Newspapers - Essay Style Question
Does news regulation belong in a democracy? Provide judgements and reach conclusions.
- Give definitions of regulation and democracy - Regulation is defined as a rule or directive made by an authority whilst a democracy is defined as a form of government in which the people exercise the authority of government. Both have a link with a certain authority at play and yet these authorities clash in specific aspects.
- Explain the current state of play - corona virus}
- Explore the opposite and reference China - what happens when regulation goes too far.}
- Reference the Leveson Inquiry and creation of IPSO }
- Include recent examples (Caroline Flack)
- Reference Livingstone and Lunt }
- Provide a well evidenced conclusion
- freedom of press is essential in a democratic society - The importance of a free and responsible press is clear: it ensures the government represents the people.}
News regulation could be seen to oppose the concept of freedom of speech and therefore some may believe that news regulation does not belong in a democratic society. However, in recent years, the behaviour of certain journalists and the dangerous impact of the news has prompted many to call for much stricter regulation provided by the government to protect the citizens of the country.
In 2014, the regulators of news changed from PCC (Press Complaints Commission) to IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) following the Leveson Inquiry chaired by Lord Justice Leveson. The Leveson inquiry was a judicial public inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the British press following the News International phone hacking scandal. There were a series of public hearings that looked into extreme events caused by freedom of press and due to a lack of regulation. These included reports made by the parents or=- f Milly Dowler, the parents of Madeleine McCann, and J.k. Rowling. The overall concept was to provide more regulation for news and restrict the freedom of press enough to stop press harassment. The result of the inquiry was the creation of IPSO - an independent news regulator in which the participation is voluntary. This suggests that some amount of news regulation is needed within a democracy in order to protect citizens from harmful or offensive material - this links very closely to the views of theorists Livingstone and Lunt.
Livingstone and Lunt stated that there is an underlying struggle in UK regulation between the needs to further the interests of citizens (by offering protection from harmful or offensive material) and the need to further the interests of consumers (by ensuring choice, value for money, and market competition). They believe that there will never be a finite answer to how much news regulation should be given in a democratic society due to the extreme ends of the argument - choice vs protection. It is argued that freedom of press is essential within a democracy because it ensures that the government represents the people - but this ideology also covers the overlying responsibility that the press must hold, for example, ensuring younger audiences aren't open to offensive material. If to be in a democracy is to embrace the people's choices and needs, then regulation should be considered in order to give a sense of responsibility to the people.
In opposition, too much regulation can cause for an equal array of issues - such as the current situation of China. Democracy in China was introduced in the late 19th century. The debate over its definition and application was one of the major ideological battlegrounds in Chinese politics for over a century. Modern Chinese leaders state that they run a "socialist democracy" where the Communist Party of China is a central authority that acts in the interest of the people. The Communist Party approves what political parties can run. Around the world in various media outlets, China is often described in varying terms such as totalitarian, authoritarian, soft authoritarian, a surveillance state, or a dictatorship. The media and communications industry in mainland China is administered by various government agencies and regulators. The principal mechanism to force media outlets to comply with the Communist Party's requests is the vertically organized nomenklatura system of cadre appointments, and includes those in charge of the media industry. The CCP utilizes a wide variety of tools to maintain control over news reporting including "direct ownership, accreditation of journalists, harsh penalties for online criticism, and daily directives to media outlets and websites that guide coverage of breaking news stories." In a recent Financial Times Feb 2020 article by Simon Cheng, he writes about the doctor, Li, who alerted the Chinese public of the coronavirus outbreak. He was rebuked and accused of lying by the Chinese authorities this aroused public anger as it wasn't his version of a bare-knuckled political fight over human rights, but a simple act in order to warn them and inform them of core, health information that could save lives. Overall, this suggests the issues raised about when regulation goes too far - in this case the want to hold back significant information about a core health subject from the public eye.
A more recent example of what happens when freedom of press goes too far is the case of Caroline Flack. Caroline Flack was a well known TV presenter who was most known for working on the reality TV show 'Love Island'. Flack became under the 'attack' of the press following a domestic abuse event between her and her ex-boyfriend, in which she was the perpetrator. She was insulted and belittled by the press and social media, with no strict regulation rules to stop them. Flack took her won life not long after these events took place and it is argued that the lack of regulation was partly the cause of this. Some may argue that, as a celebrity and someone in the public eye, Flack should have been used to this and allowing her life to be shown through the news is a part of her lifestyle, but others point out that despite her being in the eye of the public, that doesn't excuse the insulting, boundary-pushing news that she was experiencing. In light of this event, the public outrage from this, was found to echo the chaos inspiring the Leveson Inquiry. The repetition that is occurring shines a light on the need for more regulation needed within democracies - freedom of the press must also be balanced by the need to protect people and provide access to justice when they are wronged, as happens in other areas of business and society, such as utilities, broadcasting and telecoms, and as the government proposes for social media.
In conclusion, although freedom of press is an essential ingredient within a democracy, allowing consumers to have choice, value for money, and market competition, some kind of news regulation is required to protect the public from offensive and harmful material. Responsibility must be taken in order to provide the society with an equilibrium of choice and protection.
In 2014, the regulators of news changed from PCC (Press Complaints Commission) to IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) following the Leveson Inquiry chaired by Lord Justice Leveson. The Leveson inquiry was a judicial public inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the British press following the News International phone hacking scandal. There were a series of public hearings that looked into extreme events caused by freedom of press and due to a lack of regulation. These included reports made by the parents or=- f Milly Dowler, the parents of Madeleine McCann, and J.k. Rowling. The overall concept was to provide more regulation for news and restrict the freedom of press enough to stop press harassment. The result of the inquiry was the creation of IPSO - an independent news regulator in which the participation is voluntary. This suggests that some amount of news regulation is needed within a democracy in order to protect citizens from harmful or offensive material - this links very closely to the views of theorists Livingstone and Lunt.
Livingstone and Lunt stated that there is an underlying struggle in UK regulation between the needs to further the interests of citizens (by offering protection from harmful or offensive material) and the need to further the interests of consumers (by ensuring choice, value for money, and market competition). They believe that there will never be a finite answer to how much news regulation should be given in a democratic society due to the extreme ends of the argument - choice vs protection. It is argued that freedom of press is essential within a democracy because it ensures that the government represents the people - but this ideology also covers the overlying responsibility that the press must hold, for example, ensuring younger audiences aren't open to offensive material. If to be in a democracy is to embrace the people's choices and needs, then regulation should be considered in order to give a sense of responsibility to the people.
In opposition, too much regulation can cause for an equal array of issues - such as the current situation of China. Democracy in China was introduced in the late 19th century. The debate over its definition and application was one of the major ideological battlegrounds in Chinese politics for over a century. Modern Chinese leaders state that they run a "socialist democracy" where the Communist Party of China is a central authority that acts in the interest of the people. The Communist Party approves what political parties can run. Around the world in various media outlets, China is often described in varying terms such as totalitarian, authoritarian, soft authoritarian, a surveillance state, or a dictatorship. The media and communications industry in mainland China is administered by various government agencies and regulators. The principal mechanism to force media outlets to comply with the Communist Party's requests is the vertically organized nomenklatura system of cadre appointments, and includes those in charge of the media industry. The CCP utilizes a wide variety of tools to maintain control over news reporting including "direct ownership, accreditation of journalists, harsh penalties for online criticism, and daily directives to media outlets and websites that guide coverage of breaking news stories." In a recent Financial Times Feb 2020 article by Simon Cheng, he writes about the doctor, Li, who alerted the Chinese public of the coronavirus outbreak. He was rebuked and accused of lying by the Chinese authorities this aroused public anger as it wasn't his version of a bare-knuckled political fight over human rights, but a simple act in order to warn them and inform them of core, health information that could save lives. Overall, this suggests the issues raised about when regulation goes too far - in this case the want to hold back significant information about a core health subject from the public eye.
A more recent example of what happens when freedom of press goes too far is the case of Caroline Flack. Caroline Flack was a well known TV presenter who was most known for working on the reality TV show 'Love Island'. Flack became under the 'attack' of the press following a domestic abuse event between her and her ex-boyfriend, in which she was the perpetrator. She was insulted and belittled by the press and social media, with no strict regulation rules to stop them. Flack took her won life not long after these events took place and it is argued that the lack of regulation was partly the cause of this. Some may argue that, as a celebrity and someone in the public eye, Flack should have been used to this and allowing her life to be shown through the news is a part of her lifestyle, but others point out that despite her being in the eye of the public, that doesn't excuse the insulting, boundary-pushing news that she was experiencing. In light of this event, the public outrage from this, was found to echo the chaos inspiring the Leveson Inquiry. The repetition that is occurring shines a light on the need for more regulation needed within democracies - freedom of the press must also be balanced by the need to protect people and provide access to justice when they are wronged, as happens in other areas of business and society, such as utilities, broadcasting and telecoms, and as the government proposes for social media.
In conclusion, although freedom of press is an essential ingredient within a democracy, allowing consumers to have choice, value for money, and market competition, some kind of news regulation is required to protect the public from offensive and harmful material. Responsibility must be taken in order to provide the society with an equilibrium of choice and protection.
Comments
Post a Comment