BuzzJack
Entertainment Discussion

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register | Help )

Latest Site News
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> State regulation of the media
Track this topic - Email this topic - Print this topic - Download this topic - Subscribe to this forum
State regulation of the media
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 10
Guests cannot vote 
vidcapper
post Mar 13 2018, 07:35 AM
Post #1
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 22,597
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


I know it could take many forms (which we could perhaps discuss later), but in principle, are you in favour or against?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Silas Frøkner
post Mar 13 2018, 07:56 AM
Post #2
Surfing in paradise
********
Group: Entertainment Mod
Posts: 64,688
Member No.: 3,474
Joined: 24-May 07
 


In favour. They currently have no legal requirements to actually report facts and thus many do not. The phone hacking scandal showed just how unregulated they are. They were able to get away with massive breeches of law for years. Something like keeping the comment pages free from hate speech and then enforcing the broadcast news regulations for the non-comment sections and the front pages
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Mar 13 2018, 08:43 AM
Post #3
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 22,597
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(5 Silas Frøkner @ Mar 13 2018, 07:56 AM) *
In favour. They currently have no legal requirements to actually report facts and thus many do not.


Did they *ever* have a legal obligation to do so? unsure.gif

QUOTE
The phone hacking scandal showed just how unregulated they are. They were able to get away with massive breeches of law for years. Something like keeping the comment pages free from hate speech and then enforcing the broadcast news regulations for the non-comment sections and the front pages


The problem is, state regulation is one step on the slippery slope towards state *censorship*.
You have the sticky situation of who decides what newspapers are permitted to publish : quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Also, comments pages are *already* moderated. e.g. the Daily Mail always states 'The comments below have been moderated in advance.'

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Mar 13 2018, 01:06 PM
Post #4
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 13,194
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 13 2018, 08:43 AM) *
Did they *ever* have a legal obligation to do so? unsure.gif
The problem is, state regulation is one step on the slippery slope towards state *censorship*.
You have the sticky situation of who decides what newspapers are permitted to publish : quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Also, comments pages are *already* moderated. e.g. the Daily Mail always states 'The comments below have been moderated in advance.'


Regulation should apply where it conflicts with the law. That isnt the same as "control". Otherwise we could all slag you off mercilessly (or anyone else in the world) make up lies, accuse you of doing things you havent done, and get away with it under the feeble excuse of "freedom of speech"...

Quite rightly the press can't do that (and when it does it gets fined heavily, also quite rightly)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Mar 13 2018, 03:24 PM
Post #5
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 22,597
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 13 2018, 01:06 PM) *
Regulation should apply where it conflicts with the law. That isnt the same as "control". Otherwise we could all slag you off mercilessly (or anyone else in the world) make up lies, accuse you of doing things you havent done, and get away with it under the feeble excuse of "freedom of speech"...

Quite rightly the press can't do that (and when it does it gets fined heavily, also quite rightly)


And since we both agree on the above, I don't see the need for further regulation, as the existing ones work.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
¡Michael Myers!
post Mar 13 2018, 05:50 PM
Post #6
Scalp yo peen. Hallopeen.
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 23,378
Member No.: 18,639
Joined: 18-April 13
   No Gallery Pics
 


For.

We currently do not have a free press. It is owned by billionaires who use it as propaganda pages.

If the state regulates radio and tv media (which it does, although BBTory is cleared biased to the right and don't argue, Vidcapper - there are studies. Farage has appeared more times on Question Time than anyone in history whilst polling at 2% The right just bleat on and go on the offensive to stop it BEING balanced), then it should also regulate the press. Huge propaganda front pages days before the election, or on the actual day too, are disgusting.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Mar 13 2018, 08:05 PM
Post #7
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 13,194
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 13 2018, 03:24 PM) *
And since we both agree on the above, I don't see the need for further regulation, as the existing ones work.


that wasn't on the voting slip (bit of a theme here)....

but I do happen to think the UK in theory is fine. In practise a blind eye is turned, as we saw during the phone hacking loathesomeness and regulators are toothless. Part 2 of the invesitgation has been dropped because the press is too powerful - May & Murdoch & the Mail are constantly having private meetings. That is government interference. Politicians and the press should NEVER meet in private. They should be independent of one another, because it stinks of collusion otherwise. That is the British Way, and one reason why I respect the EU more than the UK for a fairer system.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
¡Michael Myers!
post Mar 13 2018, 09:12 PM
Post #8
Scalp yo peen. Hallopeen.
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 23,378
Member No.: 18,639
Joined: 18-April 13
   No Gallery Pics
 


Don't forget BBC commissioners on luncheons with Murdoch.

