tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4433144336299288135.post6276948613009583156..comments2024-03-26T13:27:26.499+00:00Comments on Zelo Street: Press Barons Victimhood FailTim Fentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00726447899972084146noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4433144336299288135.post-7027494290563046532015-10-16T19:17:37.174+01:002015-10-16T19:17:37.174+01:00Insertion to post 1: "arguments" after &...Insertion to post 1: "arguments" after "owners" in first sentence.<br /><br />Apologies for typo.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4433144336299288135.post-5997861374568422652015-10-16T18:26:11.462+01:002015-10-16T18:26:11.462+01:00Genuine answer, Mr Nicholls: as I posted, if a new...Genuine answer, Mr Nicholls: as I posted, if a newspaper prevails at arbitration, then the complainant risks paying all the costs if they decide to then go to law anyway.<br /><br />Joining a recognised regulator also carries benefits as regards protection from vexatious litigants, as the likes of Robert Maxwell were in the past.<br /><br />All of the minutiae has been discussed at Inforrm's blog.<br />Tim Fentonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00726447899972084146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4433144336299288135.post-38407813947634259332015-10-16T17:16:37.967+01:002015-10-16T17:16:37.967+01:00Genuine question, Mr Fenton: Where do you draw you...Genuine question, Mr Fenton: Where do you draw your conclusion that if the newspaper agrees to arbitration it shields them from paying defendants costs if they win? And how does that apply to papers (such as Private Eye) who are not part of a regulator?James Nichollshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10982562921933457557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4433144336299288135.post-79169252964534972342015-10-16T11:38:11.489+01:002015-10-16T11:38:11.489+01:00Actually, all the position of media owners' de...Actually, all the position of media owners' depends on is the same kind of reductio ad absurdum the Confederate States tried on in the American Civil War.<br /><br />Then, the argument was allegedly for "freedom of states rights." Which ACTUALLY amounted to the "freedom" to impose slavery on unwilling human beings. Which in the end was why there was such opposition to Dixie. And a tragic and unnecessary war which that unhappy nation has still not recovered from. All it required was adult discussion to be rid of a vile trade.<br /><br />In the Leveson case, media monopoly owners (and their paid gutless hacks) want the "freedom" to impose their information slavery on an increasingly unwilling public. Moreover, to do it in any way they see fit, including corruption.<br /><br />But the beauty of new technology is that those owners are more and more exposed to spontaneity from independent individuals, instead of the narrowly structured access they have manufactured since the introduction of mass printing and audio/video communications.<br /><br />The game is up for the present system. It may take many years yet to readjust to a better information democracy, and along the way you can expect the usual frothed mouth assaults from the usual far right sources. But at least a start has been made.<br /><br />In the meantime you can expect the Murdochs and Northcliffes of this world to pay their front men and women to do the usual dirty work. Yet the REAL question remains: WHO IS BEHIND THE MURDOCHS AND NORTHCLIFFES? Which of course the hacks will NEVER ask, let alone try to solve.<br /><br />Britain remains the world centre of this kind of disgusting corruption and immorality. It may not be alone in its rottenness but there's nobody worse out front.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com