Does anybody actually believe we have free press??

[Peahead66]

Ive noticed on quite a few occasions that people provide links to news sites, newspaper articles and "official" websites to support their assertations. I was therefore curious as to whether people actually still believed that we have free press??

[january_bug]

Your "question" seems rather slanted.  Are you interested in a debate and hearing other people's opinions?  Would it be better to just agree with you?  What will your view be of anyone who feels that we do still have a free press in the UK?

I look forward to hearing your answers.  Thanks.  :-)

[Peahead66]

Im just interested in truth. If anybody believes we have free press thats fine and I would be interested in hearing why they believe it and how they can support that belief by giving reasons why certain information never makes the news etc. If anybody believes we dont have free press (apart from certain websites of course) I would be interested in what they have to say also. Ive noticed that there is quite a lot of whistleblowers (reporters, scientists, etc) who are sharing information that we never hear in mainstream press. Not slanted, just looking for the truth.

[january_bug]

Well the truth is not only hard to find... but it's entirely subjective these days. 

I believe that we have a free press, yes.  I believe that the stories we read/hear are all very much slanted... I'm never entirely sure whether control lies with the editor, or higher up.  However, with a certain degree of intelligence, anyone can cut through the slant. 

My local paper spouts some HUGELY slanted stuff, but you can still pick out the facts from their stories. 

I think some stories don't make the news because the information isn't released, rather than because reporters are not free to talk about certain things. 

Marketing and spin have become artforms in this country, and there are some PR wizards at work. 

Just because we don't hear everything, doesn't mean that what we do hear is lies. 

I also feel that we have a more free press than many other countries in the world.  It might not be perfect, but it's still free.  People are not imprisoned, kidnapped or tortured for criticising the government, nor do all the papers support them all the time. 

I've studied the press reporting of criminal trials in the UK, and yes it's true that many cases don't get reported until later because they become "sub judice", but this is something I believe to be a necessary and good part of British law. 

I don't trust many "alternative" sites on the internet, because the editors all have their own agendas too, and unlike the printed press, it's not money.  That gives them even more reason to slant things in a way that I personally don't find all that trustworthy.  Although if others do... then that is the joy of the free press! :-)

[jno]

free of what exactly? On the one side, media are subject to the same legal curbs as anyone else - regarding libel or contempt of court, for instance. These are stricter than in the USA, say. On the other hand, setting up newspapers or TV services is an expensive business, and the businessmen who do it may expect their employees to follow their own line. So when Murdoch papers (Times, Sunday Times, Sun, News of the World) slag off the BBC, remember that Murdoch also owns Sky, the BBC's rival.

Newspapers often align themselves with political parties: Telegraph, Mail and Express mostly back the Tories, the Guardian and Mirror mostly back Labour (though both strongly opposed the war in Iraq). This doesn't mean they're run by politicians, but some news presentation - especially in the Mail and Express - is remarkably close to party lines.

However, direct government interference in the media is fairly minimal - they have spin doctors rather than lawyers to deal with the press.

[jno]

btw Peahead I've just spotted that one of the links you're referring to was one of mine, to a news story in the UK Guardian, which you called a 'propaganda news site'. It seemed to me to be a straight news story on a very reputable and widely read site, which was careful to give both sides of the argument.

So it depends what you expect a non-biased news source to be: one that only prints the things you already believe in?

[Peahead66]

Thanks for your views so far. It is not my intention to cause a fight here by the way. I dont actually believe or disbelieve the stories in regular newspapers or TV. All im saying is doesnt anybody find it curious that some major stories never make mainstream press, witnesses to certain things get harassed or warned and nobody hears of it (many of these from 9-11) such as William Rodriguez's story (that wasnt reported on BBC) and scientists who speak out about corruption have a habit of dropping like flies http://www.rense.com/general62/list.htm etc. Sorry if ive offended anyone, all im saying is why are the big important stories ignored to such an extent??

[january_bug]

I see what you're saying.. but "the big important stories" - is a very subjective thing.  I believe that a vast majority of stories that have importance to a majority of citizens of this country are reported. 

Also - don't forget that newspapers are limited by the number of pages, and TV broadcasts by the time.

Oops - gotta run - Mum's home and I've got to help out! Sorry, will continue later!

[Peahead66]

But what is subjective about real people who are trying to tell an important story (that contradicts the official story) and are being told that they will be found in the woods if they dont forget about it?

[january_bug]

I'm saying that the word "important" is subjective. 

The sort of thing you talk about sounds like a bit of a consipiracy to me.  That, or people who knowingly signed the Official Secrets Act then going back on that and attempt to break the law/commit treason.  People who do that deserve the consequences, however "important" the story.  They signed the Act; they knew what it meant. 

[Peahead66]

I guess what I mean by important is everyday ordinary peoples rights to know the truth about the reasons that things in the world are happening and why it affects them. I myself applaud whistleblowers and whether they signed an Official Secrets Act or not when they discover that the public are being mislead or decieved in the name of big fat profits (the governments purpose is to serve the people not vice versa) it is IMO more honourable to speak out rather than protect corrupt powers surely???

I will post a few interesting whistleblower links (just fast forward through the adverts).

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/111104deagle1.htm

http://www.infowars.com/transcripts/shrimpton_audio.htm

I know they seem a bit extreme "conspiracy" style but listen, these people have evidence, witnesses, and can back up everything they are saying.  Different from BBC I know but a damn sight more educational. Anyway its been interesting listening to peoples opinions. Thanks.

[Szachnowski]

It depends what you mean by free. As a journalist who has worked on many different publications, I can categorically say the Government does not actually censor the press. However, there are laws about how things may be reported, to protect children who are victims of crimes etc. Also, each publication will have an editorial policy and the editor will take a stance on different issues.