this is why the press needs regulating

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I also don't want the press and media in general to speculate for me.I can do that all by myself.Just give me the facts not the inference.

They don't speculate "for you". They speculate in order to produce a product you may choose either to buy and read, or else ignore. If you want bald statements of fact then you can go and get those from the Media Resources page of every government department and major corporation in the developed world.

Originally Posted by Chris

They don't speculate "for you". They speculate in order to produce a product you may choose either to buy and read, or else ignore. If you want bald statements of fact then you can go and get those from the Media Resources page of every government department and major corporation in the developed world.

So you think it is fine that newspapers have the power they have had in recent times?You really don't think that they need putting in order?Just what do you want?The same free for all we have had all this time? Or some responsibility accepted for lives ruined because of speculation,inference and down right lies?

Originally Posted by Maggy J

So you think it is fine that newspapers have the power they have had in recent times?You really don't think that they need putting in order?Just what do you want?The same free for all we have had all this time? Or some responsibility accepted for lives ruined because of speculation,inference and down right lies?

I think the first thing we need to affirm is the rights to free speech and freedom of political association. Both of those rights will result in unruly and partisan behaviour in our Press but on the other hand the practice of those rights by our Press have contributed in no small part to what we have here in the UK, arguably the most stable, long-lasting democracy in Europe, if not the world.

The truly horrifying thing in all this is the enthusiasm with which some people are prepared to clamour for official regulation of free speech. The moment that occurs, speech is no longer free.

It cannot be repeated often enough: the behaviour which led to the Leveson Inquiry was almost entirely already illegal. The failure ultimately was one of law enforcement, not lack of laws to enforce.

On the civil side, we already have some of the toughest libel laws in the world. The only thing missing there is the ability of the less well off to finance a libel action. There may be scope for some reform there, but let's face it, most of the people complaining at Leveson were certainly not short of the resources required to take on even the biggest of our newspapers had they wished to.

Our national newspaper editors all know what the law is and they know what the PCC code of conduct is. What is required is law enforcement by coppers who are prepared to pursue hacks rather than take backhanders from them, and voluntary regulation that both works and is seen to be working.

Originally Posted by Chris

I think the first thing we need to affirm is the rights to free speech and freedom of political association. Both of those rights will result in unruly and partisan behaviour in our Press but on the other hand the practice of those rights by our Press have contributed in no small part to what we have here in the UK, arguably the most stable, long-lasting democracy in Europe, if not the world.

The truly horrifying thing in all this is the enthusiasm with which some people are prepared to clamour for official regulation of free speech. The moment that occurs, speech is no longer free.

It cannot be repeated often enough: the behaviour which led to the Leveson Inquiry was almost entirely already illegal. The failure ultimately was one of law enforcement, not lack of laws to enforce.

On the civil side, we already have some of the toughest libel laws in the world. The only thing missing there is the ability of the less well off to finance a libel action. There may be scope for some reform there, but let's face it, most of the people complaining at Leveson were certainly not short of the resources required to take on even the biggest of our newspapers had they wished to.

Our national newspaper editors all know what the law is and they know what the PCC code of conduct is. What is required is law enforcement by coppers who are prepared to pursue hacks rather than take backhanders from them, and voluntary regulation that both works and is seen to be working.

Well the cynic in me can see that you honestly believe the situation is retrievable because you are a decent journalist..However there are many in the industry who do not deserve that job description being just hacks.they will continue to behave in the same old despicable manner and the poorer victims of their trade will continue to have no cheap redress available to them..and the PCC was and would still be no match for those who put profit before ethics because it had no teeth legally to insist on a industry wide participation in self regulation..

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

Well, that's where you and I are poles apart. You can keep your left wing, authoritarian, nanny-knows-best approach, thanks very much. I don't need the State to do my thinking for me.

Edit

Nor, for that matter, do I need the EU telling me what to think, what values are acceptable and which journalists are approved to write the news I choose to read:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...urnalists.html

so wanting a decent press means I am left wing.

I think you are happy with lies as they suit your political swing. I didnt mention anything politically I just mentioned inaccurate stories which of course seem to be much more common in both the mail and sun than other papers, but they not the only 2 papers at it.

If a news story thats accurate is printed but I dont like the truth thats fair enough, very different to complete rubbish been printed.

Are you a journalist, as maggy has said?

---------- Post added at 19:34 ---------- Previous post was at 19:25 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

You would appear to be stating if someone has a differing opinion to you, and by highlighting what they see as potential flaws in your proposition, they must happy to be fed lies and manipulated.

