Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile AT: Gate of Ivory, Gate of Horn Previous Previous Next Next
GOD DAMN THEM ALL. - Wemyss's Appalling Hobby:
From the Party Guilty of Committing 'Gate of Ivory, Gate of Horn'
God damn Cameron. God damn Clegg. God damn Miliband - and soon, all three.

Here is the news as it might be today with a Leveson Licence and an unfree press.


May God strike them all dead this night, and all who hold with them.

Tags: , , , ,

13 comments or Leave a comment
pathology_doc From: pathology_doc Date: March 18th, 2013 05:41 pm (UTC) (Link)
Add the names Gillard and Conroy to your list for your Antipodean friends. Curiously, the ABC - which is staffed with their sycophants - and certain specifically-named and equally sycophantic websites are to be exempted. In short, anyone who would perform a glosso-rectal conjunction is to be let free; everybody who dares criticise them goes under the censor's hammer.

Fuck the lot of them forever with Satan's barbed penis - although even he might not be willing to lower himself so far.
wemyss From: wemyss Date: March 19th, 2013 04:18 pm (UTC) (Link)

It makes one wonder who won the war, or why we bothered.

Any war. The Kaiser's, Hitler's, the Cold War....
pathology_doc From: pathology_doc Date: March 19th, 2013 04:26 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: It makes one wonder who won the war, or why we bothered.

Because if we hadn't, things would have been much, much, much worse today.
steepholm From: steepholm Date: March 18th, 2013 05:50 pm (UTC) (Link)
You may also want to add the names of Murdoch, Dacre, Coulson, Brooks, etc. to your list - without whose disregard of humanity, decency and true journalistic values none of this would have happened.
pathology_doc From: pathology_doc Date: March 18th, 2013 10:10 pm (UTC) (Link)
What rot. This is just a shallow excuse being used to do something beyond the pale. Don't like the gutter press? Don't buy it - nobody's forcing you to, after all. But when you go looking for something that critiques the government of the day and there is nothing, NOTHING, except page after page of bureaucratic, boot-licking hagiography, don't come crying to we who tried to warn you.
steepholm From: steepholm Date: March 18th, 2013 10:37 pm (UTC) (Link)
You seem to be implying that the politicians were itching to impose regulation all along, and took the first "shallow excuse" available. The recent history of relations between press and politicians in this country suggests otherwise to me. They set up Leveson only when public outrage at press excesses became even more frightening to them than the disfavour of the media oligarchs. The press had a cushy little number going, they got arrogant, they blew it: they can't pretend they have no responsibility for this mess.
pathology_doc From: pathology_doc Date: March 19th, 2013 11:45 am (UTC) (Link)
I beg to differ with you. The Australian government has certainly been waiting for this excuse the whole time: they even imported it, lock, stock and barrel, from the UK - along with, I might add, a former UK Labor political advisor, who sits at the Australian Prime Minister's proverbial right hand.

There is no reason, justification or excuse for the Leveson inquiry. If the public is that outraged, it just has to stop buying the trash. The proprietors will take their signal from that, as they have since time immemorial.
steepholm From: steepholm Date: March 19th, 2013 12:03 pm (UTC) (Link)
Well, we're clearly not going to agree. I can't speak about the Australian situation, and our view of what happened here in the UK is obviously very different.

In saying that the press is partly responsibible for the current situation, I certainly don't imply that I find that current situation desirable. But the wailing of certain journalists sounds to many (myself included) not unlike that of a bully who hits people about the head with a cricket bat and then complains when is kicked off the cricket team, "It must be because you all hate sport!" I'd give the press a more sympathetic hearing if they weren't so keen to blame everyone but themselves.

The problems with the "Just don't buy it" argument are twofold. First, the market doesn't operate in that forensic a manner. "If you want drug dealers to go away, just don't buy drugs," is not an exact analogy for your argument, but it's not totally misplaced either. More importantly, public outrage is fuelled not by the fact that much of the press is a badly written, lowest-common-denominator stuff, but by the fact that it acquires much of its copy through persecuting innocent individuals and groups who don't have the choice of "opting out".
pathology_doc From: pathology_doc Date: March 19th, 2013 04:35 pm (UTC) (Link)
Then you pass laws prohibiting the ability of gutter journalists to use tools which even the police would need a warrant to obtain, you reframe laws against slander and libel after appropriate public consultation and a referendum on those laws, and you punish individual journalists severely when they overstep the mark.

But with the exception of suppressing details of impending military operations and related matters*, you do not ever, ever, ever, EVER attempt government control of the content of the press in a parliamentary democracy. Ever.

* = including but not limited to performance characteristics of frontline equipment
wemyss From: wemyss Date: March 19th, 2013 04:30 pm (UTC) (Link)

No, actually.

In fact, balls. Worse than balls: a load of mandelson. I don't wish to be as emphatic as our friendly Commonwealth medico, but, No. Every problem you cite was already addressed by statute law and the CPS have acted. To overturn 300 years of press freedom in this manner, with a stitch-up like this? No, that was pretextual. The fact that a few people abuse an absolute right never excuses, justifies, or palliates an attempt to take that right from the people. Never. Never. Never. And - I don't wish to sound like Professor Morgenbesser, who was arrested by a New York copper when he asked him, 'Who do you think you are? Kant?' (PC O'Plod being unfamiliar with that philosopher and mistaking the name for another word)- but, if you really take the contrary position to that I have just stated, pray tell me which of your rights you care to have sacrificed or impaired by those whose power and livelihood depend on its not being too much exercised, all on the excuse that it has been or might be abused by others.

So far as I am concerned, some 530 MPs, Hacked Off, and not a few people at the Grauniad are Vichy Britons and traitors to liberty, and I shall exert myself at every opportunity to destroy them.
steepholm From: steepholm Date: March 19th, 2013 05:22 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: No, actually.

My dear Wemyss, why are you talking as if I were an admirer of the current proposals? All I have argued is that we would not have arrived at this point if the press had managed to keep its collective wanger in its pants. Is that really controversial?

If it were a question of just "a few bad apples" (as was so long maintained), they might have weathered the storm. In fact, it's become apparent that from the outright criminality of phone hacking to the louche croneyism of the Sodding Chipbutty set, to the systematic way in which papers regularly choose to "monster" (I believe is the word) certain harmless groups and individuals, and the toothlessness of the PCC in redressing such injuries, the press has been a classic example of power without responsibility and the effects of same. I believe that if they want to fight back, which they cannot effectively do without the public's goodwill, they must own that fact.
wemyss From: wemyss Date: March 19th, 2013 10:59 pm (UTC) (Link)

My dear CB:

I concur that some Fleet Streeters - not a majority, but more than a few bad apples - gave the troughers in Westminster a handle and a pretext. I concur in your estimate of the PCC (as, I may add, does everyone at the Telegraph and a good few at the Indy, who agree that things wanted changing). The fact remains that no abuses, however grave or however widespread, justify or palliate what is happening, and that is the point I really must make as loudly as possible.
steepholm From: steepholm Date: March 20th, 2013 08:06 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: My dear CB:

Then our positions are much closer than might be supposed from our respective angles of rhetorical approach - as has frequently been the case.
13 comments or Leave a comment