And very briefly …

[blamebrampton]

There are a lot of Leveson predictive responses floating about, so I am just going to throw my hat into the ring.

I think that it is very hard to regulate the media in a way that doesn't create bigger problems than it solves.

However, I also think that if you legislated that all factual corrections must be printed, and printed in the same part of the paper and with similar weight to the original story, a lot of errors would stop happening and a lot of people would stop believing a lot of rubbish long after it had been shown to be rubbish.

Please forgive me if I don't respond to comments quickly: off to write and/or fall over in a snot-filled heap.

Comments

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

And the BBC is regulated.

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

The success of regulation for television and radio is what makes me think it's not necessarily doomed as an idea for print, though it still makes me nervous. Absolute impartiality is very difficult to achieve, though, and then people start to censor themselves in unwise ways, as recently.

Gawd, it's all too hard with a cold, I am going back to writing fic and unclean thoughts regarding Richard Armitage.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Seems reasonable.