Michael C. Moynihan | June 13, 2007
For those who follow the British media, it's tough to
disagree with Prime Minister Tony Blair's characterization of it as
a "feral
beast," baying for the blood of politicians and celebrities.
This is, I think, generally a positive thing. But Blair thinks the
Fourth Estate hyenas need to be tamed—with more
regulation:
British newspapers will and should be subject to some form of new external regulation, the outgoing prime minister, Tony Blair, said yesterday in a broadside that attacked the media for behaving like feral beasts and eschewing balance or proportion.
Oh dear. Add this to Britain's already outrageous libel laws, the BBFC, Ofcom and the Official Secrets Act. The British news consumer, Blair says, has no way of distinguishing between what's is "objectively" true and political propaganda. Therefore, the poor saps need their government protectors to pitch in:
Moving on to the regulation of newspapers, Mr Blair said changes were inevitable: "As the technology blurs the distinction between papers and television, it becomes increasingly irrational to have different systems of accountability based on technology that no longer can be differentiated in the old way."
He also questioned whether papers needed some system of accountability that went beyond sales. He said: "The reality is that the viewers or readers have no objective yardstick to measure what they are being told. In every other walk of life in our society that exercises power, there are external forms of accountability, not least through the media itself.
Incidentally, Al Gore makes an almost identical argument in The Assault on Reason, which I wrote about here.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
So why doesn't Blair just start up a media company that claims to be completely objective and market it to people as such?
Embarrassing mullets were popular in the UK in the '80s? Who'dve thunk it?
So why doesn't Blair just start up a media company that
claims to be completely objective and market it to people as
such?
He could partner with Rupert Murdoch, who's committed to having
fair and balanced media!
:)
He could partner with Rupert Murdoch, who's committed to
having fair and balanced media!
:)
you read my mind thoreau
Reminds me of all the women I've know who bitch endlessly about how all men are unfaithful liars.
Reminds me of all the women I've know who bitch endlessly
about how all men are unfaithful liars.
Clearly we need some government regulation on men so women will be
able to better differentiate between the unfaithful liars and the
faithful lia.. I mean, faithful honest men.
"Anyone else think he looks stoned in that
picture?"
I think I partied with that guy!
The picture looks like the perfect example of yob-hooligan culture that Blair is always yammering about.
Reinmoose,
That wouldn't help. The don't have problems differentiating men.
The problem is the perfect correlation between dishonest and
dateable men.
If the government won't provide some kind of objective yardstick, who will?
The reality is that the viewers or readers have no objective
yardstick to measure what they are being told.
This yardstick used to be known as, you know...
THINKING...
Sadly, I fear the above quote bears some truth. Not that regulation
will change anything for the better, but the fact still
remains.
If the media published a picture like that of me, I can see where I would think like Blair - who looks like a cut rate gay hooker in that photo (O right... he's a politician so he does sell cut rate favors...)
Where did you get that picture? Priceless. Blair is a liberty-destroying asshole, but I didn't think he was dumb enough to let a picture like that see the light of day.
Eric Blair (George Orwell to you folks) had it right all along. Britain is creeping towards 1984 and it's the left (Ing Soc) that doing the heavy lifting.
Brown: "That's the second independent thought alarm today,
Sir."
Blair: "The people are overstimulated. Get rid of the
Internet."
Besides, if people hear the occassional truth, they might start
recoginzing just how often their leaders lie to them and they'll
lose faith in government. No, no. It's best to shut down these
subversive internet types now before the people decide they want to
do something about their government aside from participating in
sham elections periodically.
this is an actual post of Dan T.'s from the "New Poll, No
Paul" thread. Yeah, I know it doesn't make sense because nobody
here is complaining about non-objective information coming out of
the MSM, but he would still say this:
Still, the mainstream media is run by corporations in a free-market
system so who are we to complain?
Actually, I agree with you guys that the media is doing a fine job and needs no government regulation, since it has prevented any libertarian candidates from winning much of anything. At gunpoint.
I thought I'd seen every photo of "young Blair", but that one's
a gem.
BTW Scooby, that shot must have been taken significantly pre-80s.
Blair was a Member of Parliament from 1983, and the Great British
Establishment wouldn't even have let him in the building with a do
like that.
All you need is some guy with a ridiculous, three-sided mohawk and it's The Young Ones.
Someone needs to show this cat http://news.google.com --- The news'paper' is dead. Long live the internets.
We should ban all news channels until they are re-formulated to be exactly like PBS or C-Span.
Hey Dan, that would work! - it would make all news channels so
unwatchable that it would be impossible they could have any
negative influence.
You see Dan, you are treated well when you offer up good, solid,
policy proposals like that.
Aside from the use of ridicule for logic and celebrity channel-like discussion above, which is all too funny and entertaining, the media is important to society and does seem that some accountability is in order. Allow no one to own two outlets of any kind. Get rid of the massive media industry. Go back to mom and pop papers and locally owned TV and radio stations. Have no idea how to handle the internet...just keep it free.
Comedy shows have in effect assassinated people.
Gerald Ford, one of the most athletic of Presidents,
was chopped up as clumsy, right or wrong.
Dan Quayle was ridiculed, rightly or wrongly,
to the point of his having no chance of redemption.
Bill Clinton was reduced to a sex joke.
Forget any logic other than comedic effect:
Pick a flaw to focus on and magnify before the public.
The solution to the problem is,
we need a media about the media,
sorta like we have going on right here.
But who is going to hold us to the line?
The problem with Dan T. is not that he trolls. Its that he mixes the occasional insight with the trolls.
I've gained a whole new perspective on Tony. Man, in that 1986 photo he looks totally stoned.
"BTW Scooby, that shot must have been taken significantly
pre-80s. Blair was a Member of Parliament from 1983, and the Great
British Establishment wouldn't even have let him in the building
with a do like that."
Picture caption says 1986, which about jibes with the peak of the
popularity of the moo-lay in the non-hockey playing population.
Yo, that dude looks stoneder than jesus!
No way. All black people look stoned.
"""If the government won't provide some kind of objective
yardstick, who will?"""
Shouldn't that be meterstick?
I think that pictures is proof that pot was as good then as is now. He looks toasted!!!!
TrickyVic,
You mean because if he would have stayed stoned, he would have
spared the world his boobariffic tenure?
Could be a precursor to upcoming Yankee oppression: should be
fun watching the fur fly if Hillary is elected and Dems try to shut
down Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
Anyways, the Brits need to stop government funding of the media
rather than plotting how best to truncheon it into compliance. The
BBC's own board of governors has found its conduct
reprehensible.
Mr. Blair, tear down this broadcasting corporation!
"As the technology blurs the distinction between papers and
television, it becomes increasingly irrational to have different
systems of accountability based on technology that no longer can be
differentiated in the old way."
I agree wholeheartedly with this quote. It does not make any sense
these days for tv to be more regulated than newspapers, I look
forward to the day when tv is able exercise the same freedom of
opinion as newsp...
What? Blair wants it that newspapers should be regulated like
television? Nevermind, screw that twit.
"""TrickyVic,
You mean because if he would have stayed stoned, he would have
spared the world his boobariffic tenure?"""
Uh, What?
All I'm saying is that photo could be proof the pot was just as
good then as now.
"Hell, his eyeballs are pointing in different
directions!"
I think you're right. ...but it's not the eyeballs, it's just the
sockets.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245