UK press regulation vote to take place in Parliament on Monday
9 replies, posted
[img]http://imgkk.com/i/w-w6.jpg[/img]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21796866[/url]
[quote]Prime Minister David Cameron and his deputy Nick Clegg have unveiled rival plans for a new system of press regulation in England and Wales.
The two sides have moved closer together, but the major sticking point remains - whether a new self-regulatory body should be backed by law.
[url=http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/docs/RoyalCharter.pdf]Mr Clegg's royal charter[/url], launched with Ed Miliband, insists on it - but it is not in Mr Cameron's [url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/royal-charter]royal charter[/url].
MPs will decide which version they prefer on Monday.[/quote]
[quote]But the key differences between the two plans are:
[B]Legal backing[/B] - Mr Cameron believes enshrining the royal charter in law will harm press freedom. Mr Clegg and Mr Miliband say the rules will lack teeth without it.
[B]Power of veto[/B] - The press would not have a veto over the members of the regulator under the Lib Dem/Labour plan.
[B]Future alterations[/B] - The Labour/Lib Dem plan is designed to prevent it from being watered down or strengthened by future governments.[/quote]
I'm Rupert Murdoch and I'm a cunt
There's freedom of the press and there's press freedom. The former is an integral part of the reporting of party politics and other important matters. The latter is a license to be a prick to people by hacking their phones and generally being underhanded and sneaky. I hope the LibLab gets through.
I don't see why we can't have Cameron's royal charter, all the things the press were doing were already illegal and government regulating the press has the potential to undermine democracy.
Phone hacking is illegal, hence the journalists who did it have been charged accordingly - Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson are also being charged as they were the editors.. What more will these regulations do that prison sentences won't?
Press regulation must surely be a slippery slope.
[QUOTE=The mouse;39925250]I don't see why we can't have Cameron's royal charter, all the things the press were doing were already illegal and government regulating the press has the potential to undermine democracy.[/QUOTE]
The current system already undermines democracy. This goes deeper than simple illegal acts such as bribary and hacking - but rampant lies about individuals (The weird neighbor story, plus any celeb story) promotion of bias facts rather than reporting truth (Both left and right-wing papers) and the general disregard for any sort of integrity (Daily Mail, Daily Express)
Something needs to be done, and the press has proven time and again they don't follow their own voluntary code.
The free press rarely deals with real scandal and opts to create it's own - any new scientific research on mice is suddenly a miracle cure for cancer, any food we eat is good for us one day and death ridden the next, the EU creates restrictive laws (That don't exist)
[editline]15th March 2013[/editline]
How can anyone make a reasonable democratic choice if you're always been lied to and expected upon? The media is a shambles.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;39925558]the EU creates restrictive laws (That don't exist)[/QUOTE]
Woah there buddy, let's not have [I]another[/I] EU-centric thread
Hacking is criminal and already covered, there are laws of libel and slander - so the part that is truly in question is in regards to reporting the truth or a lack of integrity, how will a regulator regulate that? I can appreciate that mistruths can easily but spotted, but how would you counter bias and opinion?
[quote]How can anyone make a reasonable democratic choice if you're always been lied to and expected upon? The media is a shambles.[/quote]
True, there's not a single newspaper that I would wholly trust.
[QUOTE=butt2089;39925776]Woah there buddy, let's not have [I]another[/I] EU-centric thread[/quote]
... Aw.
[QUOTE=butt2089;39925776]Hacking is criminal and already covered, there are laws of libel and slander - so the part that is truly in question is in regards to reporting the truth or a lack of integrity, how will a regulator regulate that? I can appreciate that mistruths can easily but spotted, but how would you counter bias and opinion?[/QUOTE]
Bias is impossible to remove - and indeed, it's best not to try. I'd stipulate that there should be some legal framework where the regulator can punish the media for any story found to be radically untrue or misconstructed. Effectively, I want a regulator that actually has the power to say 'No, you're making shit up now' and force the papers to print apologies and pay fines. Make apology/correction pages mandatory and near the front/beginning of any outlet.
It's nothing major, but it'd atleast give the consumers a fair chance to decide.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;39926810]Bias is impossible to remove - [B]and indeed, it's best not to try.[/B][/QUOTE]
Says who?
[QUOTE=Megafan;39926914]Says who?[/QUOTE]
Bias is a normal cognitive function that partly represents who were are - this will show itself in whatever media the reporter is representing, of course. It's possible to be the editor of a newspaper that is incredibly strict on any bias reporting, sure. But this is about legislation, and I don't believe we should enforce a no-bias policy as it could be very broadly interpreted and cause more problems than it solves. It'd be too troublesome to regulate against, and too difficult to interpret what is bias and what is merely a one-sided factual argument - Ala the 'Fair and Balanced' Fox News.
It's a serious issue, but I'm trying to be realistic on the topic.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.