Good grief!

[blamebrampton]

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!)

Comments

[shiv5468.livejournal.com]

Er no, not at all.

No one is in favour of restrictions on the press other than trying not to hack phones, lie and cheat.

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

That's not wholly accurate. David Cameron was last week proposing that all meetings between journalists and MPs would have to be fully recorded, which would be a significant restriction.

However, I absolutely agree that adherence to the law as it stands is the least that can be expected of my colleagues.

[shiv5468.livejournal.com]

No, that's not a restriction. That's transparency. No one says the meeting can't take place.

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

It's not transparency, it's a revelation of sources, which is against our ethical codes. Most political scandals of the last century would not have been uncovered with such a rule in place.

[shiv5468.livejournal.com]

I hardly think that knowing the proprietor of a paper has been to see the PM leads to revealing sources.

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

If the PM was pushing only for revelations that media owners were meeting with the PM, I could live with that. But he did say all journalists with all politicians.

I do think, however, that it is a thing he said, because he thought it would be well received in the moment, rather than something that he would wish to legislate.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and who would review the recordings? It opens the door to official surveillance.

[shiv5468.livejournal.com]

They're not going to be recorded in the sense of being taped, but being recorded in the sense of a note being made of their occurence. In the same way that hopsitality with businessmen is disclosed on member's interests.

So no, not it doesn't open the door to official surveillance.

Nor would it do so if the person giving the briefing actually were being taped and then chose to make it public. The point about protecting sources is that it only applies if the source wants.

If the PM chooses to be open about who he meets and what is said at those meetings, then that's democracy.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

And that dick Neil Kinnock wants print media to be controlled "like TV."