Unlike regulated broadcasters, newspapers are not generally required to be politically impartial. Several independently owned newspapers can therefore promote broadly similar political positions without breaking competition law. That may be perfectly lawful. But is it necessarily healthy for democracy?This isn't simply about what individual newspapers choose to publish. Successive governments and Parliaments — Conservative and Labour, with others sharing responsibility where appropriate — have maintained the legal and regulatory framework within which the press operates.
GOVERNMENTS ALLOWED THIS IMBALANCE THAT NOW DOMINATES RIGHT WING POLITICAL NEWS PRESENTATION TO EXIST DIRECTLY AFFECTING DEMOCRACY EVERY DAY IN THE UK
Parliament chooses to believe that newspapers are different from ordinary businesses - if it conceded that it IS a business that employs staff, it generates profits, pays taxes, and should be required to act, and be governed, like one.
Parliament created this monster, prevents the public having any control whatsoever of how it behaves, gave it these destructive unfettered powers that are destroying cohesion and community now more than ever before - and doing so WITHOUT ever consulting the British Public - as seen in Russia & North Korea.
The Enterprise Act identifies accurate presentation of news, free expression of opinion and sufficient plurality of views as public-interest considerations when newspaper ownership changes. So Parliament accepts that media plurality matters. But consider the apparent gap. What happens when ownership is no longer changing? Who examines whether the combined political influence of Britain's established national newspapers remains sufficiently plural?
Who intervenes if it doesn't? According to parliament 'Press freedom is essential' They also believe that Government-controlled newspapers are not the answer - but are afraid to ask British Citizens what THEY think.
SO WHERE DO THE TERMS "DOMINANCE vs DEMOCRACY" FIT IN WITH THIS 'NORMALISATION'
What protection does the citizen have if freedoms designed to protect democracy eventually contribute to an imbalance capable of influencing it? For decades governments of different political colours have had the power to reconsider this framework.
However governments have ignored this dangerous imbalance in how the public receive political news reporting for over 90 years now without putting that to the very public who suffer from biased reporting - especially for the large majority of the voting public who do not support right wing views.
The question isn't whether newspapers should be silenced. It is whether the public interest deserves even more protection from the politicians they select to act in the National Interests - not that of the Media's.
Is this the balance you want in YOUR democracy? And if it isn't — who should be required to answer for it?
WHEN EVEN 'LEFT' WING POLITICIANS ACCEPT THAT 90 YEARS OF 'RIGHT' WING DOMINATION OF NEWS IS ACCEPTABLE - IT IS TIME THE 'PEOPLE' TOLD THEM THEY ARE WRONG?
If you agree contact us [URL=https://www.gb2gb.co.uk/contactusClick Here[/URL] with the simple phrase "YES TO 'TRUE' DEMOCRACY" or accept the fact that the UK is NOT a Truly Democratic Country?