Media Issues

[intheknow!]

Tried to post this in another thread but deleted so I will post in it's own thread. This is my opinion and not related to anything recent. Let's have a grown up discussion about free speech and free press issues, relevance is the current inquiry that's going on regarding phone hacking. The media always seems to get a bad rap from all sides.


I absolutely and fundamentally disagree with anyone wanting a Privacy Law! In a democratic free society you NEED a free press and all that entails. Sometimes you can hate what they do but without them it's the ordinary person that suffers.

Privacy Law protects the rich, famous, powerful, elites (overwhelmingly men), free speech and free press laws protects the masses. It's an ancient right of ours and something generations before us have fought and died for we should NEVER give that up. Even in the face of terrible press behaviour I will always support a free press because the alternative is much worse. When the top of society think they can do what they want without fear of the public finding out, we the people suffer.

Some truely shocking, sickening scandals have been uncovered and injustices rectified that would not have been if we had privacy law. Ranging from the sickening institutional abuse of children etc to things like MP's expenses scandal and many other things through the ages. I am not willing to sacrifice the free press so that people like Hugh Grant, Max Mosley and Steve Coogan etc can indulge themselves sometimes in law breaking behaviour without fear of it being exposed.

 

[HolisticJim]

Tried to post this in another thread but deleted so I will post in it's own thread. This is my opinion and not related to anything recent. Let's have a grown up discussion about free speech and free press issues, relevance is the current inquiry that's going on regarding phone hacking. The media always seems to get a bad rap from all sides.


I absolutely and fundamentally disagree with anyone wanting a Privacy Law! In a democratic free society you NEED a free press and all that entails. Sometimes you can hate what they do but without them it's the ordinary person that suffers.

Privacy Law protects the rich, famous, powerful, elites (overwhelmingly men), free speech and free press laws protects the masses. It's an ancient right of ours and something generations before us have fought and died for we should NEVER give that up. Even in the face of terrible press behaviour I will always support a free press because the alternative is much worse. When the top of society think they can do what they want without fear of the public finding out, we the people suffer.

Some truely shocking, sickening scandals have been uncovered and injustices rectified that would not have been if we had privacy law. Ranging from the sickening institutional abuse of children etc to things like MP's expenses scandal and many other things through the ages. I am not willing to sacrifice the free press so that people like Hugh Grant, Max Mosley and Steve Coogan etc can indulge themselves sometimes in law breaking behaviour without fear of it being exposed.

Because having your medical records posted in public ala Hugh Grant is indulgence.
Because having your dead daughters phone tapped is indulgence.

 

[Cityfan]

I absolutely and fundamentally disagree with anyone wanting a Privacy Law! In a democratic free society you NEED a free press and all that entails. Sometimes you can hate what they do but without them it's the ordinary person that suffers.

Privacy Law protects the rich, famous, powerful, elites (overwhelmingly men), free speech and free press laws protects the masses. It's an ancient right of ours and something generations before us have fought and died for we should NEVER give that up. Even in the face of terrible press behaviour I will always support a free press because the alternative is much worse. When the top of society think they can do what they want without fear of the public finding out, we the people suffer.

Some truely shocking, sickening scandals have been uncovered and injustices rectified that would not have been if we had privacy law. Ranging from the sickening institutional abuse of children etc to things like MP's expenses scandal and many other things through the ages. I am not willing to sacrifice the free press so that people like Hugh Grant, Max Mosley and Steve Coogan etc can indulge themselves sometimes in law breaking behaviour without fear of it being exposed.

I am not sure how many of the above malpractices would have have been protected by well written privacy laws. A free press should not mean Carte Blanche to harrass people and publish lies. The threat of exposure of private matters unless you cooperate with the press is just as much a traversty as what is often exposed.

There are good brave and genuine reporters who risk a lot in the exposure of wrong doing this should not give some of their colleagues licence to defame harrass and libel the innocent as to often happens.

 

[stony]

I agree to an extent, we need to know about things like bent politicians, celebs breaking the law and gettting away with it etc. but the press also go too far. Invading peoples privacy for no good reason and lets face it, we wouldn't like our private lives scrutinised in the same way.
Media whores like Beckham and those BB and I'm a celeb fuckwits deserve all they get.
However when the press start tapping phones and rooting through peoples bins it's just not on.
Some of our tabloid press are utter scum and have less morals than some of the people they try to bring down.

 

[jimharri]

Tried to post this in another thread but deleted so I will post in it's own thread. This is my opinion and not related to anything recent. Let's have a grown up discussion about free speech and free press issues, relevance is the current inquiry that's going on regarding phone hacking. The media always seems to get a bad rap from all sides.


I absolutely and fundamentally disagree with anyone wanting a Privacy Law! In a democratic free society you NEED a free press and all that entails. Sometimes you can hate what they do but without them it's the ordinary person that suffers.

