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?