General Chat

Is there a widening gap between the two, which should be the same?

In the light of recent events, with thephone tapping scandal getting more incredible by the minute, and the recent court case being dropped for one of Levi Bellfieds victims, depriving her of justice, because of media reporting, should the law be tightened or changed regarding what the media can report on and how it is reported?

I don't like the thought of masses of legislation to curb the press, and in an ideal world, people would 'vote with their feet' and just not buy the bilge which purports to be journalism.

Good point Sheila, and to be honest I rarely if ever buy a newspaper, if I do then its the local evening news or local daily...not a fleet street rag.

But of course it's not just newspapers, its TV too, if you really listen to the way some news items are reported,...

I used to support freedom of the press, do you reckon that bloke ...one of the first people that used to secret filming on all sorts of scams, and of course the information I have read in the press about grooming pedos otherwise I would still think they wore long brown dirty macs and had comb overs. But in my opinion they press has exploited this over the years, to hack in to someones calls who have either missing children and recently their bodies found are nothing but scum.

What truths can we believe if unlike me you can be bothered to read them, in the news papers today? Aprt form the date.

It's not just the phone tapping and secret filming (though to be fair, some of it has exposed some dreadful scams which IS in the public interest to expose), the tactics are somewhat lacking morality really.

But even a general interest report is worded in such a way as to cause outrage. Take for instance the proposed new route from Brize Norton for our fallen heroes. the report in the Mail focussed intirely on the use of the side entrances and missing out the next village. The omitted the point that this was all decided for very good reasons, after lengthy consultation with the parish council, the village, the RAF, the police and the British Legion AND the families, all of whom agreed that the ALTERNATIVE exit was the best thing for all concerned. Brize Norton is an operational RAF base, and those necessary operations would have had to be halted if the main gate were used, and that's just one reason that the Mail decided not to mention.

The whole selective reporting was designed to cause maximum public outrage, not to inform us of the next stage and why.

It is Teresa, the press only twant o make a mockery of either the government police force and the brisitsh justice system and to spread any doom and gloom, if I do read anything reported in the newspaper I read a paragraph and think this arrr but what actually is happening is this.......the press have become a law on to their own since wapping......and who cares if Cheryl Cole remarries Ashley?

Or Ryan Giggs is having affairs? lol

Seriously though, there needs to be something done about the METHODS by which journalists gain their information, but where do you draw the line?

With freedom comes responsibility, but some don't seem to realise that.

the Ryan Giggs thing is also classic one it was on news at 10 FGS I love him but he isnt that important... ( well actually he is ) but you know what I mean :-P

I think if the media get in the way of judicial progress, they should be prosecuted like anyone else.
As for the dilemma of 'whose phone to tap' etc - they know (morally) what is right or wrong - but just want the 'story' - and 'story' is the right word - some don't seem to care how true it is, they just want to sell newspapers.

By that, I mean I'm glad the Telegraph exposed politicians who were defrauding the public with false expense claims - that was morally right - why should well paid politicians claim more than most of us earn in a year on 'expenses'?
However, the News of the Screws will do anything to 'hype' up a situation for their own ends, without any thought of morals or ethics.

The problem is, what can the government, regulating bodies etc etc, do to prevent bad reporting methods such as the phone tapping, that by the way was bad enough when just snooping into celebs and politicians private calls, but stepped way over the line with Millie Dower's phone.

It would be easy for the majority of us, it's a moral issue, it's knowing what's right and wrong, but clearly we cannot rely on the morality of journalists when it comes to making money.

Also, does anyone believe that that kind of reporting actually sells newspapers? I find that a difficult one. OK during the MPs expenses scandal, I did buy the Telegraph, for the first time in donkey's years, because I wanted to see for myself what they were suggesting as these are the people who are running our country, but I certainly don't buy the Loos of the World or the Scum because there's a little bit of possible celebrity gossip (any more than I buy Heat or any of the other celeb gossip mags either).

Now I really must get to bed, before I fall asleep on my keyboard. ;-)

The phone hacking is to be debated in parliament today, around 1.30pm after PMQ's. Let's hope this brings up some kind of resolution to the way journalists conduct their investigations and reporting.

i think the phone hacking is a disgrace, i read the papers online most days, and only buy them on a sunday, "altho wont be no more"

dont get me started on the mags.....glossies .."my world is complete now I have had my new baby boy we named him Plimsole Pussycat-greenwater...we are also selling our souls for £1000.000.00.....or My husband ran off with next doors budgie who happen to be my half sister twice removed...its just tat...what really alarms me is the people that read the gutter press and believe everyword printed ...now thats scary....I actually myself stopped buying newspapers after Piers Morgan and them photos... :-D

Just as everyone has a right to privacy, so should there be Freedom of the Press to report on events of public interest. But the 2 must be balanced sensibly.

It is an offence to interfere with the Royal Mail and to intentionally eavesdrop on phone calls without a 'lawful excuse' ie the police and security depts can do it with the appropriate paper work.

**Section 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”) makes it an offence to intentionally intercept communications transmitted over a public telecommunication system without a “lawful excuse”, which will only usually cover investigations by the Police or Security Services. Section 3 of the Act allows any victim of unlawful interception to sue in the Civil Courts. Unlike many similar offences and civil claims, there is no “public interest” defence available to Hackers.**

http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2011/07/06/23227-the-legal-and-moral-issues-surrounding-phone-hacking-by-news-of-the-world/
(its quite a lengthy article and worth reading in full)

Is it in the public interest to poke microphones in the faces of traumatised people? It may make good Copy/sound bites but in my opinion they should not be subject to invasion immediately after an event.

The Laws of this country are there to protect everyone, and people in the Media should also abide by them.

It does cause complications if the Media can claim that information (gathered illegally) was provided by a 3rd party. eg a Government Minister taking Bungs. If we were to say that All informants were to be prosecuted, then possibly so called Whistleblowers who expose serious cover-ups may not be so willing to come forward.