Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

John Drake

The Sun digs up Churchill

42 posts in this topic

That's as maybe, but at least now Lady Annabel Goldsmith, Hugh Grant, Arpad Busson, John Frieda, Alain de Botton can engage in their activities safe from public view, and that's what counts, isn't it? ...and that dreadful Ian Hislop had better watch it , too!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the intentions of Leveson, they're now attempting to include the internet in the legislation. More particularly blogs where there is more than one contributor and some type of editorial control is in place. Grant Shapps, perhaps the most useless government minister in this coalition (although there's a few to choose from), was on newsnight last night making a fool of himself attempting to explain what exactly MPs have voted for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to be fair, no one seems to know what they have voted for or against, only that everyone has won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems there is a lot of noise and scaremongering coming from certain sections of the press who object to having to play by any sort of rules.

As far as I can work out there is still a general principle of press freedom, it's just being allied with some rules regarding basing stories on some truth and ensuring stories have been obtained via legal means. But then I could be completely wrong. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have a free press - we have a press controlled by vested interests (of many political persuasions, though largely right wing in the case of national newspapers). All the bleating of the Sun, Mail etc gets on my goat. While it's important to protect the freedom of the press to report things of public interest, it would be nice to have a press regulator that isn't under the thumb of the most obnoxious newspaper proprietors and editors. If you allow the press (and by this I mean the national newspapers in particular) the freedom to regulate themselves, they won't do a good job - too many vested interests.

That said, I'd rather politicians weren't sticking their beaks into the issue, either. It does set a dangerous precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If scientific data is published in a scientific journal that is knowingly fraudulent, the author may face imprisonment. In a newspaper, it is not an issue. It seems peculiar to me that we do not have newspapers campaigning for scientific journals to have the right to make stuff up too.

In the MMR case, we would have seen fewer papers sold and an article not appear in a medical magazine. Just for the sake of a few infant lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel for anyone who sits on an "independent" committee - their lives must be 100% squeaky clean or they'll be thrown to the wolves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoting Churchill is particularly inappropriate given that he tried to control the press and the BBC during the General Strike and also tried to close the fledgiling Daily Herald. I think he also interfered with the Miiror during the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

churchill was happy to surpress the mdia when it suited him. He even advocated the government taking over the BBC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's as maybe, but at least now Lady Annabel Goldsmith, Hugh Grant, Arpad Busson, John Frieda, Alain de Botton can engage in their activities safe from public view, and that's what counts, isn't it? ...and that dreadful Ian Hislop had better watch it , too!!

Is there really a public interest in knowing who Hugh Grant is currently shagging?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there really a public interest in knowing who Hugh Grant is currently shagging?

I'm sure an element of the public is interested, but of course that's not the same thing.

Grant seems to want to be able to control what is said about him in the press. Perhaps it would be a good think ifghemedia would respect his desire for privacy and not bother publishing anything about him at all, whether he wants it published(which I'm sure he will at some point), or not.

It's been said before, but e already have laws to prevent innocent people being harrassed and misrepresentedin the press: all that needs to happen is that they are enforced IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been said before, but e already have laws to prevent innocent people being harrassed and misrepresentedin the press: all that needs to happen is that they are enforced IMHO

We have laws to prevent libel and the collection of information by illegal means.

When it comes to the honesty of the press and the ability to obtain redress (however defined) we have the PCC. Which is controlled by the press and ignored by the press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have laws to prevent libel and the collection of information by illegal means.

When it comes to the honesty of the press and the ability to obtain redress (however defined) we have the PCC. Which is controlled by the press and ignored by the press.

yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure an element of the public is interested, but of course that's not the same thing.

Grant seems to want to be able to control what is said about him in the press. Perhaps it would be a good think ifghemedia would respect his desire for privacy and not bother publishing anything about him at all, whether he wants it published(which I'm sure he will at some point), or not.

It's been said before, but e already have laws to prevent innocent people being harrassed and misrepresentedin the press: all that needs to happen is that they are enforced IMHO

Indeed and Hugh Grant is able to enforce thse laws because he can afford lawyers. He is not entitled to control what is written about him (unless it is untrue) but it's fair enough to object to how the information was gathered. The media use some pretty nasty techniques that deserve outlawing.

The average Joe Public that accidently finds themselves in a media storm cannot afford to enforce these laws and deserves some kind of protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed and Hugh Grant is able to enforce thse laws because he can afford lawyers. He is not entitled to control what is written about him (unless it is untrue) but it's fair enough to object to how the information was gathered. The media use some pretty nasty techniques that deserve outlawing.

The average Joe Public that accidently finds themselves in a media storm cannot afford to enforce these laws and deserves some kind of protection.

too right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The apology should be on the same page and have the same prominence as the false/mistaken story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017