The row in Britain...
13/7/11 17:17![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mintogrubb.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsTell me - from where you are sitting , how big a deal is the whole Rupert Murdoch thing?
In the UK, 12 people have been arrested,and the price of Murdoch's company and its subsidiaries has tumbled dramatically. All - repeat - all parties in Westminster seem united to turn on Murdoch and block the media moguls bid to take over BSkyB, and the row that caused the News of the World to shut down is likely to spread to the Sun and even the London Times, which Murdoch also owns.
But , does anyone beyond these shores give a damn? to be honest, I wouldn't blame them if they didn't, but to me, the drama is pointing to several interesting issues at once here. Like...
Do we really want a 'Free market', and is one of them in the public interest?
Oh, sure , i am sure that Shareholders could and would make lots more money if they didn't have to worry about wot people and their elected reps thing - but is a monopoly a good deal for the consumer?
Maybe it is not a good idea that Murdoch should get to have such a hold over media and broadcasting - maybe there ought to be checks and balances in any business that sells us stuff of any kind and there is better service if there is more competition , not less of it - agreed?
But what about the Freedom of the Press, did I hear some ask?
Sure, I remember Watergate, and Karen Silkwood. I agree that the press can be justified in seeking a story if it is in the public or the national interest - but in hacking into the mobile phone of a missing teenager who was later on found to have been murdered- well how is that in the public interest?Ditto the hacking into phones of serving soldiers. Can we really excuse this by simply saying 'it's what people want to read - if we didn't do it, someone else would'?
And seriously, policemen are being interviewed in connection with accusations that they took bribes from journalists in return for supplying private and confidential info. if it turns out that they did, will murdoch himself be charged? I mean how is the guy supposed to get a fair trialif every potential juror in Britain knows the details already?
And that is what rally worries me. it is about the issues of trust and belief - Gordon Brown kept his kids well away from the media spotlight. When Brown left Downing Street and Cameron took over, one BBC commentator acknowledged this, remarking that images of the two children of Gordon and Sarah Brown would have been a spin doctor's dream. Yet Gordon was not the sort of father who used his kids as a publicity gimmick, and he did keep his family out of the political spotlight. I can well believe that this man did suffer genuine grief at seeing his family family's personal tragedy being splashed over the front page - as the left wing Guardian has claimed. And the Sun has responded by saying that they approached Mr and Mrs Brown and sought their permission before running the story about his son's illness.
Can it be that The Sun got did things and that people in all political parties turned a blind eye because Murdoch held too much sway with the readers and the government were to frightened to pull him over? Can it be that Gordon is using the present crisis to hit back at the Sun for not supporting him and backing Cameron instead? For this is what is being alleged in various quarters.
At the risk of Goodwin-ing myself, we, the public are always ready to condemn 'the others', those we don't agree with. We forget to take into the reckoning the amount of personal responsibly we share in what happens.
maybe Murdoch is a nasty piece of work, but we read his newspapers. And although Hitler did murder over six million Jews, he didn't do it single handedly. We in England cannot just blame the press, or the Politicians, or the Police for this saddening and sorry state of affairs. Collectively, it happened on our watch. We must all ask ourselves how we all let it go on for so long.
Regulations and controls are being suggested, but really- if people like Murdoch wanted to break the laws that we already had, well, what is the sense of making new ones? How much will he respect the law in future?
What is to stop him opening a new paper tomorrow and taking up ' business as usual' after a decent interval and the public sense of outrage has abated?
I can understand Americans and other people muttering to themselves "This isn't anything to do with us" as they turn the page or switch to the other channel. But for British people themselves to be lulled into such apathy about our own political system and it's sleaziness - that is unforgivable.
In the UK, 12 people have been arrested,and the price of Murdoch's company and its subsidiaries has tumbled dramatically. All - repeat - all parties in Westminster seem united to turn on Murdoch and block the media moguls bid to take over BSkyB, and the row that caused the News of the World to shut down is likely to spread to the Sun and even the London Times, which Murdoch also owns.
But , does anyone beyond these shores give a damn? to be honest, I wouldn't blame them if they didn't, but to me, the drama is pointing to several interesting issues at once here. Like...
Do we really want a 'Free market', and is one of them in the public interest?
Oh, sure , i am sure that Shareholders could and would make lots more money if they didn't have to worry about wot people and their elected reps thing - but is a monopoly a good deal for the consumer?
Maybe it is not a good idea that Murdoch should get to have such a hold over media and broadcasting - maybe there ought to be checks and balances in any business that sells us stuff of any kind and there is better service if there is more competition , not less of it - agreed?
But what about the Freedom of the Press, did I hear some ask?
Sure, I remember Watergate, and Karen Silkwood. I agree that the press can be justified in seeking a story if it is in the public or the national interest - but in hacking into the mobile phone of a missing teenager who was later on found to have been murdered- well how is that in the public interest?Ditto the hacking into phones of serving soldiers. Can we really excuse this by simply saying 'it's what people want to read - if we didn't do it, someone else would'?
And seriously, policemen are being interviewed in connection with accusations that they took bribes from journalists in return for supplying private and confidential info. if it turns out that they did, will murdoch himself be charged? I mean how is the guy supposed to get a fair trialif every potential juror in Britain knows the details already?
