O/T:- Media Bias

[Kent Magpie]

The media should report:

• An arrest
• On a trial
• A verdict
• Sentencing

If the trial is open to the press they can report on the evidence presented and who said what. But they should do so in a balanced manner (i.e. present the prosecution's evidence and the defence's)

Accusations are not news. Investigations aren't news (and the press probably just annoy investigating police). Opinion is not news. Rumour is not news. Speculation is not news. Maybe you can put those things in a gossip column but they do NOT belong under a 'news' banner.

Perhaps if the police _aren't_ investigating something and the press determine legitimately that they should be, maybe that's worth an article. Otherwise, wait for an arrest to report on.

The trouble with this is certain crimes go unreported, particularly when the person being accused is in a position of power who can silence witnesses, cover up or influence a cover up. Reporting on the allegations gives others the strength to come forward and so strengthens the case. If this reduces the possibility of a cover up or people using their power to commit crimes, then I think it is good thing.

I won't comment about Brand as I have been highly suspicious of him following his comments in the Jonny Depp vs Amber Heard case.

[Jampie]

The trouble with this is certain crimes go unreported, particularly when the person being accused is in a position of power who can silence witnesses, cover up or influence a cover up. Reporting on the allegations gives others the strength to come forward and so strengthens the case. If this reduces the possibility of a cover up or people using their power to commit crimes, then I think it is good thing.

I won't comment about Brand as I have been highly suspicious of him following his comments in the Jonny Depp vs Amber Heard case.

If as I said something isn't being investigated that should be, then I'd consider that news. If police want more witnesses to come forward they can appeal for that via the press.

If victims groups want to organise, that would probably work a lot better than the current rumour mill system.

[Kent Magpie]

If as I said something isn't being investigated that should be, then I'd consider that news. If police want more witnesses to come forward they can appeal for that via the press.

If victims groups want to organise, that would probably work a lot better than the current rumour mill system.

How do they do that without it being in the press? That's not how it works. You end up in the same place - look at all the speculation around the poor woman who drowned in Lancashire.

If the police suddenly asked for witnesses or other victims of a potential crime involving an un-named person nobody would come forward. Ask for potential witnesses or victims of potential ***ual abuse / rape involving Russel Brand.. and you are where we are now, just via a different route. Also women have so little faith in the Police and CPS they feel they have a better chance of justice through the press. The solution is sorting the Police and CPS. Until then I have no problem with it.

[BigFatPie]

The notion of refusing to believe any wrongdoing until it’s proved in court is an interesting one considering the cases of Jimmy Savile, Prince Andrew and Mason Greenwood to name but 3. No wonder women are reluctant to come forward to report allegations when you see some of the grim contributions on here and elsewhere.

I seem to be in a bit of a minority in that I quite liked Russell Brand in his heyday. The longstanding rumours about him obviously mean he doesn’t appear on regulated media anymore, but luckily for him there’s now alternatives where surprise, surprise he’s now asking his followers for money. These faux anti establishment types never change.

[Jampie]

I guess my point is... if you tolerate "trial by media" and "guilty until proven innocent" then it's only a matter of time before the state and corporations learn to silence their critics by these mechanisms. Indeed, corporate press are already using this as a weapon to further their agenda.

If they can wreck your life but just investigating you, game over. I know that probably sounds ridiculous when elected politicians are such obvious useless clowns. But consider the possibility that their entire role is to be obvious useless clowns while the ultra wealthy class do whatever they want in the background.

And consider that despite the (wildly inappropriate) pessimism people seem to favour, there is no mandatory end date on civilisation. If democracy is to work long term, these mechanisms need to be stable for hundreds, hopefully thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of years. Slowly eroding cornerstones isn't going to keep the roof on.

[Newish Pie]

I guess my point is... if you tolerate "trial by media" and "guilty until proven innocent" then it's only a matter of time before the state and corporations learn to silence their critics by these mechanisms. Indeed, corporate press are already using this as a weapon to further their agenda.

