Posts by Scott Chris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Reputation and remuneration, in reply to DexterX,
as I turned to leave he tossed the balance back into the cabinet.
Heh, well that story certainly has entertainment value. You could sell it to Larry David.
-
When a maggot was found in a burger at a certain fast-food multi-national, it reputedly threatened to cancel its advertising unless the news story was dropped.
Red, that doesn’t really make sense to me in that the story about the company threatening to withdraw advertising is so much bigger than the one about the maggot burger, and revealing it would have been both newsworthy as well as forcing the company not to withdraw their advertising. Besides, what real news value does a story about maggot burgers actually have?
The whole thing is a result of a lack of regulation and the markets being in a state anarchy.
Dexter, I in turn disagree. Some things need regulation, others don’t. What we need is effective regulation, not more of it, such as a separation of the banking industry from the derivatives market for instance.
-
Richard Long and Colin Meads have regretted spruiking for failed finance companies – although probably not as much as the people who bought the finance companies’ products.
Quite. And their reputations and market worth have suffered accordingly. Edwards can call it what he wants, but this is clearly a case of the free market self regulating. (not that I'm suggesting, as some would that the free market always self regulates)
-
It doesn’t cease to matter just because you can’t punch people in the face over the internet. (You can’t. Seriously, you can’t.)
I disagree. The pugilism simply becomes psychological. (assuming you are a regular member of the virtual community)
For those who flit in and out of online forums, their impact has relatively little psychological traction both in terms of their own state of mind, and on the established culture of the forum imo.
-
This is a bit TL:DR
Too Short: Didn't Understand.
-
Speaker: Who are the news media?, in reply to Russell Brown,
>>"Let’s say a newspaper publishes something wrong and harmful about you: are you going to mount a defamation action?"
Yes I take your point although in an ideal world the government would be compelled to arbitrate in such matters if the harm is deemed significant enough.
>>"Or perhaps a news media organisation has breached your privacy or acted unethically in a way that falls short of a breach of criminal law."
Brings to mind the recent "Heartland Document Affair" in which Peter Gleick has effectively been put on trial in the blogosphere, found guilty of conspiring to take over the world by right wing bloggers and exonerated by liberal bloggers, having acted in the best interests of mankind. (even if he was being a bit naughty). My point is that people will lap up whichever version of the truth that they are predisposed to consuming, so a regulatory body set up by the government funded law commission will make little difference to what people ultimately believe.
No doubt the article in N&S was similarly chewed over by the likes of your good self and Colin Peacock so I would guess that the independent regulator's findings were pretty much a foregone conclusion for those in the know.
So perhaps the law commission should simply allow the increasingly interactive and increasingly partisan news media to fight it out amongst themselves and concentrate on more important matters such as abolishing juries and adversarial trials. (yes I see the irony)
-
I see little point regulating the news media. (whom I understand to be any publication which generates revenue and provides a narrative of current events)
The only practical regulation outside the normal constraint of the law that I can think of would be for any registered news media publication to be required to publish a constitutional declaration of intent so that they can be held accountable by those who subscribe to their version of “the truth”. At least that would create a *relative* standard by which to measure internal consistency.
Presumably the more reputable publications would compose more explicit and aspirational constitutions.