Author Topic: Citizens Media Dispute  (Read 5912 times)

debumblebee

  • Guest
Citizens Media Dispute
« on: July 28, 2009, 02:15:07 PM »
I only just caught the news but apparently Montfort walked out of a Scrutiny meeting last week because Roy refused Neil to film a Scrutiny meeting. Obviously I dont know what goes on at these meetings but I just wonder why it is necessary to have cameras present anyway? And do people take much interest in Citizens media anyway?

Offline Calimachon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
  • Gender: Female
  • http://www.amnesty.org.uk/
Re: Citizens Media Dispute
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2009, 02:31:32 PM »
What kind of media do you take note of Bumblebee "The Enquirer"

Cali
TOMORROW (Noun) = A mystical land where 99% of all human productivity, motivation an achievement is stored

debumblebee

  • Guest
Re: Citizens Media Dispute
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2009, 03:01:16 PM »
I just view the main media. I dont know whether citizens media is getting anywhere. Is it? I think the other thing is that because everybody now knows the people that are doing it and their closeness with a couple of existing States Members that perhaps its lost its 'edge' slightly.

Online cpcarrot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Re: Citizens Media Dispute
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2009, 07:01:29 PM »
The citizen media debate is quite an interesting one, as there are two quite valid issues that come into conflict.

a)   Freedom of information, and general open government related issues
b)   An appropriate level of accountability for those involved.

The main issue about all forms of citizen media is that it has only recently evolved to the point whereby it can be used easily and effectively to reach a large number of people, and as such appropriate controls have completely failed to keep pace with this development.

In the past a private citizen unless possessing a vast amount of resources could never hope to be able to reach out beyond his immediate sphere of influence, but today pretty much anyone can utilise the internet through blogs or private webpages and reach all across the globe.

Now this type of progress is all very good and represents increased information exchange and more genuine openness. The problem is when someone, either gets it wrong, or is overly biased, or plane just lies and makes up the story. The various libel laws are great when they are applied to a massive company (the only people who previously had the ability to reach this kind of audience) but are utterly useless against a private individual with very little real assets.

In the past therefore any flat out lies, or untruths, or even stories that are just so incredibly biased as to be unfair to those involved would not have the opportunity to spread very far, and any organisations that did spread such things, would be appropriately punished. Now however Joe Public via Citizen media can spread such stories with very little any party effected can do to stop, or get recovery from.

There is therefore still a balance to be worked out between appropriate freedoms of reporting and the rights of the subject matters of this reporting to not be reported unfairly.

Personally I would like to see some form of voluntary regulation of the media, whereby anyone who wants to be considered a “reliable” media source volunteers to be subject to various rules and regulations about their conduct and subject to certain penalties if they break them. Everyone else can still act as such, but would have to have appropriate disclaimers on their work which basically mean “take this with a grain of salt”, as we are unregulated and don’t wish to be so – read into that what you will.

Offline danrok

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2856
  • Gender: Male
Re: Citizens Media Dispute
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2009, 08:42:02 PM »
There is no such thing as separate "main media" and "citizens media", the later being some made-up term being used locally.

The established media, such as BBC and Sky, use material submitted by the general public.  About 80% of professional journalists work on a freelance basis. Agencies like Getty scan and search for photos to buy on sites like flickr.

The point being that a lot of the news you read and watch originates from member's of the public, regardless of what banner it is broadcast under.

debumblebee

  • Guest
Re: Citizens Media Dispute
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2009, 09:41:31 PM »
I thought Roy's letter was amusing and hinted at 'certain' empty seats all the time, though by looking at the voting records we can figure out those people.  With regard to a camcorder being aimed at you at scrutiny I tend to agree with the original decision of not allowing it.  Some Blogs to date have floated the law so I therefore think a media source "which can be sued or is accoutable" should only be allowed to make such recordings.  But thats my opinion.