If they can wreck your life but just investigating you, game over. I know that probably sounds ridiculous when elected politicians are such obvious useless clowns. But consider the possibility that their entire role is to be obvious useless clowns while the ultra wealthy class do whatever they want in the background.

And consider that despite the (wildly inappropriate) pessimism people seem to favour, there is no mandatory end date on civilisation. If democracy is to work long term, these mechanisms need to be stable for hundreds, hopefully thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of years. Slowly eroding cornerstones isn't going to keep the roof on.

But if you go the opposite way and you only allow "trial by trial" and won't hear a word said against anyone by anyone for any reason unless a jury has pronounced on it, you end up silencing the media. If you silence the media, the rich and powerful get away with even less scrutiny. There needs to be a balance. And the media haven't always got it right.

Brand isn't in trouble because he was investigated. He's in trouble because he was investigated and evidence of his behaviour was uncovered. The weight of that evidence and the number of allegations is such that it persuaded the media lawyers that they could defend their position in court if sued for libel. What's happening to Brand isn't the consequences of an investigation, it's the consequences of his own actions.

[Jampie]

But if you go the opposite way and you only allow "trial by trial" and won't hear a word said against anyone by anyone for any reason unless a jury has pronounced on it, you end up silencing the media. If you silence the media, the rich and powerful get away with even less scrutiny. There needs to be a balance. And the media haven't always got it right.

Brand isn't in trouble because he was investigated. He's in trouble because he was investigated and evidence of his behaviour was uncovered. The weight of that evidence and the number of allegations is such that it persuaded the media lawyers that they could defend their position in court if sued for libel. What's happening to Brand isn't the consequences of an investigation, it's the consequences of his own actions.

Brand represents zero danger whatsoever to democracy or civilisation. His case is not relevant one iota when compared to the value of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

That aside, at no point have I advocated for "silencing" the media. The most I've said is that gossip (which this is until aforementioned milestones in a criminal case) belongs in a gossip column, not under a "news" banner.

[Newish Pie]

I think the point that I was trying to make was that the right way forward lay between the two extremes, not that I thought you necessarily endorsed the extreme view. Just that you can go wrong at least as badly by accepting nothing short of criminal convictions as evidence for anything ever, just as you can by believing everything you hear.

Do you think that the serious allegations against Brand are merely "gossip"? Surely not.

Surely they're significantly more than gossip, even if it's not yet a criminal conviction. I'm arguing that there's this complicated, messy middle ground which we have to work out how to deal with, and which we can't inflate to the same status as a criminal conviction or deflate to the point at which it's just gossip and hearsay and carries no weight whatsoever.

[Jampie]

I think the point that I was trying to make was that the right way forward lay between the two extremes, not that I thought you necessarily endorsed the extreme view. Just that you can go wrong at least as badly by accepting nothing short of criminal convictions as evidence for anything ever, just as you can by believing everything you hear.

Do you think that the serious allegations against Brand are merely "gossip"? Surely not.

Surely they're significantly more than gossip, even if it's not yet a criminal conviction. I'm arguing that there's this complicated, messy middle ground which we have to work out how to deal with, and which we can't inflate to the same status as a criminal conviction or deflate to the point at which it's just gossip and hearsay and carries no weight whatsoever.

The allegations against him... I don't think about them at all. When they result in charges, that'll be a data point. Another one with a conviction, another sentencing etc. If I were interested (I'm not) I'd read the sentencing judge's summary if published. Those can run into hundreds of pages but if you're actually interested in the case it'll tell you a tonne more than every press article about it put together.

I personally can't form an opinion on innocence or guilt based on "modern journalism".

[Magpies1959]

I see Ofcom seem to be seem to be sniffing around GB News, as their figures start to out perform the other news/opinions' channels. BBC bums getting a bit squeaky maybe. Not that Ofcom and the BBC would be bed fellows or anything.