It's all disgusting. They are all in bed together - especially the Tories.

There needs to be press regulation just like with radio and tv, with commissioners with real teeth. If you make a false headline, such as commie spy McCarthy-era Corbyn slurs, prepare to dedicate the same size and feature to a GROVELLING apology and being taken out of circulation for however long as punishment.

The Elite are using the current rules to their advantage.'Press freedom' has come freedom to just be propaganda papers for the government and rich plutocrats.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tombo
post Mar 13 2018, 09:23 PM
Post #9
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Members
Posts: 5,517
Member No.: 9,543
Joined: 3-September 09
 


Hell no, I'm down for freedom not goverment controlled ish!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
¡Michael Myers!
post Mar 13 2018, 09:29 PM
Post #10
Scalp yo peen. Hallopeen.
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 23,378
Member No.: 18,639
Joined: 18-April 13
   No Gallery Pics
 


So you prefer billionaire plutocrat control?

You realise broadcast media is controlled ... right?

It stops bias ... supposedly. BBTory says hi.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Feline Lorde
post Mar 14 2018, 04:43 AM
Post #11
Lusts for Life
******
Group: Entertainment Mod
Posts: 7,422
Member No.: 21,753
Joined: 12-April 15
   No Gallery Pics
 


At the moment, our system tries to regulate independently and often struggles. As seen by the Fox / Sky drama, where the independent regulation systems we have in place should be clearly preventing even the idea of Murdoch controlling that much of the media, and that's not even mentioning the Competition and Markets Authority which is clearly (and rightly) against it.

We need independent regulation to stop people like Murdoch controlling and buying, effectively the news of the country and to make sure we receive a good quality and broad spectrum of news content and opinions. At the end of the day, the media controls the public and public opinion and we therefore need as much diversity in output as possible to ensure people are exposed to wide ranging content.

Censorship on the other hand should not take place unless it's something which is in breach of domestic or international law. I don't think this sort of policy goes against press freedoms. Broadcasting law is very good in that much of it is regulated by law. But other forms of media is a real free for all, which is bizarre considering other media forms have a far greater consumption these days.

I don't think there as big of a grey area / slippery slope between censorship and regulation as people suggest. It should be for any sensible government to ensure the country's media is diverse, accurate and does not contravene the law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Mar 14 2018, 06:46 AM
Post #12
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 22,597
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Shia LeMuffQueef @ Mar 13 2018, 05:50 PM) *
For.

We currently do not have a free press. It is owned by billionaires who use it as propaganda pages.

If the state regulates radio and tv media (which it does, although BBTory is cleared biased to the right and don't argue, Vidcapper - there are studies. Farage has appeared more times on Question Time than anyone in history whilst polling at 2% The right just bleat on and go on the offensive to stop it BEING balanced), then it should also regulate the press. Huge propaganda front pages days before the election, or on the actual day too, are disgusting.


I bet you wouldn't be complaining if the media was biased towards the Left... teresa.gif

QUOTE(Shia LeMuffQueef @ Mar 13 2018, 09:12 PM) *
Don't forget BBC commissioners on luncheons with Murdoch.

It's all disgusting. They are all in bed together - especially the Tories.

There needs to be press regulation just like with radio and tv, with commissioners with real teeth. If you make a false headline, such as commie spy McCarthy-era Corbyn slurs, prepare to dedicate the same size and feature to a GROVELLING apology and being taken out of circulation for however long as punishment.

The Elite are using the current rules to their advantage.'Press freedom' has come freedom to just be propaganda papers for the government and rich plutocrats.


FFS, is there a word you say that couldn't also have come straight out of Lenin's mouth? rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
¡Michael Myers!
post Mar 17 2018, 07:15 PM
Post #13
Scalp yo peen. Hallopeen.
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 23,378
Member No.: 18,639
Joined: 18-April 13
   No Gallery Pics
 


A bunch of us are complaining to Offcom and the BBC about their biased news report, where they propagandised Corbyn,photoshopping his hat to make it look more Russian and putting him against a red Russian background with the Saint Basil's Cathedral in the background.

Anyone want to join? We have a template complaint model.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-russi...rbyn-photoshop/

It's an absolute disgrace. Image sharpening also shows the hat was CLEARLY photoshopped to look more Russian.

