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

[chantefable.livejournal.com]

With all the backdoors and cream pies, you'd think the double entendre's on purpose. O glorious English language!

In this day and age, it seems that the Parliaments of the world are only there for public entertainment. At least there appears to be no problem with fulfilling this particular duty.

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

Don't ask about the Black Rod ...

It is a fascinating committee, I only hope that the next step is not restrictions of the press. There are already perfectly adequate laws in place to stop the behaviours that are being rightly condemned here.

[chantefable.livejournal.com]

I'm almost afraid to ask.

Let's hope they think themselves fascinating enough and not decide to draw more attention by coming up with unpopular laws...

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid that restrictions on the press might be very popular in Britain right now. This is at the heart of the disservice Brooks and the Murdochs have done to the industry.

Don't think for a moment that I against journalists being held responsible for their actions, I think that we should be held to account for all of our actions, and that in some cases it is appropriate to judge us more harshly than members of the general public for failing in our diligence (as is the case for other professionals when they fail in theirs - doctors, teachers and so on).

[chantefable.livejournal.com]

I do not doubt your wisdom and integrity, not for a nanosecond.

But populist laws can do the opposite of benefiting the people? I hope they think this through.

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

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 ;-)

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Aaaaaand you've just described France.

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

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

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.

[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."