Unusual viewpoint.

where did I say that?

newpaper articles are not meant for voicing opinions they are for reporting factual stories.

blogs are more suited to opinions yet I find blogs posting more facts than newspaper articles, its backwards.

Also if a story is proven to be trash against an individual and especially if they rich they have legal recourse.

Lets say a story is printed saying "army veterans will not be treated the same as DLA fraudsters" and you wanted to take legal action as been labeled as a fraudster whats the legal procedure for that?

---------- Post added at 19:38 ---------- Previous post was at 19:34 ----------

seems the mail pulled the article?

Sorry...


The page you have requested does not exist or is no longer available.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

If a news story thats accurate is printed but I dont like the truth thats fair enough, very different to complete rubbish been printed.

I think the problem is that you tend to label stories lies and rubbish when you don't agree with them .You have yet to give any convincing ,un biased evidence that the story you are complaining about is lies and rubbish ,so how about you follow your own advice and give us some hard verifiable facts

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

so wanting a decent press means I am left wing.

No, demanding Press regulation on the pretext that people are gullible and somehow need protecting is left wing, or at least, that sort of patrician authoritarianism has been a characteristic of the British Left for quite some time now.

I think you are happy with lies as they suit your political swing. I didnt mention anything politically I just mentioned inaccurate stories which of course seem to be much more common in both the mail and sun than other papers, but they not the only 2 papers at it.

And I think you see lies where the stories don't suit your political swing. Oddly enough, neither the Mail nor the Sun are known for being sympathetic towards the Left.

Are you a journalist, as maggy has said?

Trained, qualified and time-served. Not working on a newspaper these days though.

newpaper articles are not meant for voicing opinions they are for reporting factual stories.

blogs are more suited to opinions yet I find blogs posting more facts than newspaper articles, its backwards.

Yes, I was forgetting the famous Newspapers Enablement Act 1972. It forbids newspapers from being partisan or running opinion pieces doesn't it. Oh, hang on, there's no such thing.

Chrys, do try not to confuse what you think someone should be allowed to do, with what they actually are allowed to do. Newspapers are, and always have been, free to voice an opinion and as they, not the government or some 'independent' regulator, have editorial control of their content, they are free to choose what to report and how to report it.

Bloggers, likewise, are free to simply report news or to be a soapbox, or both.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

so wanting a decent press means I am left wing.

I think you are happy with lies as they suit your political swing. I didnt mention anything politically I just mentioned inaccurate stories which of course seem to be much more common in both the mail and sun than other papers, but they not the only 2 papers at it.

If a news story thats accurate is printed but I dont like the truth thats fair enough, very different to complete rubbish been printed.

Are you a journalist, as maggy has said?

---------- Post added at 19:34 ---------- Previous post was at 19:25 ----------

where did I say that?

newpaper articles are not meant for voicing opinions they are for reporting factual stories.

blogs are more suited to opinions yet I find blogs posting more facts than newspaper articles, its backwards.

Also if a story is proven to be trash against an individual and especially if they rich they have legal recourse.

Lets say a story is printed saying "army veterans will not be treated the same as DLA fraudsters" and you wanted to take legal action as been labeled as a fraudster whats the legal procedure for that?

---------- Post added at 19:38 ---------- Previous post was at 19:34 ----------

seems the mail pulled the article?

Yesterday at 18:07 when you responded to Chris with

Since you seem to be looking for holes in this it suggests you happy with stories been made up, and manipulated.

which I had highlighted when I quoted you, when his opinion differed from yours.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by martyh

I think the problem is that you tend to label stories lies and rubbish when you don't agree with them .You have yet to give any convincing ,un biased evidence that the story you are complaining about is lies and rubbish ,so how about you follow your own advice and give us some hard verifiable facts

no I label as rubbish when they fiction.

the mail story posted similiar to the sub except they revealed she had a credit card which was been used to find a lifestyle (but was very different to what the headlines entailed), that story is now pulled. The sun just posts a story about a women who also appeared in a story as a kgb agent's wife, who is actively looking for work as an actress and says she is living it up on under £80 a week, doing research on the journalist who posted the story reveals some interesting information.

I could post a story that martyh is santa claus and it would be the same amount of truth as that article.

It does seem I have learnt something here tho, people will put agenda ahead of morals. Not just politicians and journalists.

[Osem]

There's none so blind as those who will not see...