Privacy Law protects the rich, famous, powerful, elites (overwhelmingly men), free speech and free press laws protects the masses. It's an ancient right of ours and something generations before us have fought and died for we should NEVER give that up. Even in the face of terrible press behaviour I will always support a free press because the alternative is much worse. When the top of society think they can do what they want without fear of the public finding out, we the people suffer.

Some truely shocking, sickening scandals have been uncovered and injustices rectified that would not have been if we had privacy law. Ranging from the sickening institutional abuse of children etc to things like MP's expenses scandal and many other things through the ages. I am not willing to sacrifice the free press so that people like Hugh Grant, Max Mosley and Steve Coogan etc can indulge themselves sometimes in law breaking behaviour without fear of it being exposed.

A free press is one thing, but with that freedom comes a big responsibility. That is, to report sensibly and to know where to draw the line. Unfortunately a lot of the press either don't know, or don't care, where that line is and are more than happy to cross it. And I can't see self-regulation being the answer either. Would turkeys vote for christmas?

 

[intheknow!]

Dont mix up Privacy with reporting untruths. If the press report lies there is already Libel Law which has been in existence for decades and rightly so. If they report and publish lies then they should be sued heavily through the Libel Courts. Privacy is totally different, Privacy Law is about stopping the media reporting the TRUTH in the name of privacy. Once Privacy comes into existence it really will enact the Law of unintended consequences, we will be a worse society for it. Take the Human Rights Act, sounds fantastic in principle, who could be opposed to Human Rights? But in practice it's used by the worst elements of society to the detriment of ordinary people. An example are paedophiles claiming it's against their Human Rights to be on the sex offenders register that protects innocent children. There are numerous other things.

In France they have Privacy Law and it protects the elites from scrutiny, no question. Fmr Prime Minister Francios Mitterand was able to have a secret family whilst in office, being supported financially by the taxpayer and when Journalists tried to expose it, he had them beaten up and used privacy Law in the French courts to ban the reporting of it. Dominique Strauss-Kahn has been able to get away with all manner of inappropriate behaviour over the years which has not been reported due to 'Privacy', until he was arrested in America and then the floodgates opened. In England we are already a very very unequal society in terms of economics and wealth, Privacy Law will make us more unequal in other ways as well, this is not the way to go. We should have a 1st Amendment American style free speech Law. Honestly if you give the powerful, elites, rich & famous an inch they will take a mile.

The Milly Dowler phone hacking & all other phone hacking is ALREADY illegal under existing Law, that's a criminal offence and nothing to do with Privacy Law.

We may not love the English media but they are essential and we need them. Remember Jonathan Aitken and Jefferey Archer are just 2 high profile cases that would've never been reported if a Privacy Law was in place. There are many many more too complex to go into here.<br /><br />-- Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:06 pm --<br /><br />

I agree to an extent, we need to know about things like bent politicians, celebs breaking the law and gettting away with it etc. but the press also go too far. Invading peoples privacy for no good reason and lets face it, we wouldn't like our private lives scrutinised in the same way.
Media whores like Beckham and those BB and I'm a celeb fuckwits deserve all they get.
However when the press start tapping phones and rooting through peoples bins it's just not on.
Some of our tabloid press are utter scum and have less morals than some of the people they try to bring down.

But why should Celebs who make millions from endorsements because of their fame or sell their family life through magazines etc be free from scrutiny?

They want the good side to fame, so they must accept the bad side too.

Just read this quote from famous Hollywood actor Clark Gable:

"We all have a contract with the public – in us they see themselves or what they would like to be. On the screen and in our private lives, we are the standards by which they measure their own ideals of everything – sex, guts, humour, stupidity, cowardice, crumminess – you name it. They love to put us on a pedestal and worship us and form fan clubs and write thousands of letters telling us how great we are. But they’ve read the small print, and most of us haven’t – they expect us to pay the price for it all… we have to get it in the end! So, when we get knocked off by gangsters…or get hooked on booze or dope or get ourselves thrown out of business because of scandals or because we just get old, that’s the payoff and public feels satisfied. Yeah, it’s a good idea to read that small print."

It seems today's 'celebs' haven't read the small print, they want it all their way.

 

[jimharri]

Dont mix up Privacy with reporting untruths. If the press report lies there is already Libel Law which has been in existence for decades and rightly so. If they report and publish lies then they should be sued heavily through the Libel Courts. Privacy is totally different, Privacy Law is about stopping the media reporting the TRUTH in the name of privacy. Once Privacy comes into existence it really will enact the Law of unintended consequences, we will be a worse society for it. Take the Human Rights Act, sounds fantastic in principle, who could be opposed to Human Rights? But in practice it's used by the worst elements of society to the detriment of ordinary people. An example are paedophiles claiming it's against their Human Rights to be on the sex offenders register that protects innocent children. There are numerous other things.

