Sunday, October 28, 2012

No public interest definition can really apply to 'two presses'

9:49 AM | Posted by Free Game Zone | | Edit Post

goodish

Times editorial today arguing that the Crown Prosecution Service kicked journalism in the public interest by refusing to prosecute Guardian journalist, Amelia Hill.

The Times believes that the decision to mark "the establishment of an important defense of the freedom of the press against the use of state power."

continues by arguing that the CPS has made "important and constructive intervention" with the introduction of "freedom of expression in the process of loading for the first time."

The document adds that "journalists sometimes have to break the law to get to an important truth." Key, of course, is all about the importance of this truth. Essentially, it focuses on a definition of the public interest.

And here's something of a difference in emphasis between the time and the view I take in my column in the London Evening Standard today.

Here is the key moments

passage on the "danger" of what he called "blanket" bias.It said:

  • "It is easy to assume that the work Amelia Hill was in the public interest. It is important, however, that the public interest is not determined by a patrician elite.
  • This is not the defense of the stories that are simply interesting to the public, but to ensure that the stories in which the public has an interest - ie a game - can be fully informed and forcefully.
wiretapping scandal should not lead to a narrower definition or interpretation of the public interest. The methods of the press have rightly been questioned. But this is not the goal. The public deserves to know more, not less. "



Find best price for : --Justice----Lord----Amelia--

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Blog Archive

Blogger Template created with Artisteer.