But we already have libel law for that scenario. And libel law is binding on the blogosphere already, along with the press. Those pictured could take the matter to court under existing legislation and gain redress.

That is somewhat different to the issue of whether a paper (or blog) declares that it thinks a play is racist or not.

We’re not talking about regulation we’re talking about adjudication. Regulation is about what I can and can’t say, adjudication is about what I have and haven’t already said.

In which case why not have it apply to the blogosphere? If a newspaper printed a photo captioned “Extremists’ protest at returning soldiers’ parade” and it was of no such thing and I featured in that photo I can complain to the paper then to the PCC. What would I do if it featured on one a highly-visited blog? Suing for misrepresentation would be my only course of action if the publisher decided not to take any action and we couldn’t agree to an arbitrator.

Of course it would be the blog publisher or ISP that would be bound not necessarily the writer

But that is at present.

Were it made a statutory regulator then consent to be bound would no longer be required. And with that in mind it would be easilly extended to blogs by the government. (And lets be clear, a price the papers might demand for their regulation, is surely the regulation of their potential rivals.)

As such it would only apply to the author of a blog if they gave their consent too, and I don’t see that happening.

Censorship is a big big democratic failure – regulating the police or banks or expenses is not.

Surely you don’t think an agent of the state should be telling our newspapers how and what to report? Should an agent of the state demand the Guardian declare a play racist? Should an agent of the state force the press to investigate and thus debunk political claims made by opposition parties? (the UKIP example).

I can’t help but think no democrat, liberal or not, would think that a good idea.

I was joking with someone the other day about why the newspapers print part of a story on page 1 then follow it up on pages 16-17; it’s because if they have to print a retraction or apology for a ‘front-page’ story they can do so on pages 16-17 as that’s also where the story appeared. Of course the current front-page story will then be continued on pages 10-11.

Take the Press Complaints Commission out of the hands of Paul Dacre and his ilk, and end the self-regulation of the press.

But newspapers are only one aspect of MSM – and that is very much less true of the BBC and other news/journalism programmes. Especially given that the BBC tends to centre things somewhat with its lack of commercial presure.

This is where the MSM and in particular the newspapers are getting caught, as I said they’re deciding what they’re readership wants to hear then moulding the evidence to fit. Except because they’re a business they’re also giving their readers what they want to hear as it’s a sad but simple truth that we prefer the company of those who share our viewpoints rather than those constantly arguing against us.

That is why someone tried to force the Guardian into a stand, not that they wanted reasonable debate over the issue merely that they wanted a ‘neutral’ source to reinforce their own judgement. And if it hadn’t done so or inexplicably went against the majority readership expect plenty of “I’m disgusted and cancelling my subscription” type letters.

I guess you can’t have all views presented, since they would be too numerous to cover. With the crime and punishment example you left out those who believe in the present balance, who are generally ignored along with those of a more radical view (what right to punish at all?)

But agree with you on the original examples. And in particular I’m not really sure why there is such a vehment call for the Guardian to decide for its readership whether something is anti-semitic.

For moral arguments it tends to be skewed towards whatever stance that section of the media has taken.

To take the examples the media is simply reporting what the politicians are saying and are expecting us to judge whether we believe them or not.

In the case of the BBC it is being presented as a scientific argument and thus as two equally valid viewpoints.

In the case of the Guardian it is presented as a moral argument that requires a “stand” that they should pick one side or the other and fight their corner.

Again if you watch debates regarding, for instance, crime and punishment. On one side you’ll see those leaning towards rehabilitation and those leaning towards lock ‘em up and throw away the key; you don’t see anyone asking by what right we have to punish these people in the first place; that’s simply taken as read.

It should be made reasonably clear the extent to which a minority view is a minority view – The case of global warming is an example of that with the claim that some scientists dispute global warming being based on a handful of scientists opposing thousands of others. Though in the end their argument stands and falls with the evidence.

But with moral debates, and most debates have a moral aspect, having all sides represented is vital. Because while laws are made by the majority, a reminder that the minority exists and disagrees is a crucial moral imperative in itself.

