Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by plymwebed, Jul 28, 2008.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
The captain of HMS Cornwall has been removed from his post.
Go to thisisplymouth to read the article
Why is your "paper" banging on and on and on about the bloody gulf incident though? Surely if that had any relevance then he would have been removed from post long before now. Sensationalism, perhaps?
Sensationlism? The Plymouth Herald?
Go easy on themâ€¦ if it wasn't for the Navy all they'd have to report on was all the pregnant, drunk, permanently unemployed, beaten up, robbed, dugged up (delete as appropriate) Janners
An important principle is at stake here and I thought the Plymouth Herald would know better. I don't care whether the subject of this story is the CO or the most junior rating on board; they are both entitled to their privacy. Unless/until the full facts are released, those privy to inside information shouldn't comment and those ignorant of the facts shouldn't speculate. Otherwise, we are no better than the gutter press.
I'm sick of the media conducting public trials based on hearsay and deliberately sensationalised evidence (often slanted, erroneous, irrelevant or incomplete) purely to boost sales. The currency for cheque book journalism isn't always money; it can be ego-inflation, resentment or revenge and the lives of real people are destroyed in the process, often without justification. Unlike Max Mosley, most of them lack sufficient power or money to seek redress.
The press can be an immense force for good but the tabloids in particular are increasingly blurring the distinction between stories 'in the public interest' and salacious stories 'interesting to the public' owing to their prurient content. Persistently irresponsible reporting is increasingly jeopardising our 'free press' by rendering it ever more subject to legal curtailment. Many on these forums have put their lives on the line to defend such freedoms and don't take kindly to seeing them abused or frittered away by certain members of the fourth estate to sell more of tomorrow's chip-paper.
As a journo, I'd say that the Herald article is pretty fair and accurate; there's no speculation from what I can see, it simply plays a straight bat. As for how the rest of the media handles it, we'll have to wait and see, but I guess they will speculate, sadly
Personally, I wouldn't fly the 'privacy banner' on this one. It is in the public interest; this is one of Her Majesty warships with 250 souls on board and Â£x million kit on board, but Naval Gazer's quite right that we shouldn't start speculating as to why without the facts.
I agree the newspaper has merely reported the facts and as the taxpayer funds the armed forces it most certainly is in the public interest.
Wow! Great stuff! :thumright:
What happened to the 2nd Sea lord at the time of the incident, apart from getting his Knighthood.? I will erase this incident from my head when I hear he is wacked across the arse with a wet mackeral for allowing the media fiasco.
Press freedom is important but I'm sure even the most junior journalist should guess that there is more to this story than has been reported in the article.
Regarding public interest: the sorry saga of the Cornwall incident has been forgotten by the public's minds. Does dragging it up again really serve in anyone's interests?
Thanks cat, that's really useful!
You mean Adrian from Redruth? Could "wacking across the arse with a wet mackerel" not be an unpleasurable experience? And perhaps for Jeremy? You know these Public School boys.
I agree with the broad thrust of your argument though I think it only fair to point out that although the press is targetting more people who are unable to afford to defend their reputations and liberties, this is certainly not a new phenomenon. There were complaints about the Victorian equivalent of the tabloids in Queen Victoria's reign and earlier. The difference is that those targeted for character assasination have broadened to include people who 60 years ago would not have faced this kind of opprobrium from the media. If you study newspapers from the 1930s-1970s however you will find that they were still into so-called public interest stories then where they targetted homosexuals for villification. It was not the police (though they certainly contributed) that were responsible for many of the myths surrounding gays but the media. Another group targetted by the media until the horrors of Krystalnacht (Night of Glass) were that then staple of Christian "compassion", Jews, who were, for example, blamed for the Great Depression and frequently targetted when children went missing (the infamous Blood Libel). Interestingly most of the things the Jews were blamed for by the media (and let us not forget, the Church) prior to Dimbleby's exposure of Belsen back in 1945, have since been blamed on the Roma (until circa the mid-1980s) and (since the early 1950s on) gays.
The issue of the 'free press' is more complicated. European jurisprudence has certainly led to a recognition that privacy is, subject to certain constraints, necessary in a democracy. A free press, is a "right" that entails obligations to liberty to intrude and from unreasonable intrution. The definition of unreasonable will of couse change subject to the mileau in which society exists. In Scandinavia much of what the media report over here would be illegal. Public figures as well as private figures are seen as being entitled to their liberty away from the Foucaultian disciplinary gaze of the media. The definition of public interest in Scandianvia is more tightly focussed to distinguish between mere public curiosity and the need for scrutiny of misconduct acting against the public interest (or common good) where no other method so effectivly holds the powerful to account. The medias' arguments to unconstrained liberty are, I agree, undermined by their frequent abuse of their liberty which in effect undermines the common good. The legal framework for judicial action already exisits in the European Convention of Human Rights. The judiciary's willingness to use it is another matter entirely. It is worth remembering that in Scandianvia the late Princess of Wales could not have been treated the way she was by the British media. The offending newspapers would not have got away with the excuse that it was the public's fault for buying their papers. Unfortunately in Britain Editors face joke sanctions (ie they have no deterrent value due to their lightness). In Denmark for example, they do not. Parliament has had more than one opportunity to legislate and each time has appeased the media.
Having said all this, a free press is a preferable price to pay than face the erosion of liberty and political accountability that has arisen in Russia since Putin
You're obviously better at it than you thought. Congrats on being the first fish to throw itself into the keep net. :roll:
Thingy WTF has your article got to do with the Captain being removed? Another History lesson? FFS get a grip.
Too many Nationwide adverts...
For what its worth I suspect that the removal of the CO is connected with another matter - ie nothing to do with the incident in the Gulf. If he was to be removed because of what happened with the hostages it would have happened ages ago.
Given the length of time since the rather embarassing fiasco in the gulf, is this just not a routine posting?
If being funded by the taxpayer (even if only drawing a service pension) constitutes everything about you being 'in the public interest', does this mean you won't mind if your IN-CONFIDENCE reports, medical records or other personal details appear in a newspaper without your permission? I certainly would!
I'm not suggesting the Plymouth Herald has done anything like that here but this thread has the distinct smell of a fishing trip.
Buried in the bottom of Thingy's post is the nub of the whole thing - the difference between Public Interest and prurient curiosity. The former involves all forms of question marks about (1) proper care and custody of public money and other assets, for instance Gorbals Mick's wife's taxis, and (2) the private behaviour of those who stand for election, since all too often the public discover that they have been royally had in the matter of someone they voted for, who turns out to be bent or crooked. For instance, one might take the view that someone with no stake in posterity, but only his own career, is not someone one wants to vote for. What private individuals (however famous) do in bed (or standing up in a hammock) is their own affair though.
But aren't some of the top brass Evening Herald-- ex sailors. The Picture Editor certainly is. He took that splendid photograph of the Yomping Bootnecks with a Union Flag on ones ruck-sack. If they're anti navy (their bread and butter) there must be a disturbing reason.
Separate names with a comma.