I am a fundamental believer in a free press - utterly free from any regulation. A press where any views, any beliefs, any stories have the power to be published for the public to examine and scrutinize without state censorship. A free press allows an informed electorate to gain understanding of what the big issues are, with a number of opinions, without editing of stories in the Government's favour. Though many right-wing newspapers exist and support the Government, left-wing columists and newspapers can be just as easily found and read. However, the fundamental elements of a free press appear fragile and weakened if the Government have their way.
Government proposals would mean that if a media organisation were sued, perhaps for libel, even if it won the case in court, the organisation would still be forced to pay the costs of those who sued them. However, according to Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, this proposal wouldn't apply to media organisations signed to a state regulator. It appears the Government are trying to strangulate media organisations into signing up to this regulator for fear of otherwise going bust. The regulator would of course censor what was written, and the free press is destroyed. Unsurprisingly, a substantial number of media organisations, on the left & right politicallly, have expressed wide opposition to this proposal. How fascinating that newspapers who would otherwise disagree on so much are united on this matter. As you can tell, I am utterly opposed to this press regulation. The Crime and Courts Act was only set up in response to the Leveson Inquiry - started because of the phone hacking scandal. Phone hacking is utterly shameful and I feel saddened for hacking victims. Any journalist who uses that intrusive form of gaining information for a 'scoop' should be justly punished. However, phone hacking is, rightly, illegal and therefore already monitored by the state. An extra regulator is not necessary for this problem, as it does not need to be regulated - it needs to be stopped! The case for a regulator because of phone hacking is unjustified. The policy itself is irrational, illogical and simply wrong. The whole idea of a court case, when sued, is for media companies to try and make the case against paying fees and justify their story. It is not right that money should automatically be guaranteed for the prosecution, however strong or moral their arguments for suing are. With this policy, anybody, provided they had the money, could sue a media organisation that refused to sign up to the regulator, give any reason for suing and win money. Whether the Government are trying to curb the increasing power of the media or are trying to come up with a bad solution to a necessary problem, I don't know. Now more than ever, accountability of Government and those in powerful places is so crucial and vital for democracy to succeed. Under the current system, columists can say what they really, truly believe about any issue without being silenced. Whether they're for capital punishment, against grammar schools, suport a free NHS or oppose drug legalisation, all these opinions can be debated, regardless of the Government's position on matters. I do not have confidence that this system will remain the same under a state regulator: constantly viewing opinions before going to press, cutting snipets that didn't agree with their view and utterly censoring opinion. All without the public being aware of what the columist believes, and what the state thinks. None of this means the press is perfect. Of course there are issues with media power, the levels of spin & so-called fake news, among others. But, I believe it provides more good than not. As Ian Hislop said on Have I Got News for You, If people really dislike a certain part of the press, regarding what they write and stand for, they shouldn't try to ban the paper, they simply shouldn't buy it!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|