freedom of the press

[vidcc]

Who should decide what is in the public interest to know. Who should decide what should or should not be printed.
Should the press/media have to clear everything with government ?

I think most would agree that the media needs to be sensible and act responsibly, but I would rather have news free from government Propaganda and control over one censored by government.

[calm2chaos]

Who should decide what is in the public interest to know. Who should decide what should or should not be printed.
Should the press/media have to clear everything with government ?

I think most would agree that the media needs to be sensible and act responsibly, but I would rather have news free from government Propaganda and control over one censored by government.

I agree, but with that your assuming the press can and will know when it is best to sensor itself. And I think there are a number of examples, even recently of that not happening. It's a fine line to walk. But with a huge glut of media outlets nowadays there is an ever growing need to snag readership, which I think may impare judgement.

[j2k4]

The question is not who, it is what, and the what is common sense, which is in short supply on both sides.

I cannot vote until you amend the formulation of your poll, sir.

In any case, you know how I feel about the main-stream media.

[vidcc]

I agree, but with that your assuming the press can and will know when it is best to sensor itself. And I think there are a number of examples, even recently of that not happening. It's a fine line to walk. But with a huge glut of media outlets nowadays there is an ever growing need to snag readership, which I think may impare judgement.
I'm not making the assumption that the press will get it right every time. My view is that I would rather have a free press and not a government censored press.

[vidcc]

The question is not who, it is what, and the what is common sense, which is in short supply on both sides.

I cannot vote until you amend the formulation of your poll, sir.

In any case, you know how I feel about the main-stream media.
No I think you will find the question I asked is who and not what


However as you feel uncomfortable with the actual question-

who decides what common sense is ?

In this case the choice would be the press or government.

"It's well know that truth has a liberal bias" ---- S. Colbert

[Agrajag]

In any given situation there may be different views of what constitutes "the public interests", which in itself is a very nebulous and badly understood term.

However, if I had to make a decision based on the choices in this poll I would have to say it is down to our elected officials, rather than journalists. The former being elected by me, the latter being motivated by selling newspapers.

Yes, it may be a big story to print our defence plans, however is it really in the public interest (as opposed to being "of interest to the public", which people often confuse as being the same thing).

The bottom line is that the press should be as free as possible. However ultimately it must be the Courts who should decide on whether they are allowed to publish controversial stories or not.

[vidcc]

But if government is able to censor news that is politically unfavourable how will you be able to make a informed choice come election time?.

If government can hold up a story until a court approves it what stops government delaying stories in the run up to elections.

I would add that being elected doesn't mean the elected official is honorable or honest.

[vidcc]

OK confession-

This is what inspired the thread, but with recent political mischief lately here over several papers reporting on a story that was about as secret as Christmas being on Dec. 25th. I decided to make it a generic thread with no example to start with.


Chinese Media Law Would Require Consent to Report on Emergencies

By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, June 27, 2006; Page A15

BEIJING, June 26 -- The Chinese government has drafted legislation to fine newspapers up to $12,000 if they report on emergencies without first getting permission from local authorities, official media said Monday.

The new restrictions would apply to coverage of natural disasters, health crises and social unrest, such as the riots that have broken out across rural China in recent years. In effect, the draft law would make local governments the sole arbiters of information as they manage emergency situations.



The draft law, which has been sent to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, marked a further tightening of controls on the media in a country already subject to censorship by the Communist Party's national, provincial and municipal propaganda departments. Chinese journalists lamented what they saw as another sign among many that President Hu Jintao's government is curbing what had been a slight liberalization of press freedoms in recent years.

"We have never had such a law before," said Jiao Guobiao, a former journalism professor at Beijing University who was barred from teaching last year after writing an essay criticizing China's censorship rules.

"They surely want to tighten their controls over us," said a reporter at a well-known magazine who, like many colleagues, spoke on condition of anonymity to protect his job. "I expect that control over the press will become tighter and tighter."

Under a practice that has developed in recent years, Chinese journalists said, newspaper editors generally can publish sensitive stories using their own judgment, but at the risk of being called on the carpet afterward by party censors. The censors regularly coax senior editors by alerting them to certain subjects that are out of bounds and suggesting that others be handled with particular care.

