How far should the press be controlled?

J

justeccentricnotinsane

Community Member
MBTI
INFJ
Is ANYBODY here from the UK?

For those that aren't and may not have heard this (although I believe US news providers had a part in investigating these crimes) the News of the World newspaper (owned by News Corp, which also owns Fox) has been closed by Rupert Murdoch after investigations showed journalists at the newspaper hacked into the phones of celebrities, politicians, the royal family and even missing people and mourning families to get a scoop (interfering with police investigations as they did so). They also bribed the police for info. One journalist has admitted pushing a woman to suicide after humiliating her needlessly in the public domain.

Murdoch has shut down the paper because he wants to buy satellite broadcaster BSkyB. There is outrage in the UK over this issue anyway - it would give Murdoch a monopoly over British media. If he closes down the News of the World, he has less power on the media and more chance of getting approved to buy BSkyB. So this WAS NOT a moral decision on his part.

I was recently discussing with my boyfriend whether the press need to be further regulated as the Daily Mail newspaper (another right-wing tabloid but not owned by Murdoch) is trusted by many people but deliberately skews the news with an anti-islamic and anti-trade union slant. For instance, it recently ran with the headline "Girl dies because of teachers' strike". The girl was killed by a falling branch in a park. The newspaper said that if the teachers hadn't have been on strike that day, she wouldn't have been in the park, so wouldn't have died (so it's the teachers' fault she died!!!!!) Obviously, this kind of reporting is extremely irresponsible, particularly because usually, the paper does not run with "because of strike" headlines but "because of muslims" headlines. This is NOT an opinion column I'm talking about here, where freedom of speech should always be allowed, but the FRONT PAGE!!!

So - there's a few issues here.

1) Rupert Murdoch is being allowed to do what he wants because the police and politicians are scared of him (he could make or break their future)
2) The press is not being regulated enough and are breaking the law.
3) The press are deliberately misleading people in order to gain favour for ideological views - anti-islam etc - it is blatant right-wing propaganda.

So should the press be regulated and how? The problem with regulating is that it could stunt investigative journalism (and we need this to fight against corruption). There are also freedom of press laws to try and fight against the idea of government propaganda. (In the 80s Thatcher stopped the BBC from reporting on a mistake made by her army because it made her look bad - since then there has been an independent regulator but it's useless!)

Any opinions?

Rules say to post a link but this is such a massive story that there isn't really ONE link.

Here's the Guardian's hub page for everything to do with the story but it would take you two straight days to read it!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/phone-hacking
 
To have fair and balanced news, the press shouldn't be controlled at all.
But with every passing day the mainstream news networks are becoming more and more irrelevant, as alternative news sources pop up all over the internet.
 
PeaceSeeker said:
To have fair and balanced news, the press shouldn't be controlled at all.
But with every passing day the mainstream news networks are becoming more and more irrelevant, as alternative news sources pop up all over the internet.
Click to expand...

I agree. And platforms like Twitter are making things more fair and just as the people have their say and information is distributed.


HOWEVER! think of Fox and the tea party. Think of Murdoch and the British government. Sometimes the press literally has power over the country. The British government a couple of days ago ADMITTED (in the prime minister's speech) that they got into bed with Murdoch because they knew that he had the power to make sure they were never re-elected. His newspapers, to a certain extent, control public opinion. If he had wanted to paint them in a bad light, he could, so they do what HE wants. He literally has power over the country and that's something the government are saying!

So surely there must be a separation between press and state? And we do have anti-hatred laws - it is a facet over freedom of speech that freedom of speech does not include the incitement of hatred. You are not allowed to go into a school and tell the people that muslims are evil and should be killed. You are allowed to say "I believe this" but you are not allowed to state it as fact. Which is what the newspapers are doing - so surely they are already breaking incitement of hatred laws?
 
Depending on how this plays out, it will be a masterstroke for Murdoch — he gets out of the paper media business, and shifts to digital broadcast media.


cheers,
Ian
 
Anything anyone does that is illegal should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Aside from that the media shouldn't be controlled imo. The two overlap a bit but there are reasons those laws were put there in the first place and just because you put something in a magazine doesn't mean you shouldn't be held responsible for your actions as any other citizen would.
 
justeccentricnotinsane said:
I agree. And platforms like Twitter are making things more fair and just as the people have their say and information is distributed.


HOWEVER! think of Fox and the tea party. Think of Murdoch and the British government. Sometimes the press literally has power over the country. The British government a couple of days ago ADMITTED (in the prime minister's speech) that they got into bed with Murdoch because they knew that he had the power to make sure they were never re-elected. His newspapers, to a certain extent, control public opinion. If he had wanted to paint them in a bad light, he could, so they do what HE wants. He literally has power over the country and that's something the government are saying!

So surely there must be a separation between press and state? And we do have anti-hatred laws - it is a facet over freedom of speech that freedom of speech does not include the incitement of hatred. You are not allowed to go into a school and tell the people that muslims are evil and should be killed. You are allowed to say "I believe this" but you are not allowed to state it as fact. Which is what the newspapers are doing - so surely they are already breaking incitement of hatred laws?
Click to expand...

I agree. In other words Murdoch was indirectly blackmailing politicians as well as any potential enemies.
In a fair and just world Murdoch would be prosecuted and thrown in jail for the remainder of his life, but something tells me that his billion$ will come to his rescue ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top