Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Immediate global restrictions on reporting...
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
JK2006 |
Right TP - my answer! I am strongly against censorship but I am very much in favour of responsibility. I'm afraid the lurid and gory coverage of certain crimes glamourises them and gives those few demented souls a very good motive for causing death and destruction.
If Cliff Richard were to become a serial killer (unlikely; he's a lovely man) his crimes should be covered with minimal detail and in very basic form but his music should still be played. |
|
Tuppenceworth |
JK2006 wrote:
I'm strongly in favour of strict restrictions on reporting (online, traditional media) of certain incidents; the equivalent of a global D Notice should be agreed by all media. It won't be, of course, because the one important thing in media is THE GREAT STORY.
Media doesn't care about consequences. Without coverage, there would have been no Kenyan massacre (or Norwegian one or most others).
What is to be gained by terrorists? Answer - global publicity. Ban that and you stop the incidents.
Remove the oxygen of publicity. Maggie got it right.
I keenly appreciate the value of freedom of expression, so I strongly disagree with you on this JK. Of course, one must be an intelligent and sometimes sceptical consumer of a variety of news media to get closer to the truth of events.
How do you square your view on reporting restrictions with your criticism of pulling old episodes of ToTP? |
|
hedda |
Maggie got it right ?
must be why the British Army laid on a special chartered flight for the media to cover the Falklands.
Kenya : odd stuff with all the dramatic photos of fleeing victims and crouching policeman, soldiers etc. The cameraman who is everywhere seems to be calmly standing up in the line of fire while others crouch. weird. |
|
Jim |
Be careful for what you wish. You may find you already have it.
There already are unofficial global restrictions on reporting. They cast an unaccountably rigid authority.
Take just one example: the Guardian's reporting of the killing of Ian Tomlinson by the Met. With stunning obedience to power, none of the corporate media reported any of the numerous independent eye-witness accounts of his being cracked around the skull and knocked to the ground by a cop, at least, not until the video of the event was brought to the Guardian offices in London by the merchant banker who just happened to have captured it. Paul Lewis, the man who later won an award for exposing the killing, even reported he had died of a heart attack. Anybody reading indymedia could see what really happened.
Curiously, for reasons never explained, the police knew the Guardian had possession of the video before it went online, and showed up at the Guardian to plead with them not to publish. In what may be mistaken for a breaking of ranks, The Guardian refused. But if they hadn't published, youtube undoubtedly would have done and The Guardian's reputation would have been tarnished.
There is a free press, but it only uses its freedom to ruin the lives of the weak, not to protect them from the abuses of powerful. |
|
JK2006 |
I'm strongly in favour of strict restrictions on reporting (online, traditional media) of certain incidents; the equivalent of a global D Notice should be agreed by all media. It won't be, of course, because the one important thing in media is THE GREAT STORY.
Media doesn't care about consequences. Without coverage, there would have been no Kenyan massacre (or Norwegian one or most others).
What is to be gained by terrorists? Answer - global publicity. Ban that and you stop the incidents.
Remove the oxygen of publicity. Maggie got it right. |
|
|
|
