The unjustifiable independance of the British media

Hey guys. I'm revising the subject of privacy within the media for an exam next week and thought it might make a good debate.

I've always hated the media in this country, mainly because I hate this country's obsession with celebrities. Totally normal, insignificant human beings made out to look superior to the rest of us for being rich, and people believe it whole-heartedly. It's a joke!

But after reading up on the subject, it would seem the bigger joke is the mass contradiction made by our laws regarding human rights, namely, the right to respect for privacy and the freedom of expression. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act of 1998 states everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life and there is to be no interference from public authorities in waiving this right unless it is in the interest of national security, crime prevention, etc and ultimately, public interest!

Similarly, article 10 regards freedom of expression. Everyone has their lovely, reassuring right to freedom of expression and opinion, so long as these freedoms do not infringe law. This includes (as is necessary in a democratic society) the prevention of crime, the protection of health and morals and the protection of the rights and reputations of others.

So let's draw our attention to those great tabloid newspapers that we all love. These papers pay good money to conniving, unscrupulous paparazzi to follow and photograph our countries "wonderful" celebs. They have the freedom to, at any time of day, take incriminating or embarassing photos of which then make the pointless, irelevant articles in said papers the following day, read by thousands, even millions all over Britain.

Surely this is in breach of article 8? Not at all, because good old article 10 states that journalistic or artistic libels may be published as long as they are in the publics interest. And what do the easy-to-entertain British public like more then reading about what Will Young looked like at a party after 5 beers. Thus, the health, morals and protection of rights stated in article 8 become immediately irellevant, because the public want their 24 hour surveillance of celebrities covered by our media.

This doesn't just cover celebrities however, but any one member of the public at any one time. You or me. You could be the nicest guy in the world but once the media have you, your instantly another figure in the public eye unable to escape. Congratulations, your famous, or in more cases then not, infamous.

You can file a lawsuit if you want, but the law has been bent in favour of our media who need to operate in the publics favour. You better make sure your needs are justified above everyone elses, including the paper that snapped you. Of course, your horror at your public embarassment/incrimination is nothing compared to the cheap entertainment the British public require daily. God forbid you could cost the media industry money :eek: . The man prevails once again over our non-existant rights to privacy, even costing the lives of good people (Princess Diana anyone?)

This could be a whole lot worse in the US (matter of fact, i'm pretty sure it is). It just goes to show how our rights are taken away in favour of big, dominant industries.