Use the text to answer the following questions. 1. Are readers to blame for the low standards of the press?

1. Are readers to blame for the low standards of the press?

2. How do the papers people choose reflect their personal views? Give examples from the text.

3. To what extent can reporters interfere into public figures’ private lives?

4. Is it in the public interest to expose the private lives of public figures?

5. Who is interested in reading about scandalous lives of celebrities in the first place?

6. Has the government tried to curb press freedom?

7. What is the Press Council and what are its functions?

4. The text is replete with emotionally charged words and phrases. In what contexts would you use the following words and expressions – voracious readers, a peepshow masquerading as a newspaper, flagging TV career, prurient interest in salacious reporting, raunchy, down-market siblings, to scoop the rivals? Which of them could sound offensive?

5. Explain how you understand the following idiomatic expressions: to throw out the baby with the bath water, a toothless watchdog, to get a rough ride. In what contexts can you use them?

6. Read the following opinions, which are taken from different Internet resources, about the freedom of the press and say whether you personally support the idea of curbing press intrusion into privacy or not. Give your reasons. Who (what organization, committee, ministry, newspaper editors themselves etc.) should be responsible for it?

In the United States, the government may not prevent the publication of a newspaper, even when there is reason to believe that it is about to reveal information that will endanger our national security. By the same token, the government cannot:

· Pass a law that requires newspapers to publish information against their will.

· Impose criminal penalties, or civil damages, on the publication of truthful information about a matter of public concern or even on the dissemination of false and damaging information about a public person except in rare instances.

· Impose taxes on the press that it does not levy on other businesses.

· Compel journalists to reveal, in most circumstances, the identities of their sources.

· Prohibit the press from attending judicial proceedings and thereafter informing the public about them.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org

Freedom of Expression has always been the basic requirement for the media. But sometimes the media transgresses its limitations, social ethics, code of conduct etc. in the name of freedom of expression. That’s why some experts have been emphasizing on code of conduct for media. Journalists have been opposing the idea and have suggested “self-regulations”. Self-regulation is an ideal situation, but the fact is that it may not be effective to regulate the media, particularly in the scenario of growing competition among the channels for supremacy in the business of ratings.

http://www.merinews.com

The issue of the freedom of the press is a very controversial one, especially in the current context. Some aggressive caricatures or publications about people’s private life have recently created a polemic about the freedom of the press and many people tend to think that this freedom should be restricted to respect morals and everyone’s private life.

http://en.oboulo.com

Few newspaper stories linger in the mind days, weeks, or even years after being printed. But of the ones that do, most originate in international conflict, political races, or scandal.

Scandal journalism is big business unto itself. It is profitable titillation focusing on greed, lust, and all evils that men do, guaranteeing a large and voracious audience. But this muckraking is not limited to the publications that loom over grocery-store checkout counters. Yellow journalism and rumormongering are becoming a part of the mainstream media.

There are at least two major scandal categories: one involving famous people and one in which the people involved become famous because of the scandal.

Any story involving celebrity public figures immediately acquires the stamp of newsworthiness. People, including journalists, generally assume (perhaps erroneously) that because famous people are important, the story itself is important. This effectively hands major media outlets a ready-made reason for providing the public with every minute detail of the lives of the parties involved.

Of course, what is relevant to one journalist (or reader) can be considered offensive by another. Are there any guidelines in the newsroom? Not according to Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, who wrote in his book Media Circus that “the plain truth is that there are no rules anymore, no corner of human behavior into which prying reporters won’t poke.” Salacious tidbits aren’t solely in the domain of the National Enquirer, he continues. “All of the media, from the prestige press to the sensationalist rags, have been infected by a tabloid culture that celebrates sleaze.”

http://www.highbeam.com

More and more, legal considerations are influencing, if not determining, day-to-day decisions in the media. Each of the following could represent a major legal problem:

· a TV news report quoting a police officer about a drunk driver who caused a fatal accident;

· a mistake that associated the wrong name or home address with criminal wrongdoing;

· a record bought at a local store that’s used as background music for a commercial;

· a TV drama based on the life of a well-known person publishing controversial excerpts on a web site from a new novel;

· a TV cameraman who accompanies the police into a home during a drug raid;

· a photo from a web page used in a student newspaper announcing that a local businessman has contracted AIDS.

Any one of these could launch a costly lawsuit. How costly? Well, the average cost of just defending yourself from a libel suit (which could result from the last statement) is about $550,000. If you happen to lose the suit, the settlement could amount to millions of dollars on top of that.

Although most legal restraints, such as shield laws, laws against defamation, libel, invasion of privacy, etc., are in the public’s best interest, others are not, such as when a large corporation threatens a costly lawsuit if a true story about their wrongdoing is printed or broadcast.

http://www.cybercollege.com

Дата добавления: 2014-12-24