Except it is still beholden for the minority to answer to the majority. If in a debate 99.9% of experts hold one view and .1% hold another it should be a measure of the journalist that they point out that the latter are minority viewpoints and why they are held to be such with statements from the former; not treat them as equal and valid points of view.

This wouldn’t negate the ability to challenge incorrect orthodoxy as the minority can point out through the journalist the flaws in the majority argument and a good journalist should expect answers from them.

A majority shouldn’t win simply because they out number the others, likewise a minority shouldn’t be held equal simply in the name of ‘balance’.

Note that this only really applies to arguments and opinions where facts can be marshalled; when it comes to moral arguments only expect a majority view. Which brings me the booze as I’ve said elsewhere it’s because alcohol is eeevil, eeeeeevil!

I like you comment on young drinkers – and hence the case for ALWAYS putting all sides of the argument even where one is just wrong. Without that principle it becomes very very difficult to challenge conventional wisdom even when it is wrong.

The fact that selling beer to under-18s is mostly illegal has resulted in no one making the case that actually, maybe it was never enforced in years gone by because it was clearly somewhat ridicuous. after all – why can’t a man of 16 can’t go for a drink with his colleagues when he finishes work on a Friday?

Yet through a lack of two sided debate, a rule that was designed to empower landlords to tell kids to get lost when they went over the top is now being used to beat landlords into refusing to sell a cold drink to a grown man.

As for balance – this morning I’ve just watched two news programmes discussing under-age drinking and not one under-age drinker was represented asking why they can’t just be left alone.

Reporting – which mainstream media does most of – sets out an event or action contemporaneously. It offers a little context with that coverage of the event, be it a bomb going off, a sports team winning a trophy, or campaign being launched.

So when Ash call for smoking in cars when children are passengers to be banned, it is a simple item of interest on the Today Programme – and constitutes news. There is no need to investigate whether children are harmed by this in any significant sense, or how much it would cost to enforce, or whether alternative policies might achieve more. That a campaign was launched is news.

Journalism is something different. Journalism involves a degree of investigation and conclusion. And the mainstream media does do plenty of this.

The Telegraph for example, is still revealing expenses scandals today (Brian Binley renting a flat from himself) that no bloggers. The BBC did publish a report on the UKIP 75% claim, largely debunking this as myth. And when budgets come out, the front page headline is followed up by pages of analysis that often point out the deceit in both the Government’s claims, and opposition counter-claims.

so I fear that this complaining by blogs is a little ironic. After years of trying to cast off simplistic dismissal as a forum for whinging, some bloggers now seem keen to cast mainstream media in similarly simplistic and untrue light.

But seriously, I think I didn’t realise the extent to which the main stream media so often do such a poor job, until I stumbled across the Pallywood situation (google for it on YouTube or etc) a couple of years back.

With photos of things like photos of the Gaza parliament supposedly working by candlelight, when in reality you could from the photo see the daylight coming in behind drawn curtains!

Just this week regards this ‘balanced reporting’ debate, the controversy over the Gaza death toll numbers was covered interestingly, and as one site commented:
“Perhaps that’s just the difference between the MSM and the blogosphere, the “hands-off” impartiality of the former, and that may be to the good. But with the exception of seriously informed readers — and one can expect many of TNR’s readership to be that informed — many of the implications of what this dispute reveals would (and will) remain obscure.”

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/05/14/havlevi-vs-shaheen-civilian-casualties-in-gaza/

PS Few believed the odd bods who lead the anti Common Market campaign when they said what was planned went far far beyond a free trade area. Oh boy were they right

No excuse for fleet street though.

I’m not sure whether that description is accurate. My recollection is that the Tories said that pits needed to close because they were uneconomic (partially true), that there was no other option than direct conflict (false) and that affected communities would benefit from economic regeneration (blatant lie). David Peace has used fiction to explore motives of the protagonists, and nobody comes out smelling sweetly. Peace, unlike Scargill, also seems unaware of corruption of NUM officials.

So, surely the answer is this – journalists should report what different parties have said, but also press for the specific evidence that backs up each party’s claim. If there is no or little evidence, the viewer/reader is unlikely to believe that party and vice versa.

http://petespolitics.wordpress.com