Regulation in the Media

The regulation is very much in the lime light in this moment of history due to the Murdoch – News of the World – phone hacking scandals. This was first noticed when journalists for this paper were finding out private information about celebrities and their lives. However once realized this had not just been the case and that they were also hacking into the voicemails of innocent families grieving lost children, and such like, we as the public saw this was wrong! But why did we not care so much about the lives of the celebrities? Is their life not as personal to them as ours is to us?

There are many different arguments surrounding the regulations of newspapers in the UK.  “Why do we buy newspapers if we did not agree with their news?” this is one of the main reasons newspapers argue to publish their stories. In counter to this, Max Mosely argues, just because we buy these papers does not give them the rights to publish these stories.

How can these large companies afford to not print what we buy in this economical climate? Where should the line be drawn between the rights to free speech and protection from harm?

In other areas of media broadcasting unnecessary information when there has not been ‘much’ news has also been the case. I personally noticed this when Gordon Brown was heard off air, on a microphone, describing a lady; he had just spoken to, as being bigoted. This was obviously not a kind remark but was said off air and not meant for her to hear, so did the nation need to be shown this?

Close colleagues to prime minster confirmed that Mr Brown remarked that this is not unusual behavior for him, yet not correct for his words to be blown across the media. Going back to my question, did the public need to hear this? Well in the UK we vote on what the party stands for and our local MP, not who leads the party. Never the less we should be initialed to a fair representation, but as other members of his party have said this is not rare, yet we also know this. So the election campaign will be decided not on individuals but what the party stands for, as there are bigger issues at stake! Therefore I do not believe it was paramount to broadcast this story publicly.

Other stories regarding broadcasting information internationally, when football commentators made sexist comments, which were not meant to be public. However personally I have not decided whether this should or not have been common knowledge and Sky felt strongly enough to sack the offender who was clearly in the wrong but did not intend for others to hear. Of course this was a horrible remark and should have never been said in the workplace, but such a remark would have only be said through their passion of the sport. Yet if a non-famous person in the high street of Bath shouted this, for instance, it would not be front-page material. Again I am undecided.

To conclude I do believe there should be slightly more regulations in the UK’s newspaper industry, still this will be incredible hard to not be bias. The PCC have some control however this is only through mass complaints, but if you can get away with this is it still fair to print? I believe not. Journalists should take into account the feelings of the person they are reporting. I think we should have a right to know about a celebrities or markable figures personal life if it directly affects their work or role. This should not include the lives of non-famous citizens unless they gain or have committed crimes. This, evidently could create an over controlled media, resulting in dictatorship and lack of free speech.