Beginning of the end of a free press?

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 11 Nov 2008, 01:59

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 06607.html

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 11 Nov 2008, 08:34

In principle, some censorship and anti-terrorism legislation are fine with me.

However if we take a look at how RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) has been used then I lose confidence.

And you wonder why I'm not keen on civil servants?

Local councils are using snooping laws - the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act - to follow dog walkers suspected of letting their dogs crap on public land and people suspected of littering.

RIPA is meant to control how investigating bodies like the police and secret services can snoop on citizens' communications and movements. But the Press Association has found that 46 councils used the legislation 1,343 times against residents.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/28 ... g_fouling/

Mean Mr Mustard · Post by **Mean Mr Mustard** » 11 Nov 2008, 18:49

Local govt busybodies, not civil servants...

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 11 Nov 2008, 19:57

Mean Mr Mustard wrote:Local govt busybodies, not civil servants...

Same animal, just a different label.

ziggy12345 · Post by **ziggy12345** » 14 Dec 2008, 16:00

Who reads the newspapers anyway? Its all regulated so lets stick to the interenet

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 14 Dec 2008, 16:16

ziggy12345 wrote:Who reads the newspapers anyway? Its all regulated so lets stick to the interenet

A lot of people seem to read, and believe, the Daily Mail. Or isn't that a newspaper? I haven't seen much I'd call news in it when I see it at my brother's house.

Ben · Post by **Ben** » 14 Dec 2008, 17:10

ziggy12345 wrote:Who reads the newspapers anyway? Its all regulated so lets stick to the interenet

No doubt everyone on here is sceptical about what they come across in the media; our BS detectors start working overtime. But I'd like to stick up for newspapers. A lot of Powerswitch discussion is sparked off by media articles. Plus, at least they have some sort of quality control; unlike much of the internet. A relief in a world that's dumbing down fast.

With the internet not only do you have to watch out for prejudice, vested interest and lies, you also have far more ignorance and incompetence (I don't exclude myself!). Surely we need a largely uncensored internet AND formal media?

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 14 Dec 2008, 17:31

The Daily Mail is a special case ... there is a book out about the Editor, Paul Dacre, which is quite revealing ...

gug · Post by **gug** » 15 Dec 2008, 00:10

Ben wrote:at least they have some sort of quality control; unlike much of the internet. A relief in a world that's dumbing down fast.

Much as i'd love to believe that, I'm not sure its true

I thoroughly recommend the book "Flat Earth News" by Nick Davies (himself a journalist). Lifts the lid on the imagined quality control and truthfulness we'd like to imagine.

http://www.flatearthnews.net/

Ben · Post by **Ben** » 15 Dec 2008, 01:11

gug wrote:
Ben wrote:at least they have some sort of quality control; unlike much of the internet. A relief in a world that's dumbing down fast.
Much as i'd love to believe that, I'm not sure its true

I thoroughly recommend the book "Flat Earth News" by Nick Davies (himself a journalist). Lifts the lid on the imagined quality control and truthfulness we'd like to imagine.

http://www.flatearthnews.net/

I'll keep an eye out for a copy of 'Flat Earth News'. I only said 'some sort of quality control' though, I do realise that media literacy is required to try to cut through the 'prejudice, vested interests and lies' I mentioned.

The Beeb is certainly dumbing down fast. Much of it is now on a par with The Daily Mail. Watching the BBC news a couple of days ago it seemed to be built around a series of street interviews with assorted members of the public "What did you get in the Woolies sale?" (who cares?). Do social workers do a good job? (why ask a random stranger?). "What do you think of this terrible murder?" ("I didn't like it" - surprise surprise). "Coming up next: police suspect that vigilantes may have murdered and mutilated a convicted paedophile". Time to reach for the OFF switch.

I suppose someone noticed that reality TV is cheap and gets good viewing figures. Plus, Jo Public's opinion must be as worthwhile as someone with expertise; to say otherwise would be elitest or anti-democratic.

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 15 Dec 2008, 09:00

With the internet not only do you have to watch out for prejudice, vested interest and lies

Plenty of that in the printed and television media.
Find a Damian Green story on the BBC...

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 15 Dec 2008, 09:20

What can you believe in a newspaper?

The newspaper title & the date.

Ben · Post by **Ben** » 15 Dec 2008, 12:28

Vortex wrote:What can you believe in a newspaper?

The newspaper title & the date.

Surely at least as much as much as anywhere else? What can you believe on the internet? Or on TV?

We can't learn everything by direct experience alone. "It's a vice to trust all, and equally a vice to trust none” so the saying goes. The only chance for us seems to be identifying multiple sources and learning to assess authority.