And that is what rally worries me. it is about the issues of trust and belief - Gordon Brown kept his kids well away from the media spotlight. When Brown left Downing Street and Cameron took over, one BBC commentator acknowledged this, remarking that images of the two children of Gordon and Sarah Brown would have been a spin doctor's dream. Yet Gordon was not the sort of father who used his kids as a publicity gimmick, and he did keep his family out of the political spotlight. I can well believe that this man did suffer genuine grief at seeing his family family's personal tragedy being splashed over the front page - as the left wing Guardian has claimed. And the Sun has responded by saying that they approached Mr and Mrs Brown and sought their permission before running the story about his son's illness.
Can it be that The Sun got did things and that people in all political parties turned a blind eye because Murdoch held too much sway with the readers and the government were to frightened to pull him over? Can it be that Gordon is using the present crisis to hit back at the Sun for not supporting him and backing Cameron instead? For this is what is being alleged in various quarters.
At the risk of Goodwin-ing myself, we, the public are always ready to condemn 'the others', those we don't agree with. We forget to take into the reckoning the amount of personal responsibly we share in what happens.
maybe Murdoch is a nasty piece of work, but we read his newspapers. And although Hitler did murder over six million Jews, he didn't do it single handedly. We in England cannot just blame the press, or the Politicians, or the Police for this saddening and sorry state of affairs. Collectively, it happened on our watch. We must all ask ourselves how we all let it go on for so long.
Regulations and controls are being suggested, but really- if people like Murdoch wanted to break the laws that we already had, well, what is the sense of making new ones? How much will he respect the law in future?
What is to stop him opening a new paper tomorrow and taking up ' business as usual' after a decent interval and the public sense of outrage has abated?
I can understand Americans and other people muttering to themselves "This isn't anything to do with us" as they turn the page or switch to the other channel. But for British people themselves to be lulled into such apathy about our own political system and it's sleaziness - that is unforgivable.
We care a lot.
Date: 13/7/11 16:32 (UTC)Re: We care a lot.
Date: 13/7/11 17:00 (UTC)Re: We care a lot.
Date: 14/7/11 00:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/7/11 16:56 (UTC)Well, would you rather have a state controlled media?
well how is that in the public interest?
Who should get to decide? Why them and not, say, me? or that guy over there? or that lady sitting on a bench? or the Queen?
Can we really excuse
It's not really an excuse, though, is it? It is an explanation. A description of how things work. You don't like that people are venal, puerile, voyeuristic and lacking in common decency? Get in line. Also, good luck changing that part of human nature.
What is to stop him opening a new paper tomorrow and taking up ' business as usual'
If you are smart, nothing at all. Just this time, don't buy his papers. LOL.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/11 17:05 (UTC)No. I would like the Monopolies Commission to look into him getting hold of BSkyB and calling foul on it, though.
Who should get to decide? Why them and not, say, me? or that guy over there? or that lady sitting on a bench? or the Queen?
How about the Monopolies Commission instead ?
It is an explanation. A description of how things work. You don't like that people are venal, puerile, voyeuristic and lacking in common decency? Get in line. Also, good luck changing that part of human nature.
Heh - thanks, I think we are gonna need it in industrial strength and supersized containers.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/11 17:30 (UTC)Considering he's withdrawn his bid you don't need to worry about this anymore.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/11 17:40 (UTC)No.Yes.There. Fixed it for you. Although if Murdock did violate laws regarding monopolies, that is a different kettle of fish.
Monopolies Commission
How about the Ministry of Truth?
I think we are gonna need it
See, here is where we differ. Hearing you wish for industrial strength, super sized containers of stuff that will change human nature sounds more than a little sinister to me. It has the unfortunate whiff of the reeducation camp about it. I know you are being facetious, but still, it is an illustration of how your optimistic view of human nature clashes with my much more pessimistic view.
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/11 02:09 (UTC)Absolutely; the breaking down of media ownership laws has been one of the great failures of neo-liberalism. It's led to poorer news quality and media for all. But, of course, I know you were trying to set a false dichotomy between the free market and 100% state owned. Disingenuous.
Who should get to decide? Why them and not, say, me? or that guy over there? or that lady sitting on a bench? or the Queen?
We have courts for things like this.
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/11 02:25 (UTC)The mind boggles.
We have courts
We are going to litigate what is and is not news worthy? How is that ever going to work and not pervert the entire idea of a free, independent press?
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/11 05:03 (UTC)The mind boggles.
We are going to litigate what is and is not news worthy? How is that ever going to work and not pervert the entire idea of a free, independent press?
Not what is and isn't newsworthy, but what is and isn't in the public interest. It's probably worth noting that I don't live in a country with free speech. As for what the public interest is here's what the self-regulating body, the Australian Press Council has to say (http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/apcnews/aug07/pubint.html).
Some people view the press as being more important than just another free market activity.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/11 18:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/7/11 02:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/7/11 20:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/7/11 00:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/7/11 02:05 (UTC)I'm fine with journalists breaking the law to get a story, but they have to be prepared to stand up in court and justify their actions in the public interest. If they do something like steal the PM's kid's medical records then they should be off to gaol; there's no public interest there.
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/11 03:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/7/11 05:05 (UTC)