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.
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.
Comment