Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UK Media - The Good, The Bad and the Ugly

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    UK Media - The Good, The Bad and the Ugly

    Following on from the discussion started in the Celeb Death Thread of Caroline Flack’s suicide – the notion was raised that the UK media holds a lot of responsibility through their rabid coverage of all things celebrity.

    The wider topic at hand though is the role of the media and their responsibilities in reporting the news. The questions raised include:

    Should the media have more responsibility for what it prints?

    Should the media be more heavily regulated?

    Is it okay for the media to show bias? Is bias and truth compatible or mutually exclusive?

    Is the media creating the news, or is it simply printing what people want to read – and with that, does the public then hold some responsibility for driving these stories through being happy to pay for them.

    If you’re going to try and regulate the media or regulate media bias, how are you going to do that and who then is the arbiter of truth and arbiter of bias that decides what the truth is and where bias lies?

    If you do regulate the media further, does this then hamper their ability to uncover the truth over such things as MP’s abuse of expenses or Rolf Harris’s two little boys?

    Regulation isn’t simple – any restriction on the freedom of the press is likely to have unforeseen consequences, so maybe the status quo is the better option ….

    Let's discuss the British media - the good, the bad and the ugly.

    #2
    Okay, this is just my top line version. Yes, the media should have way more repsonsibility for what it prints. If I was to identify one huge societal problem (one that exists in many countries in different forms but is particularly bad with the UK tabloids), it is that every single day, not one day excluded, the tabloids have their awful toxic sensationalist messages broadcast everywhere. You can't pass a shop without them being in your face and, now, you pretty much can't open the likes of Facebook or Twitter without seeing them. Every day for your whole life. Cults could only dream of such consistent messaging and access.

    So to me, that's a major problem and it has been a major problem for a very long time.

    In terms of bias, every article has bias. Every journalist has bias. Of course they do. To claim otherwise would show a lack of understanding of normal people and there is no way to rid the media of bias completely. But the big issue here (sorry, not the Big Issue) is an institutional bias. Where the bias is dictated from the top down and applied across media deliberately. Where a newspaper exists not to give the news but to push a position. In that situation, yes, bias and truth are mutually exclusive.

    But let's not kid ourselves that bias can be removed completely - individuals have bias and you will see that reflected in news stories. But good journalism should aspire to not let it show.

    Your question of regulation (yep, it's not simple at all) I feel is improperly posed because, if anything, proper investigative journalism has lost out in favour of PR stories, sensationalism, pap shots and position-pushing. Regulation is far from something that should inhibit investigative journalism. Instead, it should push towards it by coming down harder on newspapers being manifestos for rich corporate businessmen. Those people don't want investigative journalism and that's the problem. We get spin, not news. That's what needs to be regulated. And yeah, it's not easy at all.

    But no, the status quo is not the better option. The status quo is rotten.

    Those are just quick unfinished thoughts to kick things off...

    Comment


      #3
      I sometimes wonder if people know what they're reading. If they understand that there's a left/right bias.

      People buy the Daily Mail because it speaks their language. Isn't Kate beautiful, hasn't Meghan torn the family apart?
      They don't realise their opinions are being manipulated.

      It makes me think of cigarettes, and how the Government has taken steps to make them unpalatable to people.
      The high tax, the health warnings, the photographs, even hiding them from view.

      Food - you now have warnings on food, indicating the energy, fat, sugar and salt are in something. Quite often, people are surprised that something has a lot of sugar (tomato ketchup) or salt (breakfast cereals) or high in calories (McDonald's salad dressing).
      Sugary drinks now have a higher price to encourage people away from them.

      Some people don't know this information and helps them steer their diet, other people know it's not good for them and carry on anyway.

      The point I'm trying to make is that people believe that newspapers deliver news, when it's usually opinion pieces or written with an agenda to make the reader think a certain way.

      Would a warning at the top of each newspaper help clueless people know what they're buying?
      Would a number of corrections per week show how inaccurate it is?

      I don't know. I'm just thinking of how you could retain freedom of the press, but with some accountability.

      Comment


        #4
        There is no such thing as a free press, all papers should have a license which can be revoked at anytime. For example when hacking murdered peoples phones etc.

        Comment


          #5
          It's kind of like trying to guage at what point does a newspaper stop being a newspaper and instead become propaganda. They've normalised the use of lies as news and a method of shaping public opinion to such an extent that it's normalised it to be done in other forms such as out own government literally lying to the public during an election campaign purely for the purpose of securing its own re-election. Such a thing used to be literally called out for what it is - corruption, now its a winning strategy.

          It leans hard on the complaints Trump often makes about the media but obviously in that case it's a pot calling kettle black situation where he's technically right but simultaneously doing the same himself via his own use of the media and media links such as Fox etc.

          The idea of a regulated press probably shouldn't be off putting at this point. The concern has always been about whether a level of impartiality could be maintained with tighter regulation and accountability but the current state of the press and those who use and abuse it shows that there's no semblence of that already.

          The BBC isn't impartial but it would be a damn sight less impartial if it was regulated in the manner that it is which shows a basic frame for how the wider media should be policed.

