>1. The media are abusing their responsibilities to report on the truth and what we should know about in the world. There is too much focus on money rather than what the public need to know, and journalists are being forced to swallow their morals and values just to keep their jobs. The media should have a legal obligation to give the public regular opportunities to hold them to account, especially over failures to inform the public about elections, candidates, and about what local, national, continental and global institutions exist to do and are doing to help us. Issues that arise out of this should have to be published.2. The Government should use televised press statements (as used in the US) to ensure that the messages are clear and visible to all.3. Create a ‘Neutral News’ newspaper controlled by the Civil Service, who must remain party neutral. UK media is some of the most politically biased media in the world. Were we to have a neutral paper controlled by the Civil Service information could be published about all parties, policies, standpoints and importantly all newly enacted laws that people need to be aware of but frequently aren’t informed of.
>I believe that the media to a certain extent can write what they like – it is up to the public to decide whether they want to read it (and more importantly believe). Ultimately, the media are constrained by what the people want to read – they cant be too extreme else they risk losing readers. Regardless of what we think about certain newspapers messages/bias etc. it is their opinion and therefore we cant argue that we believe it is wrong but from their experience/interests/concerns etc. it is what they believe to be correct (hard as it is we must respect that)I like the idea of a US-style press statement but I feel that would be more unbias than some of the news – also, hard as we may try I reckon only a relatively small % of the population would watch such a thing particularly after the initial interest had worn off (that is seen clearly be the decrease in viewing numbers over the course of the TV debates from nearly 10million to under 5million).Also i like the neutral news but again I would argue that some of the most important 'neutral' news is actually so dull that it would not see a great change in peoples reading habits.Ultimately I believe people get into habits of what the read and after a while just get comfortable with a certain paper and stick with that.Additionally, so many people seemed to be turned off politics/economics etc that they tend to read only the sport/gossip and ignore the general politics/world news etc. anyway. I would finally say that I reckon the media in general does print the truth on the whole. Obviously the various slants given change the way certain people see it but they tell the facts before given opinion which I think is fair enough. You cannot determine what people can/cant read and I think certainly you cant easily change what they believe. Freedom of expression is a basic right and I think that is equally applicable to the media. If for example the 'mail' or 'sun' became more accountable/truthful I think its readers would still find a way to find what they want, particularly in this technological age. For more educated people like ourselves, newspapers are interesting but I still tend to use the BBC website to get the majority of my news.James
>"I believe that the media to a certain extent can write what they like". I don't think anyone can disagree with this. You're talking about freedom of the press and market economics in that the supply of media is responding to demand.However I don't think this is incompatible with media responsibility, truth telling, and generally a sense of moral values. I think the major problem is in deciding how to give the public opportunities to hold them to account, and how to ensure that the paparazzi don't stalk their stories as if they were prey."Regardless of what we think about certain newspapers messages/bias etc. it is their opinion and therefore we cant argue that we believe it is wrong." This raises questions about how far the freedom of speech should go. On one hand I'm 110% for anyone being able to say anything, yet on the hand we have to recognise that there is a line that must not be crossed. Take Rwanda's local press and radio statements of 1993-1994 as an example. No one has any doubt that this media fuelled the killings. So should they have been allowed to say the thiongs they did? I would say no, that one person's liberties have to stop when they start hurting others. Hence I think that racist and anti-Muslim headlines that have been appearing in tabloids in the last couple of years do conflict with the responsibilities of the press.I agree that only a small amount of the population would watch press statements and read the 'neutral news'. However, I think that irrelevent of how many people read such news, the people have a right to easily access affordable information on such things as new laws, scandals, and elections.
Battison's Blog 
>1. The media are abusing their responsibilities to report on the truth and what we should know about in the world. There is too much focus on money rather than what the public need to know, and journalists are being forced to swallow their morals and values just to keep their jobs. The media should have a legal obligation to give the public regular opportunities to hold them to account, especially over failures to inform the public about elections, candidates, and about what local, national, continental and global institutions exist to do and are doing to help us. Issues that arise out of this should have to be published.2. The Government should use televised press statements (as used in the US) to ensure that the messages are clear and visible to all.3. Create a ‘Neutral News’ newspaper controlled by the Civil Service, who must remain party neutral. UK media is some of the most politically biased media in the world. Were we to have a neutral paper controlled by the Civil Service information could be published about all parties, policies, standpoints and importantly all newly enacted laws that people need to be aware of but frequently aren’t informed of.
>I believe that the media to a certain extent can write what they like – it is up to the public to decide whether they want to read it (and more importantly believe). Ultimately, the media are constrained by what the people want to read – they cant be too extreme else they risk losing readers. Regardless of what we think about certain newspapers messages/bias etc. it is their opinion and therefore we cant argue that we believe it is wrong but from their experience/interests/concerns etc. it is what they believe to be correct (hard as it is we must respect that)I like the idea of a US-style press statement but I feel that would be more unbias than some of the news – also, hard as we may try I reckon only a relatively small % of the population would watch such a thing particularly after the initial interest had worn off (that is seen clearly be the decrease in viewing numbers over the course of the TV debates from nearly 10million to under 5million).Also i like the neutral news but again I would argue that some of the most important 'neutral' news is actually so dull that it would not see a great change in peoples reading habits.Ultimately I believe people get into habits of what the read and after a while just get comfortable with a certain paper and stick with that.Additionally, so many people seemed to be turned off politics/economics etc that they tend to read only the sport/gossip and ignore the general politics/world news etc. anyway. I would finally say that I reckon the media in general does print the truth on the whole. Obviously the various slants given change the way certain people see it but they tell the facts before given opinion which I think is fair enough. You cannot determine what people can/cant read and I think certainly you cant easily change what they believe. Freedom of expression is a basic right and I think that is equally applicable to the media. If for example the 'mail' or 'sun' became more accountable/truthful I think its readers would still find a way to find what they want, particularly in this technological age. For more educated people like ourselves, newspapers are interesting but I still tend to use the BBC website to get the majority of my news.James
>"I believe that the media to a certain extent can write what they like". I don't think anyone can disagree with this. You're talking about freedom of the press and market economics in that the supply of media is responding to demand.However I don't think this is incompatible with media responsibility, truth telling, and generally a sense of moral values. I think the major problem is in deciding how to give the public opportunities to hold them to account, and how to ensure that the paparazzi don't stalk their stories as if they were prey."Regardless of what we think about certain newspapers messages/bias etc. it is their opinion and therefore we cant argue that we believe it is wrong." This raises questions about how far the freedom of speech should go. On one hand I'm 110% for anyone being able to say anything, yet on the hand we have to recognise that there is a line that must not be crossed. Take Rwanda's local press and radio statements of 1993-1994 as an example. No one has any doubt that this media fuelled the killings. So should they have been allowed to say the thiongs they did? I would say no, that one person's liberties have to stop when they start hurting others. Hence I think that racist and anti-Muslim headlines that have been appearing in tabloids in the last couple of years do conflict with the responsibilities of the press.I agree that only a small amount of the population would watch press statements and read the 'neutral news'. However, I think that irrelevent of how many people read such news, the people have a right to easily access affordable information on such things as new laws, scandals, and elections.