This system has resulted in a gray area: Some newspapers dare to print stories others do not. But stepping too far beyond what the censors deem acceptable has cost several top editors their jobs in the past year.

One was Li Datong, who ran Freezing Point, a supplement in the China Youth Daily that published in January an essay questioning the official Chinese version of the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. In addition, Zhao Yan, a Chinese researcher in the Beijing bureau of the New York Times, was tried recently on charges of fraud and revealing state secrets after the newspaper published a story accurately predicting that former president Jiang Zemin would resign from the party's Central Military Commission.

Unlike news on other subjects, controls had never been loosened when it came to information about Hu and other senior party leaders. Where Hu is concerned, newspapers cannot stray from official New China News Agency reports, which according to agency journalists can be issued only after approval from party censors.

The draft law would put emergency news in a similar category. In doing so, it seemed to retreat from government pledges to be more open in emergency situations. The pledges followed attempts at coverup during the SARS epidemic in 2003 that allowed the disease to spread and, more recently, the coverup of a chemical spill that delayed cleanup operations as contaminated river water flowed toward the major city of Harbin.

The draft law, from Premier Wen Jiabao's cabinet, was designed to guide officials in handling such emergencies. It would oblige local officials to immediately report to Beijing on accidents -- such as the oil spills and coal mine explosions that plague China regularly -- and swiftly organize an emergency response. The draft law goes on to stipulate that local governments should "release information in an accurate and timely way," but that they should "conduct management work over the media's related reports."

In practice, local governments routinely seek to conceal embarrassing information, such as protests, and order local publications not to report it. Under the draft law, a newspaper's failure to cooperate would result in fines from $6,000 to $12,000.

"The problem is, who has the right to make the judgment whether the government releases information accurately or promptly?" Zhang Ping, editor of the Southern Weekend, wrote in a column Monday, adding later, "I think it is very dangerous to pass this law to guarantee the government can manage the media."

The cabinet's information office declined to comment or provide further information.

Radio and television stations, which are government-owned, traditionally have worked under close supervision and rarely veer from official information, making newspapers the law's main target.

Some journalists expressed hope that the National People's Congress, China's legislature, will reject the draft law's media provisions. In practice, however, the National People's Congress rarely, if ever, contests government decisions.source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/26/AR2006062601242.html)

[Agrajag]

But if government is able to censor news that is politically unfavourable how will you be able to make a informed choice come election time?.

If government can hold up a story until a court approves it what stops government delaying stories in the run up to elections.

I would add that being elected doesn't mean the elected official is honorable or honest.
I don't know about your Country but here there isn't that much that the Government can just censor. That which they can is normally open to a challenge in Court, in the public interest. How do you think so many damaging scandals get into the papers. If the Government could simply supress them they would.

Government is subject to the law, save in exceptional circumstances.

Anyone can try to supress things, not just Governments. Multi-nationals, or individuals can use injunctions to stop stories being published, if they think they are unfavourable to them. Or they can fight to have stories released which have been censored.

The bottom line, for me, is that I prefer the Courts to be the arbiter and not the newspapers.

I would add that owning a chain of newspapers doesn't mean the proprietor is honorable or honest. In fact in addition to profit they all, without exception, have their own political agenda.

[100%]

money decides what is printed. that is why Art is rarelly mentioned and if it is is generally conservative established art. and never on the front page.

[vidcc]

I don't know about your Country but here there isn't that much that the Government can just censor. That which they can is normally open to a challenge in Court, in the public interest. How do you think so many damaging scandals get into the papers. If the Government could simply supress them they would.

Government is subject to the law, save in exceptional circumstances.

Anyone can try to supress things, not just Governments. Multi-nationals, or individuals can use injunctions to stop stories being published, if they think they are unfavourable to them. Or they can fight to have stories released which have been censored.

The bottom line, for me, is that I prefer the Courts to be the arbiter and not the newspapers.

