Freedom of the Press

[Empired]

Freedom of the press - good or bad?


Freedom is the press is considered to be a key component for the protection of civil liberties, but recently there has been an increase in journalists using the legal defences, to which they are entitled, to perform illegal and intrusive surveillance on private citizens. How can the EU continue to protect press freedom without encroaching upon the rights of its citizens?

Strict media regulation could damage freedom of expression and the press, however recently some journalists are being instructed by their employers to investigate stories using illegal or intrusive methods, for example hacking citizens' phones, at the risk of losing their job and exposing the private information of civilians.

Should the press have more restrictions on what they report and how they obtain information imposed upon them, or should they be allowed to keep their freedom?

[Alysha]

Surveillance in this capacity should be restricted heavily. The government already encroach on our human rights, but we choose to accept that in the defence that our national security is at stake; the press don't have that in their favour. Their actions are usually out of morbid curiosity.

We live in a 'stranger society', where we are paranoid about our neighbour, and that drives our curiosity. The problem comes when people have too much power to invade our privacy; on an individual level, privacy affords us the space to be ourselves and to keep our vulnerabilities private; in doing so we are able to maintain a level of personal security. With that taken, what security does anyone have?

Journalists are often being compared to terrorists already, so why give them more freedom?

[lawrawrrr]

Journalists shouldn't be using illegal methods to obtain information (such as phone/email hacking), end of IMO.

However I believe in nothing more than the freedom of the press. Journalists and news organisations should NEVER be threatened or controlled by corporations (well, excluding journalism companies i guess that own them). We have a duty to be reporting facts to citizens who might not have access to that information otherwise, especially when it comes to boring reports and things that it's hard to get. In that case, it's like a middle man.

I don't really get the quote in your main post because you can absolutely report news without encroaching on the privacy of citizens. Sometimes they're asked for comments, in some situations even victims are mentioned or people are named when they didn't want to be, but that's just news. It's the methods that some sources and journalists use to get that information that I disagree with.

but basically (and I'm not just saying it because its my job), people have a right to news and journalism provides that - when it starts to be controlled you're just shepherding people into some kind of doctrine... it has a huge potential to be incredibly dangerous.

[Empired]

I don't really get the quote in your main post because you can absolutely report news without encroaching on the privacy of citizens. Sometimes they're asked for comments, in some situations even victims are mentioned or people are named when they didn't want to be, but that's just news. It's the methods that some sources and journalists use to get that information that I disagree with.
I don't get it either it's a thing I have to do for school and tbh I just wanted to steal all of your ideas so thx for posting:¬: I literally just copied the sheet I got given in the assembly I didn't really listen in.

I have to argue that I'm for complete freedom of the press and was thinking of using examples like how the Jimmy Savile/Rolf Harris scandals would never come to light, the fact that MPs were using tax money to buy second homes, and some other examples that I can't think of off the top of my head.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The biggest threat to the freedom of the press in my eyes has now changed, although the Leveson inquiry itself was a threat in that it wanted to implement more regulations on the press when the current laws against hacking etc are sufficent enough, the threat to press freedom is now political correctness: something you cannot legislate for or against in many ways. You've already mentioned the Sir Jimmy Savile allegations - which the press had been aware of for years - and I will throw in the RoP child rape gangs in Rotherham and other towns and cities which the newspapers have also known about and the media as a whole: but they've been too scared to publish any of it either because of special interests or simply fearing the backlash.

One big problem with the press now is that they don't actually go and examine any stories themselves like many American news channels do, everything in the British television media is handed to them on a plate by Reuters or the Associated Press. Watch American news or the likes of RT and you'll see much more in-depth debate and discussion. In other words, our press needs to grow a backbone and start acting like a press.