BBTory!!!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Mar 17 2018, 09:57 PM
Post #14
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 13,194
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


I would but

1) it WAS funny (plus they got slagged off the following night on actual Newsnight by the Boy Lefty, so not as if they didn't give a right of reply and admit to it)

2) can we also complain about the Labour supporters appearing on RT, Russian-controlled news, not actually complaining about dead and poisoned Russians and Britons and complaining about the limited traditional expelling response (see that very Tory Obama Dec 2016)? You know, the one who completely says Putin has got far more important things to do than worry about killing Russians abroad. Clearly Ken hasn't actually heard Putin's statements or noticed the change in Russian law making it legal. Oops! Jezza has turned down any thought of shutting down RT - McDonuts suggestion - so we should also complain about Livingstone making implications of innocence without reference to evidence and RT for broadcasting such assumptions.

3) Jezza has made warnings about McCarthyism dissent as if he's a paragon of virtue cruelly implicated as a Communist by a secret committee of nasty right-wingers - and then conveniently forgets the moans about members in his own party who have to toe the party line or else suffer the consequences* that he got away with for 35 years without being witch-hunted.

(*deselection threats and the odd brick through a window)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
¡Michael Myers!
post Mar 17 2018, 10:01 PM
Post #15
Scalp yo peen. Hallopeen.
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 23,378
Member No.: 18,639
Joined: 18-April 13
   No Gallery Pics
 


3) Jezza has made warnings about McCarthyism dissent as if he's a paragon of virtue cruelly implicated as a Communist by a secret committee of nasty right-wingers - and then conveniently forgets the moans about members in his own party who have to toe the party line or else suffer the consequences* that he got away with for 35 years without being witch-hunted.

Toeing a party line and creating a media-wide McCarthy-era anti-democratic propaganda campaign are two entirely different things.

The dark implications of this media campaign, from the BBC to the rags, and across the Tories, are patently disturbing and threaten the very foundations of democracy. Do we live in a one party tory state?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Mar 18 2018, 06:38 AM
Post #16
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 22,597
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Shia LeMuffQueef @ Mar 17 2018, 10:01 PM) *
3) Jezza has made warnings about McCarthyism dissent as if he's a paragon of virtue cruelly implicated as a Communist by a secret committee of nasty right-wingers - and then conveniently forgets the moans about members in his own party who have to toe the party line or else suffer the consequences* that he got away with for 35 years without being witch-hunted.

Toeing a party line and creating a media-wide McCarthy-era anti-democratic propaganda campaign are two entirely different things.

The dark implications of this media campaign, from the BBC to the rags, and across the Tories, are patently disturbing and threaten the very foundations of democracy. Do we live in a one party tory state?


People regard me as somewhat obsessive about you-know-what wink.gif , but am I really any worse than SLMQ about the Tories?

Apart from anything else, they can hardly form a one-party state when they don't even have a HoC majority... rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Mar 18 2018, 10:53 AM
Post #17
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 13,194
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Shia LeMuffQueef @ Mar 17 2018, 10:01 PM) *
3) Jezza has made warnings about McCarthyism dissent as if he's a paragon of virtue cruelly implicated as a Communist by a secret committee of nasty right-wingers - and then conveniently forgets the moans about members in his own party who have to toe the party line or else suffer the consequences* that he got away with for 35 years without being witch-hunted.

Toeing a party line and creating a media-wide McCarthy-era anti-democratic propaganda campaign are two entirely different things.

The dark implications of this media campaign, from the BBC to the rags, and across the Tories, are patently disturbing and threaten the very foundations of democracy. Do we live in a one party tory state?


The BBC are required to be impartial and fair - I hardly think a photoshopped pic of jezza in front of the Kremlin overturns the serious analysis they carry out on Newsnight and justifies accusations of a one-party-state. Livingstone has been on Russian news basically saying the Kremlin are innocent. That means he either agrees with Jezza that there is a remote possibility that mafia crooks have taken over Russian chemicals unbeknownst to the man who has stated he will chase and kill traitors anywhere in the world, or else he agrees with the Russian ambassador the EU that Portland Down did it and the for some odd reason MI6 has decided to start murdering it's own spies and their families. That should go down very well with spies it has all over the world......