A few comments today have been "isn't it a bit childish to walk out of a Scrutiny meeting like that?", enough said.... :-*

debumblebee

  • Guest
Re: Citizens Media Dispute
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2009, 09:45:17 PM »
Lol.

I think you will find the only interest this little group have is on Stuart Syvret conspiracy theories.  But everybody I know in power knows that already.

Offline Chevalier Blanc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1858
Re: Citizens Media Dispute
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2009, 10:34:26 PM »
The reason for the walk out was because the panel refused to allow any body to video the meetings but channel and bbc can, all other fliming / video the person has to give 3 days notice and may not be given permission that is why he walked out there was someone there wanting to take video and they were refused.

Offline stoneface

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
Re: Citizens Media Dispute
« Reply #8 on: July 28, 2009, 11:26:36 PM »
Seems the wrong way around to me. They're on our time and money. There should be a presumption that anyone can film/record it unless there is a compelling reason not to.

After all, if they have nothing to hide....
"The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good, in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it." - John Stuart Mill

debumblebee

  • Guest
Re: Citizens Media Dispute
« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2009, 11:47:09 PM »
Channel 4 and BBC can be sued if something goes wrong. I bet the only scrutiny hearings citizens media are only  interested in are with Home Affairs anyway. 

Offline GeeGee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
Re: Citizens Media Dispute
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2009, 02:28:48 AM »
I just view the main media. I dont know whether citizens media is getting anywhere. Is it? I think the other thing is that because everybody now knows the people that are doing it and their closeness with a couple of existing States Members that perhaps its lost its 'edge' slightly.

By ther main media you mean the Establishment Mouthpieces, because after all that is what they are. Citizens media asks pertinent questions and it is very telling at times to see our 'esteemed' politicians doing a runner when faced with a question they either do not want to answer or cannot answer.

Rather than losing its edge, it is the more interesting of any other media outlet, and why should it not have a closeness with certain States Members, as the 'accredited' media with the Establishment.

Can't have one rule for one and one for another. Let's face it they can only film EXACTLY what CTV and BBC do, and as Scrutiny is a public process what is the problem?

Offline Dylan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1672
  • HELP!
Re: Citizens Media Dispute
« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2009, 02:32:40 AM »
Channel 4 and BBC can be sued if something goes wrong. I bet the only scrutiny hearings citizens media are only  interested in are with Home Affairs anyway. 

I think you've just answered your own original question. If Monty Gets his whacker out it would look a tad unredeemable on camera?
!dereggub si draobyek ym kniht I

rogueelement

  • Guest
Re: Citizens Media Dispute
« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2009, 02:38:23 AM »
By ther main media you mean the Establishment Mouthpieces, because after all that is what they are. Citizens media asks pertinent questions and it is very telling at times to see our 'esteemed' politicians doing a runner when faced with a question they either do not want to answer or cannot answer.

Rather than losing its edge, it is the more interesting of any other media outlet, and why should it not have a closeness with certain States Members, as the 'accredited' media with the Establishment.

Can't have one rule for one and one for another. Let's face it they can only film EXACTLY what CTV and BBC do, and as Scrutiny is a public process what is the problem?

Roughly speaking people like you.
Do you think anything would ever get done under a video camera (well apart from the internets most common usage) if politicians thought that what they said was being recorded, sent to their masters, reviewed so that they could be  told to go and think again?
You would not have to be a writer with the skill of Lord Archer to imagine how such meetings might go.

Offline Fritz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2680
  • Gender: Male
Re: Citizens Media Dispute
« Reply #13 on: July 29, 2009, 02:47:13 AM »
Did Monty want to broadcast live on Breakfast TV?

rogueelement

  • Guest
Re: Citizens Media Dispute
« Reply #14 on: July 29, 2009, 02:52:54 AM »
Surely not , I thought Vampires could only operate at night. I shall carry a clove of garlic , whenever I go near the Royal Square from this point on.