I would add that owning a chain of newspapers doesn't mean the proprietor is honorable or honest. In fact in addition to profit they all, without exception, have their own political agenda.
At the moment their is no censorship of the press even though there are certain "rules", but there is a desire to by certain political groups. We have even had calls for a special government agency specifically for the purpose of censorship.

I agree (even said so in first post) that there needs to be responsibility and do not deny that the press has suspect people in its midst. I will even say that if it can be shown that a story printed caused damage that cannot be justified then there could be a case for the courts. I do not feel that the government or courts can censor prior to print. There are certain reasonable laws and rules that the media must follow but the bottom line for me is that the press should decide if a line is crossed and take the concequences.

Edit- Just out of interest and going with your point that government is elected but the press isn't. How many judges are elected in the UK?

[Agrajag]

I don't know about your Country but here there isn't that much that the Government can just censor. That which they can is normally open to a challenge in Court, in the public interest. How do you think so many damaging scandals get into the papers. If the Government could simply supress them they would.

Government is subject to the law, save in exceptional circumstances.

Anyone can try to supress things, not just Governments. Multi-nationals, or individuals can use injunctions to stop stories being published, if they think they are unfavourable to them. Or they can fight to have stories released which have been censored.

The bottom line, for me, is that I prefer the Courts to be the arbiter and not the newspapers.

I would add that owning a chain of newspapers doesn't mean the proprietor is honorable or honest. In fact in addition to profit they all, without exception, have their own political agenda.
At the moment their is no censorship of the press even though there are certain "rules", but there is a desire to by certain political groups. We have even had calls for a special government agency specifically for the purpose of censorship.

I agree (even said so in first post) that there needs to be responsibility and do not deny that the press has suspect people in its midst. I will even say that if it can be shown that a story printed caused damage that cannot be justified then there could be a case for the courts. I do not feel that the government or courts can censor prior to print. There are certain reasonable laws and rules that the media must follow but the bottom line for me is that the press should decide if a line is crossed and take the concequences.
We pretty much think the same thing actually.

I just see a place for people to go to Courts to get injunctions against a story being published. With the newspaper being in a position to fight against the injunction.

I don't think they should be able to publish whatever they want, or self regulate and take the consequences. By that time the damage could have been done.

For example, a Judge in a case may ban any reporting on it, while the case is in progress. As they may think it would lead to an unfair trial, or to vigilante action.

I also see instances where a Government may wish to supress a story, on grounds of National security, or whatever. They must have the ability to do this. That is not the same as supressing a story to suit your political ends, or to protect your members. I think that is wrong.

Bottom line, the Government must not be above the law, but they should have recourse to the Courts, in the same way that everyone else has.

[j2k4]

Chinese Media Law Would Require Consent to Report on Emergencies

By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, June 27, 2006; Page A15

BEIJING, June 26 -- The Chinese government has drafted legislation to fine newspapers up to $12,000 if they report on emergencies without first getting permission from local authorities, official media said Monday.

The new restrictions would apply to coverage of natural disasters, health crises and social unrest, such as the riots that have broken out across rural China in recent years. In effect, the draft law would make local governments the sole arbiters of information as they manage emergency situations.




Some journalists expressed hope that the National People's Congress, China's legislature, will reject the draft law's media provisions. In practice, however, the National People's Congress rarely, if ever, contests government decisions.source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/26/AR2006062601242.html)

This is not news, although I suppose the acknowledgement that this is the case might be...

[Agrajag]

Edit- Just out of interest and going with your point that government is elected but the press isn't. How many judges are elected in the UK?
None, as far as I'm aware. However I'm not really au fait regarding England and Wales.

In Scotland they are appointed, not elected.

It's quite interesting actually. In Scotland we had to stop using temporary Sheriffs, because they were not ECHR friendly.

Basically the argument was that The Lord Advocate appointed them, on a temporary basis. As he is the prosecutor in Scotland then it was in their interests to keep him happy. So how could they be seen to be impartial. Unlike permanent ones, who once appointed are independent.

[cpt_azad]

What about news/media corporations owned by a certain "group" of people that favour the side and the views of another group(1), even if that group(1) is wrong and doing bad things and oppressing a certain type of people, yet that media corporation will never allow the oppression story to see the light of day.

