, and the "phone hacking" scandals and worse seem to have become a part of the way of daily working.

 

We have in the UK, laws that prevent this sort of thing.  So how many people have been charged and convicted?  I challenge you to name 3! (no google searches allowed)

I know there are still cases pending, but this simply is not satisfactory against what appear to have been a widespread activity condone or even encouraged from the top down  Senior heads must roll - and the redtop should be considered as junior management.

 

Something has to be done and it seems to me that Levison has tried very hard to find a middle ground between state control and the very nasty free for all we seem now to have.

 

I understand the concerns that many have and the case of MPs' expenses which is often quoted as why we need to maintain the status quo.  I would simply ask if those who use this arguement would suggest that a serial thief should not be brought to court because someone saw him putting a fiver in a charity box?   Or would they prefer the outrage of the daily headlines that would follow such a judgement?

 

The whole industry is tainted and has to be controlled.  They have shown themselves to be incapable of self control and self discipine - 7 times over.  Existing legal routes are patently inadequate.  I reluctantly see no other alternative to controlling the industry and perhaps also the power of a few individuals who control the media world wide.

[NickP]

[quote user="andyh4"]

Like Nomoss, I too have been indirectly involved in events that have made the press.  I too am staggered by their ability to misreport fact and where no fact exists to make it up.  As a consequence I have not bought a UK paper since the mid-70s.  If they can make up the trivial and distort it so far, what about those things that really matter?

 

[/quote]

As you haven't bought a newspaper since 1970 something how can you comment on their behaviour in the recent past? [:D]

[andyh4]

I avidly read your posts Nick  [:D]

[NormanH]

The idea that the press is 'free' is misguided anyway.

It is owned and used to serve the interests of the owners, forming opinion if not downright propaganda.

[NickP]

[quote user="NormanH"]The idea that the press is 'free' is misguided anyway.
It is owned and used to serve the interests of the owners, forming opinion if not downright propaganda.
[/quote]

Nearly; but not quite right Norman, the days of Rothermere, Beaverbrook and Thompson type owners are long gone, now it's down to money. The bigger the circulation the more advertising income. They pander to popular demand  to attract group XYZ class readers who shop at so and so cheap shops, and that unfortunately means celebrity gossip and nonsense, years ago no newspaper ever changed its politics overnight to keep up with public "taste". The shame was; that there was only ever one genuine popular Labour newspaper the Daily Herald, the irony being that it became the Sun; the archetypal right wing rag until celebrity Blair breezed into town. [:)]