Paul Dacre defends the Daily Mail

Clicked on wrong link - this is the full article:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/12/left-daily-mail-paul-dacre

In the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies........he would, wouldn't he!

I have been listening to the discussion on Radio 4's Today programme about the new proposals for press regulation. I have to admit that I am rather concerned that it could be used by an unscrupulous government (what, in Britain??) to muzzle the press.

Yes, I agree that muzzling the press when they have an impressive record of investigative journalism would be a retrograde step, but the lazy, dirty journalism that has brought on the need for regulation doesn't come under the umbrella of high quality investigative journalism. Paul Dacre's polemical ranting doesn't help the cause, which is laudable, and linking himself to the Guardian because they all want the same thing is laughable. He should get his house in order, as his actions undermine his argument. Long may good journalism continue.

GN - some parts of the press need muzzling ! But seriously, there is nothing that aids the democratic process when large swathes of the press are owned by a few people( not even citizens of the UK) who use their power and influence to set the political agenda and ruin people's lives. The press ( with a few honourable exceptions) have brought all this on themselves and since Leveson have been bleating about their precious freedom which they have misused over the years. Also the very idea that issues of genuine public interest will go unreported just doesn't wash with twitter etc ( not to mention Private Eye, the Guardian and the Indie) now firmly established

Press regulations, proposed by the press themselves, include all the improvements that Leveson recommends.

The problem now is that it is politicians who want to have control over the press. NO WAY is that a good idea. State censorship is stupid and dangerous as well as wrong.

Well, I guess that's why it's wrong – because it's stupid and dangerous to democracy.

I wouldn't trust most of the press further than I could throw them - they've had years to put their house in order and have failed at every test - they are not to be trusted at all - but if course neither can politicians - so we're stuck!

The do called free press we are supposed to enjoy has also been dangerous to democracy - Murdoch the democrat supporter- I don't think so!

In these days of easy internet access etc. isn't it up to all of us to research what the press tell us? I consider myself to be centre right, but that doesn't mean that I believe everything written in the Daily Mail. I also don't believe everything written in any other newspaper or reported by BBC, Sky or any other media. However, I do believe in press freedom - when politicians start to control the press is the time for everyone to stand up and protest. Yes, each newspaper/broadcaster will have their own agenda and put their own slant on things, that is why I read and listen to a variety of newspapers/broadcasters

Personally I am sick to death of the lot of it.

I am sick of 'Hacked Off' saying they are speaking up for the public, well not me matey, I can't stand any of them.

I am sick of the self righteous Guardian who caused a lot of this stink when it falsely reported Millie Dowlers messages had been deleted by a competitor. That was the start of the public out-cry which led to Leveson.

I am sick of Wikileaks, Assange, Snowden, Rusbridger, Greenwald and Miranda.

I am sick of the laudation of the Guardian. I am in the camp it is tantamount to espionage to steal, distribute and print Government secrets. I do not understand why it has not been prosecuted. It's not b----y funny.

I am sick of the DM, the paper I read, using stupid Head Lines and being an ass.

I am sick of the left calling me names for being a DM reader.

I am sick of the hypocrisy on just about everything. I am so cross Snowden accepted his 'Reward' for 'Integrity and Intelligence' in Russia. I ask you Russia, how much more of a hypocrite can he be? Good job he was not promoting gay marriage, he really would be in prison.

I am sick of Leveson having watched his performance in the Committee Rooms.

A plague on all their houses at the moment.

I don't want any politician going anywhere near Press Regulation. The thought that Campbell, The Price of Darkness, Mc Prickface could be behind what we read leaves me cold.

Phone Hacking is an offence and requires prosecution. Slander is slander and needs prosecution. Neither will be changed because there is a Royal Charter. A free press is essential in my opinion.

POGS I could have written every word of your post but you didn't include Hugh Grant

Interesting to hear Ian Hislop's very passionate defence of our free press on HIGNFY last night. I'd go along with him rather than any politician.

Our press is great, you takes your pick and applies your brain.

Sel

Precisely.

The important thing that Hislop said is, "Don't gag them, just don't buy them."
It's a problem for those who get them delivered, but you can just change your allegiance once you read something of which you disapprove.

Written by a Guardian reader.

I could probably find something every day in every British newspaper that I don't agree with/approve of!

I am not sure why there cannot be an independent regulatory group.

The press clearly are not able to self-regulate or they would not be in the current situation, politicians must not be allowed to censor as that would really be the end of democracy!

Why not a core group to make up a regulatory board i.e. a chair plus four others as a permanent group that represent industry, unions, 3 sector and a rota for an editor of the main papers etc and then have an additional five randomly selected people (as selected for a jury) to serve on any specific cases.

pogs I can see you are fed up..but what are your thoughts on a way to resolve the downward trend?

We all believe what suits us anyway.
Half of the stuff "blued" for the rest of us to follow and comment on, from whatever the source, be it the bible, or some scientific journal, is suspect half the time. It does wind some up though, doesn't it?

think you must have done media studies deserving

I know you will not like this, deserving, but never mind.
www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/10/12/the-mail-cant-even-tell-the-truth-about-the-prevailing-hegemonic-thinking/
I read a lot on the internet, particularly at this time of night. As a friend said to me the other day, "When do you sleep?"

I love this idea of an independent regulatory group. Made up of? Appointed by whom? There is no such thing and never can be. Just leave the press alone. We need them. God forbid they are regulated

What is the downward trend? The press reflects society. Society has taken a downward trend hasn't it?

Very few people actually buy and read newspapers. Witness all the members of GN quoting and reviling the Daily Mail that they read online and linking to various spurious opinions. That's where the battlefield is for politicians and they can't control it. I notice people quoting and linking from other online opinions, not the Press Barons of the past; any Tom, Dick or Harry can easily acquire a quasi legitimate voice. One person can blog, multiple believe and follow. Yahoo news anyone? Sky? Huffington Post? Do you check out who owns what, who seeks to manipulate you? Better the devil in my opinion.

Jendurham that's what I meant in my post - this link it one guy's opinion. Worth no more or less than yours or mine but because it's on the internet, you quote and link to it.

Sel That is a little bit simple minded. Of course the internet is full of all sorts of fools, bores and loonies. It is also a place where intelligent and informed comment can be found. It's just that it behoves us to check whose opinions we are reading and how valid those opinions are – just like when we pick up a newspaper.

POGS. I agree with everything you have written. I would like to add that I was getting sick of seeing Ed Milliband and his trembly bottom lip when he was interviewed about that article. The things that are written about David Cameron and his background - you don't see him whining about it.

POGS I too agree with your impassioned post very well put. Also agree with Bags' comment re state censorship "stupid and dangerous as well as wrong". Finally, Sel I also thought Ian Hislop's argument in defence of a free press on HIGNFY excellent.

David Cameron knows better than to whine about what is written about his father, because he cannot justify it. His father made his money out of cheating the taxman and setting up schemes so that others could do the same.
Yes, Sel, the link is one guy's opinion, but the government take notice of this guy, or at least pretend to. If you read the rest of the Tax Research site, which I expect intelligent people on here to actually be capable of doing, you will find that he is a Quaker who thinks about ordinary people and how to make their lives better, not about how to fleece the poor and workless.