3 ms·

Yes, but I believe in a society where almost all of the major news outlets are owned by supporters of the current government, the politicians also have a strong

by jhrrsn 11y ago

Yes, but I believe in a society where almost all of the major news outlets are owned by supporters of the current government, the politicians also have a strong ability to control what their voters are demanding.

notahacker 11y ago
Not really. The Murdochs are quite enamoured with Cameron, but they're not in the least bit interested in doing what he asks of them (and just as obsessed with opposing proposed press censorship as they are with reporting on Islamic terrorism). The staunchly anti-present-government Guardian and the Mirror sell plenty of newspapers. And even that bastion of knee-jerk conservatism Daily Mail is happy to run smear stories on the Prime Minister as a major exclusive. Government control over media output in the UK is minimal at best.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  The illusion of choice. These papers do run many stories that are anti-government true. But for certain issues they line up behind the government. The Snowden files story was initially fully covered only by the Guardian -- who have since had a change of Editor after their offices were raided by the security services and equipment smashed. There has been (until now) almost no coverage that the government wants to pass the snoopers charter soon. There is no coverage that the 'emergency' DRIP bill from last year is due for renewal before Christmas. Due to the way that DRIP was rammed through Parliament last year in defiance of normal procedure my MP promised me a robust debate before the renewal. It looks like it will go through without so much as whisper. EDITED as the telegraph currently has a front page article on the snoopers charter on its website. I hope that there is time for people to lobby their MPs (which is what killed it off last time).
  - notahacker 11y ago
    The mostly foreign-owned UK press exists to sell newspapers, not to conspire against the public on purported issues of national security. There's almost no coverage of the Draft Communications Bill or DRIP because the average UK citizen doesn't find some legislation that might be debated which might compel ISPs to hold the same sort of data they already hold for a bit longer to be particularly intelligible, never mind interesting when compared with tax credit cuts, migrants, people being blown up in Syria and the latest celebrity gossip. Or as Charlie Brooker, hardly the most technophobic or pro-government of commentators put it, it's the "the most tedious outrage ever". There was rather more noise made (on both sides of the debate) about the more emotive issue of Cameron's attempt to censor internet porn. It's not as if the media is seeking to hide the fact that private messages people have sent, websites they've visited or triangulated locations from mobile phones are regularly used in prosecutions and have been long before this legislation hit the drafting table. Or indeed as if proposed legislative measures are not being discussed at all: here's the far-from-supportive angle of the newspaper closest to being the informal mouthpiece of the Conservative government: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11964655/Police-to-be-granted-powers-to-view-your-internet-history.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11964655/Police... As for Snowden, even on this website where people actually understand the potential of surveillance techniques it's the stories about his personal situation and options, as widely run in all UK newspapers from all angles, that seem to have captured the imagination more than the details of what was revealed. And I'm not sure he and his allies, who sought to carefully control how PRISM was reported, even offered the files to other UK newspapers...
    - wfo 11y ago
      "Journalists' jobs are to sell sensationalist garbage, not to do journalism" -- I think that in fact you are correct (who can disagree with the market in a cultural regime of extremist capitalism?) but it's a troubling state of affairs.

by jhrrsn 11y ago

notahacker 11y ago

Not really. The Murdochs are quite enamoured with Cameron, but they're not in the least bit interested in doing what he asks of them (and just as obsessed with opposing proposed press censorship as they are with reporting on Islamic terrorism). The staunchly anti-present-government Guardian and the Mirror sell plenty of newspapers. And even that bastion of knee-jerk conservatism Daily Mail is happy to run smear stories on the Prime Minister as a major exclusive. Government control over media output in the UK is minimal at best.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
The illusion of choice. These papers do run many stories that are anti-government true. But for certain issues they line up behind the government. The Snowden files story was initially fully covered only by the Guardian -- who have since had a change of Editor after their offices were raided by the security services and equipment smashed. There has been (until now) almost no coverage that the government wants to pass the snoopers charter soon. There is no coverage that the 'emergency' DRIP bill from last year is due for renewal before Christmas. Due to the way that DRIP was rammed through Parliament last year in defiance of normal procedure my MP promised me a robust debate before the renewal. It looks like it will go through without so much as whisper. EDITED as the telegraph currently has a front page article on the snoopers charter on its website. I hope that there is time for people to lobby their MPs (which is what killed it off last time).
- notahacker 11y ago
  The mostly foreign-owned UK press exists to sell newspapers, not to conspire against the public on purported issues of national security. There's almost no coverage of the Draft Communications Bill or DRIP because the average UK citizen doesn't find some legislation that might be debated which might compel ISPs to hold the same sort of data they already hold for a bit longer to be particularly intelligible, never mind interesting when compared with tax credit cuts, migrants, people being blown up in Syria and the latest celebrity gossip. Or as Charlie Brooker, hardly the most technophobic or pro-government of commentators put it, it's the "the most tedious outrage ever". There was rather more noise made (on both sides of the debate) about the more emotive issue of Cameron's attempt to censor internet porn. It's not as if the media is seeking to hide the fact that private messages people have sent, websites they've visited or triangulated locations from mobile phones are regularly used in prosecutions and have been long before this legislation hit the drafting table. Or indeed as if proposed legislative measures are not being discussed at all: here's the far-from-supportive angle of the newspaper closest to being the informal mouthpiece of the Conservative government: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11964655/Police-to-be-granted-powers-to-view-your-internet-history.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11964655/Police... As for Snowden, even on this website where people actually understand the potential of surveillance techniques it's the stories about his personal situation and options, as widely run in all UK newspapers from all angles, that seem to have captured the imagination more than the details of what was revealed. And I'm not sure he and his allies, who sought to carefully control how PRISM was reported, even offered the files to other UK newspapers...
  - wfo 11y ago
    "Journalists' jobs are to sell sensationalist garbage, not to do journalism" -- I think that in fact you are correct (who can disagree with the market in a cultural regime of extremist capitalism?) but it's a troubling state of affairs.