blamebrampton: 15th century woodcut of a hound (Default)
blamebrampton ([personal profile] blamebrampton) wrote2011-07-20 02:07 am

Good grief!

Just when I think that the Murdoch hearing won't get any more interesting than the revelation Rupes frequently visited the PM through his backdoor (cue audience chortles) ...

An audience member slaps Rupert with a cream pie ...

AND WENDY DENG FLIES THROUGH THE AIR AND WHACKS THE CHAP IN THE FACE!

*Sniffs* Once again, the Murdochs can be relied on to turn serious news into entertainment.

(It's only funny because no one was hurt. But given no one was hurt, it's pretty fucking funny!)

[identity profile] blamebrampton.livejournal.com 2011-07-19 05:34 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes, despite people's justifiable anger with the press over this issue, it would be a worse world if there were fewer media freedoms, because then there would be more cover-ups in other, more vital fields such as government. Despite some people paying lip service to public demands, I do not think such laws would pass -- both sides of politics rely on the media to spot the perfidy of the other ;-)
ext_1059: (Default)

[identity profile] shezan.livejournal.com 2011-07-19 08:25 pm (UTC)(link)
Aaaaaand you've just described France.

Give me the UK free-for-all any time.

[identity profile] blamebrampton.livejournal.com 2011-07-20 03:31 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, the example of French restrictions is one reason I am confident that despite people talking about a need to tame the media, it won't occur. Both sides of the house know that any benefit they might receive would be more than outweighed by what they would lose in being able to rely on the other side being checked rigorously. And the 'benefits' are slight – they can all be made redundant simply by politicians acting as they should, legally and morally.