Quote:
Originally Posted by Livia
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