IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Sex and Hacking
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
JK2006 |
Ah, spot on Hedda, and a very disturbing side effect. Quite apart from the enormous waste of public money, this entire fiasco will deflect attention from the real villains and put it on individuals. The media, sniffing a good story, needs individuals (preferably female and attractive but guys are OK) to carry photos and headlines and simplistic stories. How wicked are the guilty? How destroyed have been their families? How wrecked have become their careers?
Which allows the evil to continue (as it will). Bins will no longer be searched... oh, sorry, that was a couple of decades ago... what's this red herring? Ah, phone hacking! It will stop. No more phone hacking! Triumph! Problem solved! Media morality becomes like that of a convent!
Meanwhile (barely) legal other routes will start up or continue. Encouraging false allegations in return for cash (cunningly disguised as "paying expenses" or "giving to charity"). TV exposure programmes - often about libel free dead people. Affairs uncovered through online peeking (by hackers in other countries with different laws).
And the public won't notice until the next drama, scandal, circulation boosting, ratings lifting revelation - swiftly expanded and inflated by the media.
They really do under estimate the intelligence of the entrepreneurs, don't they? They think it's all so simple.
With all its faults, that's why we need a BBC that is NOT ruled and motivated by profit.
Unfortunately the BBC is now essentially run by morons. Who are only too happy to contribute to the destruction of the BBC as long as they are not, personally, exposed as philanderers or crooks. |
|
hedda |
agreed the current trials are a sideshow. What is behind them is what's important- whether real change will happen or will big media succeed. |
|
JK2006 |
When the News of the World doctored a photo of me sitting in a deck chair in the park and Photoshopped an image of a family behind me, my complaint should have been upheld, the Editor (Andy Coulson) fired, and the paper fined and banned from publication for 2 weeks. That would have made the owners sit up and put their house in order. But the paper should NOT have been shut down, the employees should not have all lost their jobs and this absurd over reaction of prosecutions and expense should not have wasted our tax monies.
Likewise historic allegations of sexual abuse should be investigated without publicity and, if found likely, fines issued, wrists slapped but no long trials and massive costs to the tax payer.
These two areas are eating up money far better used on hospitals, health care, schools and backing proper investigations of serious crime.
All because they are good stories. |
|
hedda |
JK2006 wrote:
So what do I think should happen in the "hacking" situation? Panels like Leveson given much more power; if hacking proven, fine the corporation responsible a massive sum and ban publication of the offending newspaper for a significant amount of time. Let the companies deal with the employees. Put the financial cross on the shoulders of the corporations responsible, not us.
certainly there needs to be an adequate Press Council that has teeth. If electricians and plumbers can be hauled over the coals for shoddy work so should media companies who have so much influence.
One important thing Leveson suggested has been completely forgotten : a tribunal where ordinary people could access libel matters. At present libel laws are for the rich only.
The other fascinating thing is this : this whole debacle has come at the very worst time for Old Media and given social media on the net, along with smaller news outlets, a huge boost. |
|
JK2006 |
So what do I think should happen in the "hacking" situation? Panels like Leveson given much more power; if hacking proven, fine the corporation responsible a massive sum and ban publication of the offending newspaper for a significant amount of time. Let the companies deal with the employees. Put the financial cross on the shoulders of the corporations responsible, not us. |
|
|
|
|