          Comment


            #6
            I think you're hitting on a problem that Marty has been trying to reference too. You might believe that the press needs to be regulated... but do you want it regulated by THIS government, which has shown a disregard for the truth and has attempted to manipulate and control the press in the way that fascists have done? That's what Trump does. His complaints about the media and attempts to dismiss those critical of him are a textbook fascist tactic.

            But this is where a country needs regulation not to control media for the government but to protect it from the government. It's pretty much impossible to see how that could be brought in during the current climate. If anything, what we need is a better government, one which doesn't fear or try to control the press, to then bring in regulation to protect the media from corporate and government corruption, allowing journalists to do their job under a system of regulation that prevents media being propaganda but instead actual news.

            Comment


              #7
              I'd definitely not trust the government with oversight of the media buit I guess that's where it brings it back around to the Flack situation. Whilst the government couldn't be trusted to not use the press etc for its own purposes that is a seperate line of risk than the media's hounding of individuals and their jury by press approach to reporting on celebrities etc. Taking regulation in baby steps there's not much reason why non-political related freedoms are so extensive when in some cases there are literally lives on the line. With continued outcry about trying to enforce social media platforms to take greater control and responsibility for the words of their users it makes a mockery of governments to try that stance whilst allowing rags like the Sun to hound people to their deaths.

              Comment


                #8
                Yep, I totally agree. And a bad government does not remove that need for setting better standards.

                Comment


                  #9
                  I think when the papers make a “mistake” and are forced to publish an apology/retraction, then it should be of the exact same scale of how it was published originally – same page number, number of pages, number of days they were running it, even the same number of column inches and font size. If the complainant wants it, it could also carry a statement from them where they can give their side of the story and explain about any underhanded tactics and harassment they were receiving from the reporters, free for all their readers to see.

                  Right now you can just publish wild speculation and not suffer many adverse consequences, certainly not enough to put them off. Tiny apology near the wordsearch and an out of court settlement clearly isn’t much of a threat.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Yes to all of that too. Lies have much more power as it is. The correction/retraction system right now isn’t even close to being enough. Lies should be corrected. And this isn’t necessarily about punishment (mistakes can happen), it’s about making sure the truth gets an equal chance at being seen. And really, when I put it like that, it feels like even an equal chance isn’t enough.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I posted this in the Celebrity Deaths thread, but it's more applicable here:
                      Tabloids regularly publish covers that seem to defame, but they get away with it. Huck lawyer Alex Wade explores the line separating free speech and libel.


                      Tying in with [MENTION=7652]Hirst[/MENTION]'s comment:
                      "Do newspapers expect to get sued, and do they have a pot of cash set aside for court cases?
                      Newspapers do expect to be sued, yes. Some have insurance, others self-insure – i.e. they put aside a large pot of cash to deal with legal problems.


                      Are average people able to sue, or do you need to have tons of money to take on someone like The Daily Mail, and hence this becomes the preserve of rich people and corporations, or famous guys like Hugh Grant (who’s also of course rich)?
                      Libel used to be regarded as a rich man’s game but in fact the average person can sue, thanks to the availability of no win, no fee arrangements. Curiously, though, those very same no win, no fee deals are usually how the rich bring libel claims, too.


                      Let’s look at that Corbyn election day cover – how do they get away with it? I mean, he’s not a terrorist’s friend – neither is he any of the other allegations for that matter.
                      You’re right – technically the cover is highly defamatory of Corbyn. However, there’s an unwritten rule that politicians will take this kind of thing on the chin, and that’s what they tend to do. Looks like Corbyn had the last laugh, too…


                      And how about this Daily Mail one, ‘Enemies of the People’, really?!
                      Again, it’s clearly defamatory. In no way are the judges really ‘enemies of the people’. But while they could have sued, they chose to rise above it. The correct response, some might say, to anything the Mail does."


                      It's interesting where he says "Corbyn had the last laugh", because eventually, he didn't.
                      Plenty of voters happy to lap up that he's a terrorist and antisemitic.
                      Maybe that was the excuse they needed to vote Tory and get Brexit, maybe they genuinely believed it.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        The simple fact is that popular media is massively effective in shaping public opinion. if you court the media and keep them onside you tend to do a hell of a lot better in the public eye. For example two politicians that play the media game massively well that they can quite literately make racist statements, say vile homophobic slurs, be extremely sexist, and dodge negative press are Johnson and Trump.

                        The same media will quite happily spin all sorts of rubbish about your opponents too. The Corbyn antisemitic play that worked so well in the uk has actually been used in the US against Bernie Sanders a person who is Jewish and has relatives that survived the holocaust.

                        That so many people lap this misinformation up makes you really question how gullible and stupid the general public are. The most damaging thing the media have done in recent years though is blaming the poor/the immigrants/and the disabled for all our financial issues, while Media Barron's and CEOs horde the majority of the worlds wealth and resources.
                        Last edited by Lebowski; 18-02-2020, 16:39.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          That's actually a reminder of another change that shoudl be made: No paper should be permitted to endorse a political party

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X