Monday, August 07, 2006
Free Speech and the MSM
EU Referendum has more here on pictures altered to tell a "story".
All this has got me thinking on the free speech issue which I wrote about here. Now you'll observe, that I'm very much in favour of free speech including hate speech, not because I like it per se, but because I regard it as a fundamental freedom. What it appears to me we have here with the reporting from Lebanon, isn't hate speech, but is dishonest speech. Photographs have been deliberately altered to make them look more than they are, events have been stage managed in order to "get" the "important picture".
The reporting of the event and the display of the pictures haven't been preceded with any warning. The pictures of the "rescue" were printed as genuine on the spot rescue pictures, the pictures of the aircraft, as an aircraft firing multiple rockets. In fact it appears to have been firing flares, and no mention is made that the picture has been edited.
The only possible purposes of this are to make money and or to dishonestly alter public opinion. At the end of the day, I can see no reason why these should not be criminal offences, firstly we seem to have obtaining money by deception (people have puchased the newspapers for dramatic "real pictures" not "stage managed" ones) - which is a criminal offence anyway, but I doubt any charges will be brought. Secondly, and what strikes me as far more serious is the dishonest presenting of information likely to effect public opinion. I think that second one should (especially in a democracy) be a criminal offence, similar to treason; in a democracy, where power supposedly lies with the people, it is imperative that when facts are presented they are accurate, now I'm not saying nothing can be presented without proof of its accuracy, but that nothing should be knowingly dishonestly presented, and if it is, then recourse to the law should be availiable.
I don't think these detracts from freedom of speech, as I'm not talking about people reaching and presenting their own conclusions from facts, nor about people expressing their own opinions. What I'm refering to is people presenting something they know is wrong and attempting to pass it off as fact in a forum likely to affect public opinion.
I said before that democracy shouldn't use the props of totalitarianism and I stand by that, but that doesn't mean democracy should stand defenceless before dishonesty.
All this has got me thinking on the free speech issue which I wrote about here. Now you'll observe, that I'm very much in favour of free speech including hate speech, not because I like it per se, but because I regard it as a fundamental freedom. What it appears to me we have here with the reporting from Lebanon, isn't hate speech, but is dishonest speech. Photographs have been deliberately altered to make them look more than they are, events have been stage managed in order to "get" the "important picture".
The reporting of the event and the display of the pictures haven't been preceded with any warning. The pictures of the "rescue" were printed as genuine on the spot rescue pictures, the pictures of the aircraft, as an aircraft firing multiple rockets. In fact it appears to have been firing flares, and no mention is made that the picture has been edited.
The only possible purposes of this are to make money and or to dishonestly alter public opinion. At the end of the day, I can see no reason why these should not be criminal offences, firstly we seem to have obtaining money by deception (people have puchased the newspapers for dramatic "real pictures" not "stage managed" ones) - which is a criminal offence anyway, but I doubt any charges will be brought. Secondly, and what strikes me as far more serious is the dishonest presenting of information likely to effect public opinion. I think that second one should (especially in a democracy) be a criminal offence, similar to treason; in a democracy, where power supposedly lies with the people, it is imperative that when facts are presented they are accurate, now I'm not saying nothing can be presented without proof of its accuracy, but that nothing should be knowingly dishonestly presented, and if it is, then recourse to the law should be availiable.
I don't think these detracts from freedom of speech, as I'm not talking about people reaching and presenting their own conclusions from facts, nor about people expressing their own opinions. What I'm refering to is people presenting something they know is wrong and attempting to pass it off as fact in a forum likely to affect public opinion.
I said before that democracy shouldn't use the props of totalitarianism and I stand by that, but that doesn't mean democracy should stand defenceless before dishonesty.
Tags: free speech, MSM, media
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
