Skip to main content

British newpapers. In need of being coralled?

With newspapers literally dying around the world, one would hope that those which survive would maintain at least some modicum of standards.       Certainly some of the British press - notably those in the Murdoch stable - has been in the gun for its unethical conduct.   The whole subject of press freedom, etc. is once again in discussion.

"Will Hutton, writing in The Observer, says the “precious freedom of speech of an individual is different from the freedom of speech of a media corporation with its capacity to manipulate the opinions of millions.”

Hutton argues that the phone hacking and general stench of British rags such as those owned by Rupert Murdoch signal a need for new regulation.

Yes, freedom of speech is the great Enlightenment gift that comes with the freedom to dare to know and to challenge. But it is not a charter for systematic character assassination by powerful media organisations that offer no right of reply, nor redress for mistakes.

The precious freedom of speech of an individual is different from the freedom of speech of a media corporation with its capacity to manipulate the opinions of millions, which is why it must take place within the law and within a framework of accountability. Freedom is not only menaced by the state; it is also menaced by private media barons and their servants, a reality that those doughty, self-anointed champions of freedom, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, never address.

Thomas Jefferson, who was hounded relentlessly by a rather shoddy press in his own day, famously wrote in a letter to Edward Carrington, “were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” This is one of the most oft-quoted defenses of unlimited free speech where newspapers are concerned. Most journalists tend to agree with that sentiment, owing their living to a right to free and unintimidated speech. However there’s a line from the same letter that supports the view Hutton takes in his Guardian/Observer piece: “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right. ...”

What do you think? Does Britain, or the United States for that matter, need a commission on journalistic standards? And what would become of Fox News?"

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...