NOTW reporter defends phone hacking.

[evilsoup]

The BBC has operational independence, yes. And Sky News is actually pretty good, sometimes it even breaks stories before the BBC does.

In fact, I'd say news broadcasters are generally better than the newspapers over here, only the broadsheets (Guardian, Times, etc.) are on the same level. Part of this is the BBC keeping the commercial broadcasters honest, and vice versa. But the main reason is that they are strongly regulated by Ofcom, a government-appointed regulator who (among other things) enforce impartiality. These guys are why Sky News is a proper news channel, instead of being a UK version of Fox News.

I don't think anyone can seriously argue that Ofcom oppresses the broadcast news. Why would a similar agency oppress the newspapers?

[bobalot]

I don't think anyone can seriously argue that Ofcom oppresses the broadcast news. Why would a similar agency oppress the newspapers?

This a question I have brought up a few times, the only answer I get is "FREE SPEECH".

[mr friendly guy]

The BBC proves fairly well that it's possible to have a government regulated (and even publicly funded) news source that isn't just a mouthpiece for Westminster;

The BBC is publicly funded, it's news services are not government regulated. The reason it is a better news service than Sky is that because it's publicly funded it doesn't have to worry about making a profit so it doesn't have to resort to sensationalist bullshit to sell. It's the same with the ABC here.

ABC also have a charter on impartiality.

[Stark]

I don't think anyone can seriously argue that Ofcom oppresses the broadcast news. Why would a similar agency oppress the newspapers?

Its like that way people love hearing about people they don't like being gagged by regulators, but will be horrified if someone they agree with can't say whatever they want.

[evilsoup]

I don't think it's anything to do with that really, Stark.

I think it's more that newspapers are defending their vested interests (with a proper regulator they wouldn't get away with so much shit, and so would make less money) and in doing so are using emotive language like 'freedom of the press', 'freedom of expression', and so on. Now those things are vitally important, and the people who buy into the newspapers' line definitely have the right instincts - we should be very suspicious of anything that might encroach on the freedom of the press, especially coming from the state. But an external regulator like Ofcom (Ofpress?) would not actually restrict the freedom of the press in any harmful way.