Freedom of the press

[smurphy]

So if you are a member of the anglophone world and dont have your head in the sand, you should know that Rupert Murdoch and his "Evil Empire" are in quite a predicament. One of the newspapers he owns, "The News of the World", which is now defunct, had their staff hack the phones of more than 4000 people. A diverse range of people at that too, not only celebrities but of people missing and presumed dead(to have their bodies later found having being murdered) to the families of dead British soldiers and, what may destroy Murdochs media empire, the families of 9\11 victims. This threatens Murdochs licenses for the likes of Fox News in the US as well as various other mediums.

Some people in the British press are actually defending Murdoch,Rebekah Brooks who was the editor of NOTW at the time and the act of hacking peoples phones itself, probably in the vain hope of improving their chances of getting a job in a Murdoch owned Newspaper.

But this is my question. Should the press be heavily or lightly regulated, or regulated even at all? Does a free press serve as a bulwark against strong governments? Or should the press be held accountable for their actions? What do you make of this whole NOTW fiasco?

[Alpha]

I don't know why, but I haven't been following this very closely.

From what I do know, I think it's unfair to beat this up as an issue of the freedom of the press. The principle of the freedom of the press is meant, primarily, to enable accountability of those in power (particularly, but not exclusively, of government). Performing such a function itself requires power. News of the World, and, it seems, other Murdoch-affiliated media agencies, abused their position; their freedom to be society's conscience. In abusing this freedom, they lose it.

That's not the government coming down hard on the media for reporting things it doesn't want reported, but the government coming down on an unethical practice. News of the World, Brooks, and Murdoch deserve all that they're getting.

The situation of politicians debating Murdoch's Sky bid is a lot more concerning. True, Murdoch controls a great proportion of the media, and in many countries. As stated, the media inhabits an inherently powerful position. It is how the vast majority of the voting public determine who they vote for. That essentially one man's private business empire can determine national elections is concerning. But I'm not sure it's for parliamentarians to debate as a specific issue; as though there is a personal gripe with Murdoch. Perhaps rules about media outlet consolidation or something (like anti-monopoly/oligopoly/imperfect competition regulation for other areas of the economy), but not specific issues with specific people.

EDIT: Also, why should anyone care about NotW? Added nothing to no-one, except to keep people stupid.

[Selcopa]

Honestly trying to put this blame on Murdoch is like trying to say Viacom is evil for inappropriate sexual innuendo's on minors(ie 'sliming' them on nickolodien, or do they not do that anymore? damn im old)

With an empire as big as his, it's bound to have some bad investments in it, and you are going to be hard pressed to convince me that Murdoch was in the daily business of hacking people's phones, or even organizing it. If information arises otherwise, i'll adjust the material, until then, this just seems like an attempt to attach fox news to a scandal because they don't play patty cake with obama and the white house.

For the record i'm not trying to get a job at murdoch's, but I do find it to be funny that this is a huge deal, but having a tax cheat for the department of treasury was and never will be a big deal, but hey libs ftw

At the question. You can't really regulate the press with government, otherwise you end up with North Korea, or that crazy world in V for Vendetta, or the Daily Prophet at the end in Harry Potter, it just doesn't work.