On Question Time last night, Hugh Grant unwittingly revealed the double standards that underpin the anti-Murdoch moral crusade. Grant, who despite his support for those medieval legal writs known as superinjunctions has become a hero of the Twitterati and the liberal media for his criticisms of the Murdoch Empire, said: “I’m not for regulating the proper press, the broadsheet press. But it is insane that the tabloid press is left unregulated.”
And there you have it, in two sentences, the sentiment that is ultimately motoring liberal campaigners’ agitation against low-rent newspapers: a belief that there should be one law for “them” and another law for “us”. They must have a “regulatory body watching them”, as Grant put it, whereas the “proper press” can be trusted to keep its house in order without having the state’s snout poking around…
Given that much of the British “quality press” ain’t exactly over-concerned any longer with serious reporting or journalism (cf. Horrible Heather in The Guardian), this attitude may in reality be close to a distinction without a difference.
I have little doubt that if those condemning Murdoch’s newspapers, Fox News, or Sun News TV were given a lie-detector test, no lie would be found when they said that such “right wing” news outlets were highly biased but their favoured liberal news outlets were not.
Such is the power of propaganda. And exceptionally weak minds.
Nothing new here. Members of the Inner Party could turn off their telescreens.
Grant is STILL asshurt over being photographed with a “low rent” hooker all those years ago…
So how do you decide which papers are regulated? Simply by what size paper they use? And more importantly WHO decides that question? (Okay, that last one is rhetorical – I’m sure I know what that toff would say.)
Actually I’m going to stand up for Mr. Grant on this one.
I doubt he is as concerned with the political leaning of the paper as the conduct of the reporters. Say what you want about the New York Times, they give aide and comfort to the enemy in time of war by leaking our secrets, they are biased, they are stupid, I’ll agree… but it wasn’t reporters from the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune that hounded Princess Diana to her death.
Sure, the whole Divine Brown thing probably has something to do with it, but, as this phone hacking scandal shows, (as if the Princess Di death and the incessant hounding of people wasn’t already enough) the British Tabloid press has simply gone to far. They have the morals of… well I can’t think of anything that has less morals frankly, and that’s no small feat in this day and age. The problem is, ever since the 1970s the traditional legal constraints of suing them for invasion of privacy or lible or slander were pretty much removed; and they are obviously incapable of self regulation, and shooting them is, unfortunately, still frowned upon.
What can be done about them, I don’t know… I’m not happy with the idea of government regulating newspapers…but something has to be done about these people. I just hope that the response is well considered.
Who is going to watch the watchers?
If hacking cellphones is illegal, all that has to be done is apply the law. Firmly enough to put a stop to that kind of eavesdropping.
This ought to be a selling point for Blackberry, come to think of it.
I remember as a teenager poring over album notes trying to glean philosophical and hidden truths to live by. I’m not sure when I figured out that celebrities were as a group much dumber than your average teenager.
but it wasn’t reporters from the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune that hounded Princess Diana to her death.
Well, that’s true, although they do pretend to be pundits, not celebrity gawkers. But it is also true that the NYT has had its share of fake reporters writing fake stories.
and remember, the cell phones voice mail wasn’t “hacked”. The journalists just tried the default passwords that come with phones.
So really stupid people – like our buddy Hugh helped the criminals along. Not saying it makes it any more legal, but if you leave your house with the doors & windows open and you get a burglar visit, you have to bear some of the responsibility.
Another Brendan O’Neill headline —
“After the News of the World, who’s safe?”
Really.
When old Trotskyites lurch to the other extreme, they takes their proclivities. with them.
Ken (Kulak)
Simple. Themselves, because they have the best of intentions, so what could go wrong?
Truth can be a dangerous thing. It is quite patient and relentless.
– R. Scott Richards
So… you’re saying Hugh Grant is still alive?
Brendan Kelly @4:27 – hasn’t it been established that the (Fayed employee) driver in the Di crash was drunk out of his mind? Anyway that woman would have expired all on her own if the “gutter press” had ignored her for a day. They’re creeps (IMHO so was she, but that’s something else), but they didn’t murder her.
“I’m not happy with the idea of government regulating newspapers…but something has to be done about these people.”
News of the World has been closed down over this scandal, so if you ever find yourself in the same restaurant as Rupert Murdoch send him and Wendi over a bottle of chapmers.
(BTW phone tapping and fraud are already illegal. That’s why the people involved are in trouble. You remind me of the deep thinkers who were insisting that the James Byrd murder proved the need for “hate crimes” legislation despite the fact that two of the three killers are are on death row, and by and large it’s conservatives who can’t believe that, like Hugh Grant, they’re inexplicably still alive.)
Champers.
“ever since the 1970s the traditional legal constraints of suing them for invasion of privacy or lible or slander were pretty much removed”
Your familiarity with British libel law is really something.
Ken (Kulak)
Simple. Themselves, because they have the best of intentions, so what could go wrong?
Posted by: syncrodox at July 9, 2011 10:13 PM ”
wathing the watchers? kinda like the cops doing it with the same results. who in their ‘right’ mind thinks cops are the exception to human nature?
Any man who dumps Elizabeth Hurley has non functioning gonads, and brain.
Next he’ll jump from a closet..girlyman.