Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J
A press organisation that isn't owned completely by one side only? A council that's got all interested parties involved not just press barons?Where all factions of political hue are represented?
Doesn't seem that hard to me.
|
I've toyed with that idea too, Maggy, but I think this is just adding another layer of bureaucracy, which will either go one way (ineffective and toothless) or the other (oppressive and overbearing). Just think of the potential for complaints with thousands of reports and articles every day. If you want to shackle the press and keep them tied up in knots to justify keeping perpetually aggrieved snowflakes from being offended, then that's the way to do it.
We already have laws of defamation, and hacking into voicemails, etc is unlawful. All I really want to see above that is a high standard of reporting. That is, report the facts, and where opinion comes into it, make it clear that is the opinion. Views expressed that are subjective rather than factual should be set out in articles, not in the news section. Those complying would have the right to be called a newspaper.
I don't care what you'd call those that did not reach that standard. Rag seems appropriate.