O/T:- Media Bias

[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.