Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
I'm with Hislop on this one. The laws are already in place and must be adhered to.

Didn't Ian Hislop say that... followed by saying the problem was the police and the politicians were in the pockets of the media which had hindered that happening. If you root out the corruption and the cosy relationships then maybe Joe. As things stand, it doesn't work like that in real life.

FM
Originally Posted by noseyrosie:

Isn't it just a legal underpinning to serve as a last line of defence should self regulation not work though? The press have been given chances over years to clean their act up but didn't so whats left.

not much really, they'll behave themselves for maybe a decade and then it will all hit the fan again, but rather that than legislation , for me

jacksonb
Ian Hislop said all sorts both on the radio and TV. Apparently the main worry is if they start shackling the press, we'll never find anything out. Don't forget if not for The Grauniad you wouldn't know any of the phone hacking stuff. If not for the Eye you wouldn't know any of the other important stuff. It's all a matter of taste, if people want to know tittle tattle they'll read the shieght end of the market, and that's their choice.
Garage Joe

I'm curious about what the overall meaning of "freedom of the Press" means. Apart from D notices issued to them that prevents them printing anything about matters that are related to national security does it mean they have carte blanche to print anything about anyone or anything. whether there's any truth, facts or evidence or not to prove it? I agree there are things in some areas of life that we all have a right to know that some would prefer we didn't. But when it comes to ordinary families like the McCanns or Dowlers - as an example - who are suddenly thrust into the limelight through personal tragic circumstances - and have the Press constantly hounding them, camping on their doorstep, and putting cash through their letterboxes for an interview, spreading cruel slander and  they don't have Agents protecting them, or enough money to go to Court to get an injunction that's where I personally disagree with absolute freedom of the the Press.

Yellow Rose
Originally Posted by Yellow Rose:

I'm curious about what the overall meaning of "freedom of the Press" means. Apart from D notices issued to them that prevents them printing anything about matters that are related to national security does it mean they have carte blanche to print anything about anyone or anything. whether there's any truth, facts or evidence or not to prove it? I agree there are things in some areas of life that we all have a right to know that some would prefer we didn't. But when it comes to ordinary families like the McCanns or Dowlers - as an example - who are suddenly thrust into the limelight through personal tragic circumstances - and have the Press constantly hounding them, camping on their doorstep, and putting cash through their letterboxes for an interview, spreading cruel slander and  they don't have Agents protecting them, or enough money to go to Court to get an injunction that's where I personally disagree with absolute freedom of the the Press.

we all know that behaviour like this is repugnant to the majority of the public, and i think the press or those rogue elements of it, should be punished, but it's also true that the press create these stories because they know it sells papers, so all of us who read the  crap articles need to take a very close look at themselves too.as has been already said, we already have laws that could be used to bring rogue editors and journalists to court,we should be looking more closely at why they aren't implemented.

any regulation of the press is a step too far, we do actually need the press to be able to report freely .

jacksonb

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×