Catch my drift?

But def. it should not be gov't controlled.

[calm2chaos]

I agree, but with that your assuming the press can and will know when it is best to sensor itself. And I think there are a number of examples, even recently of that not happening. It's a fine line to walk. But with a huge glut of media outlets nowadays there is an ever growing need to snag readership, which I think may impare judgement.
I'm not making the assumption that the press will get it right every time. My view is that I would rather have a free press and not a government censored press.

How many lives is it worth in todays day and age? Because the information being printed now can directly effect the security of a lot of people. A free press without any oversight is as bad as a government sensored press in many regaurds.

[vidcc]

How many lives is it worth in todays day and age? Because the information being printed now can directly effect the security of a lot of people. A free press without any oversight is as bad as a government sensored press in many regaurds.
got an example?

[calm2chaos]

How many lives is it worth in todays day and age? Because the information being printed now can directly effect the security of a lot of people. A free press without any oversight is as bad as a government sensored press in many regaurds.
got an example?

Anything dealing with the tracking of terrorist there networks and there funds. The recent disclosure about the financial tracking programs the government used to watch certain terror groups or cells. But it comes down to anything that may or can hinder the tracking of a group of people that are looking to kill as many as they can without regaurd.

[vidcc]

got an example?

Anything dealing with the tracking of terrorist there networks and there funds. The recent disclosure about the financial tracking programs the government used to watch certain terror groups or cells. But it comes down to anything that may or can hinder the tracking of a group of people that are looking to kill as many as they can without regaurd.


What like the way Bush has been telling the terrorist we have been doing this at regular intervals during political rallies since 9/11 or the publishing of the details on the swift website and in their magazine "dialogue" since they were hired to it? Bush telling the terrorists we are doing this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=MW5-qEe9kig&search=olbermann%20nyt)

Now I have heard the the answer to those points ---" well they knew the program existed but not the details of how it's done".

I find it hard to believe that a terrorist group would use the banking system that it knew was being used to track them just because they don't know how it's done.

[calm2chaos]

Anything dealing with the tracking of terrorist there networks and there funds. The recent disclosure about the financial tracking programs the government used to watch certain terror groups or cells. But it comes down to anything that may or can hinder the tracking of a group of people that are looking to kill as many as they can without regaurd.


What like the way Bush has been telling the terrorist we have been doing this at regular intervals during political rallies since 9/11 or the publishing of the details on the swift website and in their magazine "dialogue" since they were hired to it? Bush telling the terrorists we are doing this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=MW5-qEe9kig&search=olbermann%20nyt)

Now I have heard the the answer to those points ---" well they knew the program existed but not the details of how it's done".

I find it hard to believe that a terrorist group would use the banking system that it knew was being used to track them just because they don't know how it's done.


Yep ... because if they know something exsists obviously they know everything about it. And they know how to counter it because they know of it's exsistence. If a paper leaks a story with information that is sensitive they should be heavily fined and the owners or CEO's should face a little time in levinworth.

Knowing of somethings exsistance does not mean you know the depth and coverage of it. You know stealth aircraft exsist but that doesn't mean you know the technology or what it is capable of. The more information that is released, the more the wrong people have a chance around it.

[Rat Faced]

got an example?

Anything dealing with the tracking of terrorist there networks and there funds. The recent disclosure about the financial tracking programs the government used to watch certain terror groups or cells. But it comes down to anything that may or can hinder the tracking of a group of people that are looking to kill as many as they can without regaurd.

Personally, i dont think the US Government has any right or excuse to monitor what funds i send via western union.

I'm not one of their citizens for starters.

If i'm sending to the USA, then they'd have an argument... but not enough that i'd agree they had the right.

[vidcc]

@calm
But the information was already out there. I could understand if the complaint was copyright infringement, but your case is based on the NYT and the other two papers, that are not being targetted for some reason, exposing the fact that we are tracking finacial movements and terrorists not knowing despite being well informed by Bush and the companies doing it.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Tracking movements of funds, :O

When did that start. :blink: