So for anyone unaware, there is currently a government enquiry underway to look into the case for increasing regulation of tabloid newspapers. This is mostly in reaction to the News of the World phone hacking melarkely, but it's been a chance for celebrities and commoners from all corners of the British Isles to reveal various journalistic misdeeds which have so far slipped under the radar.
And some of the stories are shocking. It is clear that the tabloid press have been acting unacceptably, but then I might not be quite as shocked if the BBC had not decided to present what's going on in the way it has. Slight irony there, but there we go.
I am in favour of tighter privacy laws and generally giving a slap around the face to the tabloids (which, in my opinion, are one of the greatest forces for evil in the western world). But let's be clear that the government ministers commissioning the inquiry will personally benefit from a reduction in tabloid power. Rupert Murdoch and his ilk, while hardly men of conscience, are one of the main factors for holding the government accountable for it's actions. Yes, News International et al don't publish govenment scandals for any reason other than for their own profits, and yes, the enormous influence newpapers have over voters is unacceptable. But we do need investigative journalism in the world. Our politicians are constantly performing anti-democratic backdoor deals and acts of spin in order to placate the CEOs and union leaders and pull the wool over the eyes of the public. That is the truth. And as residents of a democracy, we have the right to know what laws and policies our leaders are making and why. We cannot have access to that information without a relatively unregulated press.
So one of the main concerns I have about the Leveson inquiry is that it will act as an excuse for the government to slip in some piece fo legislation which restricts the media from doing exactly what we need it to do. We need the papers to stay independent of government control, or this country will completely cease to be a genuine democracy. The problem is, in a climate currently characterised by the phone hacking and similar scandals, with the never-ending parade of people who's lives have been torn apart by vicious tabloid journalism being shown to usevery day, that no-one will ever dream of objecting to an Act of Parliament which restricts the activity of tabloid journalists.
And maybe that's right. Privacy matters, of course it does. And the way that Charlotte Church, JK Rovwling, Hugh Grant, Kate McCann and all the rest of them have been treated breaks my heart as much as anyone else's. There is no doubt to that.
I am in favour of retracting the coils of journalism from the private lives of individuals. Celebrities, grieving mothers, writers, even politicians- we all have the right to the privacy of our own homes, and it is none of the general public's business who we may have slept with and what diets and fashions we are choosing to sport. If the government introduce regulation which stops the papers from publishing or attempting to find out that kind of information, and that kind of information alone, then I will sing my praises from the nearest rooftop along with the rest of the country.
But the government would be foolish, from their point of view, not to strike while the iron is almost melting and slip in some regulation which stops the press from investigating poltiical sleaze and dishonesty. So I will remain wary of such regulation being part of whatever legislation results from this Inquiry.
No profession or group of people is ever purely a force for evil. While investigative journalism is currently running riot and ruining lives, that does not mean that investigative journalism is an evil thin in itself. And is does not mean that we will not be far worse off as a society without it.
And some of the stories are shocking. It is clear that the tabloid press have been acting unacceptably, but then I might not be quite as shocked if the BBC had not decided to present what's going on in the way it has. Slight irony there, but there we go.
I am in favour of tighter privacy laws and generally giving a slap around the face to the tabloids (which, in my opinion, are one of the greatest forces for evil in the western world). But let's be clear that the government ministers commissioning the inquiry will personally benefit from a reduction in tabloid power. Rupert Murdoch and his ilk, while hardly men of conscience, are one of the main factors for holding the government accountable for it's actions. Yes, News International et al don't publish govenment scandals for any reason other than for their own profits, and yes, the enormous influence newpapers have over voters is unacceptable. But we do need investigative journalism in the world. Our politicians are constantly performing anti-democratic backdoor deals and acts of spin in order to placate the CEOs and union leaders and pull the wool over the eyes of the public. That is the truth. And as residents of a democracy, we have the right to know what laws and policies our leaders are making and why. We cannot have access to that information without a relatively unregulated press.
So one of the main concerns I have about the Leveson inquiry is that it will act as an excuse for the government to slip in some piece fo legislation which restricts the media from doing exactly what we need it to do. We need the papers to stay independent of government control, or this country will completely cease to be a genuine democracy. The problem is, in a climate currently characterised by the phone hacking and similar scandals, with the never-ending parade of people who's lives have been torn apart by vicious tabloid journalism being shown to usevery day, that no-one will ever dream of objecting to an Act of Parliament which restricts the activity of tabloid journalists.
And maybe that's right. Privacy matters, of course it does. And the way that Charlotte Church, JK Rovwling, Hugh Grant, Kate McCann and all the rest of them have been treated breaks my heart as much as anyone else's. There is no doubt to that.
I am in favour of retracting the coils of journalism from the private lives of individuals. Celebrities, grieving mothers, writers, even politicians- we all have the right to the privacy of our own homes, and it is none of the general public's business who we may have slept with and what diets and fashions we are choosing to sport. If the government introduce regulation which stops the papers from publishing or attempting to find out that kind of information, and that kind of information alone, then I will sing my praises from the nearest rooftop along with the rest of the country.
But the government would be foolish, from their point of view, not to strike while the iron is almost melting and slip in some regulation which stops the press from investigating poltiical sleaze and dishonesty. So I will remain wary of such regulation being part of whatever legislation results from this Inquiry.
No profession or group of people is ever purely a force for evil. While investigative journalism is currently running riot and ruining lives, that does not mean that investigative journalism is an evil thin in itself. And is does not mean that we will not be far worse off as a society without it.
No comments:
Post a Comment