Reaction to Neil Kinnock's call for a balanced press
While talking on Radio 4's Today about the phone-hacking scandal former Labour leader Lord Kinnock argued the UK needs a balanced press:
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit µþµþ°äÌý°Â±ð²ú·É¾±²õ±ð for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
The recommendation to emulate broadcast news came at the end of the interview:
"We have had, since the 1950s, independent television, commercially independent and commercially run subject to a charter which it has honoured with great fidelity, and I see no reason at all why those general rules, which have certainly not impeded freedom of expression or activity in any way at all, shouldn't have wider applications."
Twitter erupted with criticism to the claim.
Conservative ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ's Tim Montgomerie suggests in Lord Kinnock's world News of the World wouldn't be the only paper to close:
In Kinnock's ideal world there'd be no Mail, Sun or Telegraph, just a government-regulated National Information News...
The Wall Street Journal's Iain Martin guesses Lord Kinnock's comments are causing problems for Ed Miliband:
GB last week, now Kinnock intervention (calling for a censored press) backfires. Mili E must be wishing former Lab leaders would shut up.
Labour MP Tom Harris confirmed Iain Martin's suspicion:
I understand why some Labour people will want to agree with Kinnock's press regulation comments. But don't, okay? Just don't.
In blogs a little more detail is given to the particulars of the outrage against Lord Kinnock's idea. that the goal, even within broadcasting isn't obtainable:
"No statute can guarantee neutrality, for the simple reason that no two people will agree on what constitutes neutrality"
The gets down to the specifics of how Lord Kinnocks ideas would (not) work for their publication:
"So no political bias to the point of "prejudice". That is a loaded term. What about "set of core principles"? Under the Kinnock rules, would The Economist be required to give equal billing to advocates of trade protectionism, to supporters of the death penalty, or to nativists calling for an end to all immigration?
Ìý
"Time for Ed Miliband to distance himself from his former leader, and sharpish."
