The Political Thread

[Zarjazzer]

That would be a good start but I don't see any political or legal drive to do this, alas. The press are biding their time knowing full well elections are near and they don't give a damn about anything other than what their owners think.

Business as usual.

[Old Tankie]

It's not to curtail the press it's to curtail their criminality.

It won't. The Independent have already said they aren't going to sign up to the new regulatory regime, and the rest are so opposed to it they don't even have to say so. Which makes everything that's happened over the last few years a pointless exercise..

Good.

[Dandontdare]

The most dangerous part of the new plans is the fact that if they don't sign up to the charter they could end up paying massive legal costs even if they WIN a libel case - this means that the rich and powerful can simply say to a publication "if you print that story about me, I'll sue you for libel. I may not win, but the case will bankrupt you anyway". This may not be such a threat if you have Murdoch's millions behind you but for smaller publications, they wouldn't  be able to risk publication, even if they knew they were 100% in the right.

[Old Tankie]

Well said, DDD.  In April, it was 250 years since the radical journalist and MP, John Wilkes, was imprisoned for daring to criticise George III.  I wonder how long it will be before a present day journalist is arrested for refusing to join the Government's "voluntary" Royal Charter?

[Richmond Clements]

Hislop had a great speech/rant about in on HIGNFY on Friday - worth checking out on the iplayer.

[Zarjazzer]

As for the rich and powerful telling newspapers what to do, is that not what we have now anyway? They have shown a seemingly telepathic link with their owners as cheerleaders for the psychopath led version of "free" markets which has brought such ruin to so many.

Yet you still say that the press must be left alone to it's own devices.
When they were they became criminals.

Past behaviour is the key to future behaviour, unless some major intervention occurs.

Do you think they're on your side? Unless you are all secretly billionaires, they are not.

Or is this really as I suspect simply a smokescreen for people who don't like government, of any kind?

[Jim_Campbell]

Yet you still say that the press must be left alone to it's own devices.
When they were they became criminals.

The key word here, as I have already pointed out to you, is criminals. What is required here is not a new raft of legislation opening the possibility of direct political interference with press, but for the press to be held accountable under the existing laws that they were already breaking.

(I'm also unsure why you brought up phone hacking in relation to the Independent saying they wouldn't sign on to the currently proposed regulations.)

Cheers

Jim

[Dandontdare]

As for the rich and powerful telling newspapers what to do, is that not what we have now anyway? They have shown a seemingly telepathic link with their owners as cheerleaders for the psychopath led version of "free" markets which has brought such ruin to so many.

Yet you still say that the press must be left alone to it's own devices.
When they were they became criminals.

Past behaviour is the key to future behaviour, unless some major intervention occurs.

Do you think they're on your side? Unless you are all secretly billionaires, they are not.

Or is this really as I suspect simply a smokescreen for people who don't like government, of any kind?

missing the point entirely there - It's not a case of The Press - Good or bad.

Pointing out that these proposals will allow the rich & powerful to muzzle discussion of their tax dodging, bribery and general malfeasance is not the same as saying that reporters are all angels and never behave badly.

However rich and powerful someone may be, and however much influence they may have in the press, they are still acutely aware that they need to look over their shoulders and be aware that their misdeeds can be exposed at any time.

People like the Barclay Bros who own the Telegraph. they also have lots of other business interests and act almost as feudal lords of Sark and Brecqhou in the channel islands - they are notoriously litigious, extremely rich and try to block any attempt to write about them. This new charter will give them virtual impunity from investigation.

[Zarjazzer]

I must disagree the press appear to be in the pockets of the wealthy I do not think for one moment the Barclay bros are worried about the whining of a few lefties in the Independent or anywhere else. Now were a government to point guns at them like we should have at Switzerland...

[Jim_Campbell]

I must disagree the press appear to be in the pockets of the wealthy I do not think for one moment the Barclay bros are worried about the whining of a few lefties in the Independent or anywhere else. Now were a government to point guns at them like we should have at Switzerland...

I have no fucking idea what you're trying to say and, at this point, I suspect you don't either.

Jim

[Zarjazzer]

I must disagree the press appear to be in the pockets of the wealthy I do not think for one moment the Barclay bros are worried about the whining of a few lefties in the Independent or anywhere else. Now were a government to point guns at them like we should have at Switzerland...

I have no fucking idea what you're trying to say and, at this point, I suspect you don't either.

Jim

Fair enough. I'll stop and you can relax.

[Dandontdare]

I do not think for one moment the Barclay bros are worried about the whining of a few lefties in the Independent or anywhere else.

Its not about "whining" it's about exposing corruption. Suppose the Indy found that the Barclay's had bribed a politician to get some favour - you don't want them able to report that?

the biggest scandals - and the consequent changes that are made - often come from journalistic exposes in the first place - look at all this wikileaks/snowden thing, or the MPs expenses scandal, or neglect in care homes just to name a few. If the powerful can suppress investigation of their affairs, they can get away with anything. It's not about "whining lefties"

[Richmond Clements]

Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO1mKGaa890

[Ancient Otter]

The BBC are gearing up for the 100th anniversary of WWI: 2500 hours of programming planned

"And realise that more than any other event, this was the one that made modern Britain." - Jeremy Paxman

Doesn't look like they are planning any Monocled Mutineer style programs....

[TordelBack]

Over a family lunch, discussion of Ramadan with my son (7) included the fact that three kids in his class (in one of the relatively few non-religious schools in the country) are Muslims, or have at least one Muslim parent. Instantly my mother comes out with: "I hate the way these Muslims are taking over everything". 

I'm used to this kind of thinking*, but the bald instantaneous venom of this remark, in front of kids and effectively  about kids, took me aback.

Where does this kind of thing come from?  How could anyone think that in the Republic of Ireland, of all the monotheistic places on Earth, Islam is 'taking over'?  Taking over from what, institutionalised child abuse and hospitals and schools run as the executive arms of some medieval cult?  How do three children (all of whom, it goes without saying, are really nice kids) in a class of 28, in a school specifically chosen by us because of its explicit commitment to diversity, merit such a response? 

Is this simply a picture created by the media (my mother reads the Mail and listens to talk radio), or do the media just cater to an existing perception?  How do you tackle this barbarians-at-the-gates mentality?




*Some context, no need to read: While in other respects a kind and selfless person who I love very much, my mother is an appalling bigot of the most parochial nature imaginable: people from other postal districts are to be pitied and feared in equal measure, never mind those with different skin tones, variant religious mumbo-jumbo or a hint of a divergent accent.  The laughable exceptions to this rule are anyone she has ever actually met, all of whom are presented as miraculous individual exceptions to the genetic-and-or-cultural cesspool they hail from.  It'd be funny if it wasn't so fucking awful.