Monday, November 04, 2013
Constants and variables 6
Alan Massie in UK Tel makes the drearily predictable argument against regulating the media....
In the present argument about control, or regulation, of the press, philanthropy is represented by the Hacked Off campaigners, disgusted, with reason, by the behaviour of newspapers. Let us admit that some of the behaviour of which they complain has indeed been disgusting. Yet the door they have opened in search of a remedy leads into territory which is more dangerous for the public good, territory where the ability of the press to call to account the excesses of officials, politicians and the state may be first threatened, then curtailed. Bring the press to heel and the power of the official is enhanced. Is this desirable?We have a nice balanced experiment. Compare US and UK. British press has traditionally been more firmly regulated, with stiffer libel laws and a semi-official Commission to watch for lies. American press fiercely guards its supposed "1st amendment rights". Which press has been more effective? British, by a long shot and for a long time. UK press has several active sides, which means there's always one major side available to oppose the current government. US press is rigidly uniform and perfectly Soviet, with 100.000000% of newspapers sharing the same set of perfect lies. US press does "call to account" governmental officials when the officials have an R on their shirt. US press blindly follows and religiously praises governmental officials when the officials have a D on their shirt. Which press is supinely enslaved to The Party? The less regulated press. ¶ 3:06 AM
