[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I would NEVER discuss other members or their various flavours of bigotry.

I can somewhat agree that they were a bit hard-line on the wanting to be left entirely alone if they still want to live a public life through their own work (and, it seems, they do) - choosing that as a career means accepting some degree of public comment.

That said, I don't think it should be a press free-for-all when it comes to celebrities and I don't think asking for the vitriolic press to lay off a bit is a huge ask. I would think it reasonable request from any high-profile individual. Public discourse is one thing but there should be tighter restrictions on the accuracy and tone of what's actually published, be that physical or digital.

Unlike most Social media the press are governed by an independent body and can and regularly get into trouble fined and have to print retractions etc.

Pretending they are this wild pack of wolves is untrue.


"Following the Leveson Inquiry the Press Recognition Panel (PRP) was set up under the Royal Charter on self-regulation of the press to judge whether press regulators meet the criteria recommended by the Leveson Inquiry for recognition under the Charter. By 2016 the UK had two new press regulatory bodies, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), which regulates most national newspapers and many other media outlets, and IMPRESS, which regulates a much smaller number of outlets but is the only press regulator recognised by the PRP (since October 2016). Ofcom also oversees the use of social media and devices in the United Kingdom. BBC reports that Ofcom analyzes media use of the youth (ages 3 to 15 years old) to gather information of how the United Kingdom utilizes their media.

Broadcast media (TV, radio, video on demand), telecommunications, and postal services are regulated by Ofcom


wiki

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Unlike most Social media the press are governed by an independent body and can and regularly get into trouble fined and have to print retractions etc.



Pretending they are this wild pack of wolves is untrue.





"Following the Leveson Inquiry the Press Recognition Panel (PRP) was set up under the Royal Charter on self-regulation of the press to judge whether press regulators meet the criteria recommended by the Leveson Inquiry for recognition under the Charter. By 2016 the UK had two new press regulatory bodies, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), which regulates most national newspapers and many other media outlets, and IMPRESS, which regulates a much smaller number of outlets but is the only press regulator recognised by the PRP (since October 2016). Ofcom also oversees the use of social media and devices in the United Kingdom. BBC reports that Ofcom analyzes media use of the youth (ages 3 to 15 years old) to gather information of how the United Kingdom utilizes their media.



Broadcast media (TV, radio, video on demand), telecommunications, and postal services are regulated by Ofcom





wiki

Pointing out that regulation exists says nothing at all about whether or not that regulation is effective... They get fined, they pay it (its built into their bottom line - they expect it)... They post a tiny one paragraph retraction that no one reads to a story that was a two-page spread and they move on. There are clear examples of it happening time and time again.

You're basically TELLING me that my opinion should be that the UK press is fine, because Wikipedia says so . Thankfully I use my own brain to make decisions rather than wiki pages, so I'm comfortable maintaining my position that the UK press is a heaving pile of toxic trash, written by trash journalists and slobbered over by a trash readership. Might edit the wiki and stick that in there.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Pointing out that regulation exists says nothing at all about whether or not that regulation is effective... They get fined, they pay it (its built into their bottom line - they expect it)... They post a tiny one paragraph retraction that no one reads to a story that was a two-page spread and they move on. There are clear examples of it happening time and time again.

You're basically TELLING me that my opinion should be that the UK press is fine, because Wikipedia says so . Thankfully I use my own brain to make decisions rather than wiki pages, so I'm comfortable maintaining my position that the UK press is a heaving pile of toxic trash, written by trash journalists and slobbered over by a trash readership. Might edit the wiki and stick that in there.

i am pointing out a fact that our press is regulated as is radio and tv and most of social media is not

our press have exposed many things over the years. no one forces anyone to buy a paper or look at the website.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

i am pointing out a fact that our press is regulated as is radio and tv and most of social media is not



our press have exposed many things over the years. no one forces anyone to buy a paper or look at the website.

Social media is not the press, and while its a shambles for many of its own reasons, they're not the same reasons. People (the dumber ones) defer a certain amount of respect/trust to the press. They think, "what do you mean that's not true? It was in the paper..." whereas everyone is mostly aware that twitter opinions are opinions.

Pointing out that they've exposed things that needed exposing isn't really saying anything either - they can so that without the flipside (the tabloidy clickbait trash). I'm not saying "there should be NO PRESS!" I'm saying the press we have needs better regulation with meaningful consequences for harassment, misinformation and dodgy practices.

[jet]

Not really TS. That has been borne out over the years. Everyone thought what the press were reporting about Diana and Charles over the years was rubbish - many quite intimate details which people were saying "How would they know that!"

Then Diana's book was published, and she did the Bashir interview and Charles's bio was published and he did the Dimbleby interview and well....there it all was.....
Same with other Royals too over the years.

The press can't just make things up all over the show, they are accountable. They over - dramatize, sure, the front page headlines are often misleading, but there is more often than not truth in there....and the broadsheets usually carry exactly the same reports in a more, shall we say, dignified way....

[jet]

....and then there are the reliable and time - proven royal commentators and authors who are worth a listen on whatever the subject is in articles and good 'talking heads' docu's.
If things add up, well then, they can't just be discarded out of hand...