Should the press be regulated?
 

With the Leveson report recommending a tougher form of self-regulation backed by legislation with "statutory underpinning", what do people think?

I don't think it should. We've had a free press for over 300 years and either it stays that way or it has to act within parameters set by the state, and it's basically no longer free. I know that what the NOTW did was terrible but the phone hacking was already illegal, the problem was more with the law enforcement not a lack of regulation. A free press is needed in any democracy and any regulation at all threatens that, I think people have underestimated how important it is

Thanks MTVN, I really didn't want to be the one to start a thread in this haha!
Self regulation was seen to be popular with the mail according to the daily politics.
Whereas statutory underpinning was backed by the guardian...
So this could be the best of both worlds?
Something had to be done, its not the end of free speech, hopefully it's the end of Rupert Murdoch dictating policies for media backing?...

Having not waded through the 2000 or so pages of this report and just listened to the highlights, I've got to say I think Justice Leveson has got it just about right. I particularly like the idea that people who could not afford to sue a newspaper will be able to get legal redress.

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...d.php?t=216376

MTVN

Better Merge my thread with yours.

I'm in two minds over this. While I think freedom of speech is a right that should be defended fiercely, I do think that the press has gotten a little out of control in recent years. Some parts of the news establishment seem to think they have a lot of sway in how government works etc and that's something I don't particularly like at all.

Depends what the regulations are of course. If stories have to be run by superiors and civil servants then there's a whole shady red-tape area there that'd be awful, but if it's just "please don't call this celebrity a rapist" then that's fine by me. Most quality journalism shouldn't really be harmed by this.

They just need to introduce some regulations to make sure that Journalists only get information through legitimate means rather then bugging and such. Harsh sanctions should be in place for people who resort to those methods.

Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to introduce guidelines that prevent the rampant sensationalism that's taken hold in UK Media, put the emphasis back on pure factual reporting rather than stirring up witch hunts and moral panics.

It's tough really as the Media are above the law as it stands, but I dread that if they do get regulated will it turn into some sort of dictatorship?

i think we need to

But phone hacking and the like are already illegal and now carries a 2 year prison sentence I believe, regulation wasn't the problem it was more that the law was not enforced effectively, it's a police matter not one for regulators and so I don't see why press regulation is now considered a logical result of the phone hacking scandal. I don't think you can have just a little bit of regulation; the press is either free, or it isn't and introducing any regulation makes it subject to parliament, and means it's forced to work only within boundaries set by the government.

no, i think they have the right to say what they want. A lot of the time, people know they are bull****ting anyway

We all already live within boundaries set by the government.

If certain parts of the press had acted responsibly in the past and not abused the freedoms they have - and I don't mean just the hacking scandal - and if they had shown that they were capable of regulating themselves, then we wouldn't need to have an independent outside body regulating them.

I realise that which is why I brought up that the press have already been acknowledged to break the law with the phone hacking, they are not above it.

I accept that there have to be changes in the press and yes there have been times they abused their position. It's fashionable to hate on the press atm but their role is still important and of benefit to society, the most recent example being the exposing of the MP's expenses. That also showed how politicians can abuse their position to, so what makes them such a much more trustworthy source of regulation than the press themselves? Sure I know that all that Leveson has recommended is the "statutory underpinning" but the principle is important, and why should we believe the power over the press won't be expanded in the future when convenient. It's a slippery slope, just look at other cases of media regulation throughout history and elsewhere in the world

The last 'few' times the media have been allowed to self regulate, certain sections of the media ( tabloids) have shown that statutory underpinning is the only way to truly ensure that the media are held accountable for everyone... Not just those with access to top lawyers and super-injunctions.
A free press is great, press that prints half-truths and un-truths without redress isn't.

I don't know about it being fashionable to hate on the press, to me it is wonderful that we now question what we read.
Gone are the days we instinctively digest whatever political leanings the daily paper is favouring at the time with our cornflakes hopefully!
:joker:

were not using the laws we already have effectively. but as for stautory underpinning of the regulator, Im saying yes all the way to that. It does concern me slightly however if labour get back in if they will add to this, because labour seem to have little respect for free speech and civil rights

What, the right to brainwash young people and all?

Absolutely , yes self regulation clearly does not work and there should by strict guidelines backed up with legal redress to stop blatant intrusions into people's lives merely for monetary gain to sell newspapers. Even more so when the story has no real public interest.

Journalists will always continue to investigate serious news stories but the frivolous tacky and sensationalist stories that we see all so often must be curtailed.

100% yes this is simply a safe guard to protect the illegal abuses we have seen that have destroyed lives for 40 years. Its not going to affect the press much at all, its simply a safety net for the average man on the street who cant afford to fight to protect his name against slander