I mean, please, this is not Iraq and going to war over dodgy info that wasnt revealed. This is widely-known facts with suspects of 1, and it's chucking out some ambassadors that can be replaced by other bureaucrats soon as they decide we cant do without all that lovely natural gas and cash from corrupt Russian politics...(or Business As Usual). With toxic nerve agents on the streets of the UK it's the minimal response required. Had the Uk assassinated via British nerve toxins the murderer of the Russian 2006 UK assassination victim (now an MP) how do you think the Russians would react? Would they say, oh no we must do a thorough check to see who wants that bloke in particular, don't want to rush to conclusions and we must immediately go on British TV to slag off our own intelligence forces and suggest they are to blame and the UK might be innocent?

I note there is not much furore about the lack of registering of lethal products as it is supposed to be done, and the lack of following the "rules", which is essentially Corbyn's attitude so the UK doesn't get involved in sticking-up for it's own interests. If we won't do it why on Earth would any of our closest allies do anything other than make a nothing-much statement of support as well?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hexton
post Mar 21 2018, 02:07 AM
Post #18
rip in peace Dickston
******
Group: Artist Mod
Posts: 5,117
Member No.: 25,045
Joined: 29-January 17
   No Gallery Pics
 


Professional and respectable journalists are expected to be objective in their stories, something which can only be completely guaranteed with independent media groups. State regulation of the media is essentially censorship as in the end the government is given a choice on whether a story is run or not. Anything that disrespects (or just has a different viewpoint of) the government will obviously be stopped from broadcast/release, and stories which will contribute to helping the current government will be encouraged. It’s propaganda in its most basic form...

I can only really speak for the Australian media climate, but I imagine the situation is similar but on a bigger scale in the UK & US. Here, every single tv channel, radio station, or newspaper are run by the same 10~ people. There’s the big guys Murdoch & Stokes (and many more) then there’s a few family owned streams too. Considering how many different media options around, so many of them are owned by the same groups and the same situation would happen with state regulation. Currently, if there’s controversy out there in a story about Kerry Stokes - Channel 7 (biggest TV channel in WA) will completely ignore the story whilst every other platform in the country won’t shut up about it. Radio broadcasters suffer from thsi too and will be forced to be ignorant when it comes to stories involving their bosses otherwise they will lose their “highly respected” jobs. What happened if the government is regulating media? The exact same thing happens but on a larger scale as even more rich dickheads are trying to control what the public is told.

Fake News (which, I might add, was a valid term in use before Donald Trump came along) is an issue but it’s also not. Anyone can labelling a story which slags them off as “fake news”. Oh the BBC is saying that Corbyn is in cahoots with Putin? I don’t believe that, so I think it’s FAKE NEWS. Yes, there are genuine fake news stories out there (such as the viral photograph of the Muslim woman apparently walking past the London bridge terror attack on her phone) but that’s social media. Facebook, Twitter, and especially YouTube don’t have the safeguards in place to prevent fake news from being distributed. Anyone can post anything they want on social media, which is great you know #freedom but that is where fake news originates from...

Not that I want censorship on social media though tongue.gif The government should have next to no influence on what media platforms say or don’t say to the public.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Mar 21 2018, 01:16 PM
Post #19
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 13,194
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


Murdoch not only controls large amounts of the media in the UK and US too, but he also has a dodgy hand in the formation of political support with politicians personally. There should be NO collaboration at all. That is pereverting democracy (plus he's pushing be arbitrator in newspapers UK, and has pushed May to abandon a legal enquiry into his and others activities).

Re Newsnight, they used the same backdrop for a member of the Tory party the week before and placed the image in the same place on the same subject, and the photo of Corbyn wasn't doctored, it's an actual photo of Jezza with his usual Comrade cap on but a bit darker-looking. If he insists on wearing those sort of caps it's his own fault, and why did the Labour party not speak up about the same backdrop being used for a member of the government the week before?

It's a non-story whipped up by people trying to paint the BBC as raving Tories. Newsnight has always been fair in it's journalism - if it's failed at any time it's usually in the decision to broadcast a story or not broadcast a story involving the BBC's own work practices.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Apr 8 2018, 08:46 AM
Post #20
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 13,194
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


Meanwhile in the USA the start of State monitoring of opinion has begun. I note the lack of complaint from far-right groups about this blatant attack on freedom of speech and 1984-style state checking on individuals....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellefabio/...s/#77a9cb3e6121

Do you think the right-wing insistence on the freedom to say what they like actually suggests they mean the freedom to air their views and silence or control anyone who doesn't agree?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post


2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th October 2018 - 04:41 AM