In France they have Privacy Law and it protects the elites from scrutiny, no question. Fmr Prime Minister Francios Mitterand was able to have a secret family whilst in office, being supported financially by the taxpayer and when Journalists tried to expose it, he had them beaten up and used privacy Law in the French courts to ban the reporting of it. Dominique Strauss-Kahn has been able to get away with all manner of inappropriate behaviour over the years which has not been reported due to 'Privacy', until he was arrested in America and then the floodgates opened. In England we are already a very very unequal society in terms of economics and wealth, Privacy Law will make us more unequal in other ways as well, this is not the way to go. We should have a 1st Amendment American style free speech Law. Honestly if you give the powerful, elites, rich & famous an inch they will take a mile.

The Milly Dowler phone hacking & all other phone hacking is ALREADY illegal under existing Law, that's a criminal offence and nothing to do with Privacy Law.

We may not love the English media but they are essential and we need them. Remember Jonathan Aitken and Jefferey Archer are just 2 high profile cases that would've never been reported if a Privacy Law was in place. There are many many more too complex to go into here.

-- Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:06 pm --

I agree to an extent, we need to know about things like bent politicians, celebs breaking the law and gettting away with it etc. but the press also go too far. Invading peoples privacy for no good reason and lets face it, we wouldn't like our private lives scrutinised in the same way.
Media whores like Beckham and those BB and I'm a celeb fuckwits deserve all they get.
However when the press start tapping phones and rooting through peoples bins it's just not on.
Some of our tabloid press are utter scum and have less morals than some of the people they try to bring down.

But why should Celebs who make millions from endorsements because of their fame or sell their family life through magazines etc be free from scrutiny?

They want the good side to fame, so they must accept the bad side too.

Just read this quote from famous Hollywood actor Clark Gable:

"We all have a contract with the public – in us they see themselves or what they would like to be. On the screen and in our private lives, we are the standards by which they measure their own ideals of everything – sex, guts, humour, stupidity, cowardice, crumminess – you name it. They love to put us on a pedestal and worship us and form fan clubs and write thousands of letters telling us how great we are. But they’ve read the small print, and most of us haven’t – they expect us to pay the price for it all… we have to get it in the end! So, when we get knocked off by gangsters…or get hooked on booze or dope or get ourselves thrown out of business because of scandals or because we just get old, that’s the payoff and public feels satisfied. Yeah, it’s a good idea to read that small print."

It seems today's 'celebs' haven't read the small print, they want it all their way.

What about ''private'' people though, like the Dowlers? They've done nothing wrong (far from it) yet they've been the victims of scandalous press intrusion.

 

[TCIB]

Simple fix, kick Murdoch in his wrinkly old bollocks and nut any cnut who objects.

Then shut down all the daily rags he owns, or force them to call themselves "entertainment publications" like the onion or national enquirer.

Only give the power to look into stuff to responsible outlets, The Times etc.

 

[intheknow!]

Simple fix, kick Murdoch in his wrinkly old bollocks and nut any cnut who objects.

Then shut down all the daily rags he owns, or force them to call themselves "entertainment publications" like the onion or national enquirer.

Only give the power to look into stuff to responsible outlets, The Times etc.

Who do you think owns The Times? It's Murdoch and the only reason 'responsible' newspaper the Times is even in existence is because Murdoch subsidies it from the revenue from The Sun.

The so called worthy newspapers, Independent (sudsidised by Russian Oligarch), Guardian (Subsidised by revenue from the profit making Autotrader), Times are still in business is because of subsidies, they all make massive losses.

-- Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:15 pm --

What about ''private'' people though, like the Dowlers? They've done nothing wrong (far from it) yet they've been the victims of scandalous press intrusion.

As I've said the Milly Dowler phone hacking & all other phone hacking is ALREADY illegal under existing Law, that's a criminal offence and nothing to do with Privacy Law. Phone hacking is not covered by Privacy Law, it's a totally separate issue.

If you are referring to media reports of the fathers 'sexual behaviour', the media were fully entitled to report that because it was an issue in Court that the murderers defense cross examined Milly Dowlers father on. Last time I checked we have open justice and if that goes then we will be on a par with China, Russia etc. Milly Dowler's father originally misled the police about his alibi and this led to the police investigating and suspecting him at first, thus the real murderer managed to evade capture for such a long time. This was crucial to the case as used by the police to defend themselves. Privacy Law would not have affected this in any way.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2007543/Blunders-police-insisted-Milly-Dowlers-dad-did-it.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... id-it.html</a>

 

[Cityfan]

Dont mix up Privacy with reporting untruths. If the press report lies there is already Libel Law which has been in existence for decades and rightly so. If they report and publish lies then they should be sued heavily through the Libel Courts.

Unfortunately for most people libel laws are useless as they depend on the depth of pockets of the claimant rather than the rights and wrongs of the case, it is a civil matter rather than a criminal matter.
People do hae some right to privacy, as in most things it is a matter of balance overprotective laws can protect the wrong doer no protection results in the deeply unpleasant and amoral reporting that passes for journalism in to much of our press today.