Archive

Tag Archives: Public Interest

https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/173374663/stream?client_id=3cQaPshpEeLqMsNFAUw1Q?plead=please-dont-download-this-or-our-lawyers-wont-let-us-host-audio

The discussion will tackle questions about whether changes within journalism will leave the public knowing more or less than they have in the past. Will new technologies bring us greater depth of information? Will news survive or will celebrity gossip take over? Will citizen journalism carry more weight than traditional TV channels?

The debate will be introduced by magazine editor Rachael Jolley and hosted by columnist, author and Index on Censorship chairman David Aaronovitch.

Speakers include:

Richard Sambrook, professor of journalism and director of the Centre for Journalism at Cardiff University and former director of global news at the BBC.

Raymond Joseph, data journalist and former regional editor of the South African Sunday Times.

Rachel Briggs, director of Hostage UK and deputy director of the Institute of Strategic Dialogue.

Amie Ferris-Rotman, John S. Knight Journalism Fellow at Stanford University and former senior correspondent for Reuters in Afghanistan.

Advertisements

Such intermediaries are effectively gatekeepers are those who enable – and control – our access to that information, and this raises profound issues of principle about the role of intermediary gatekeepers in the structure of free speech […]. At present, such intermediary gatekeepers are all private entities, operating to their own rules, and it is not at all clear how they can be made accountable to their users or the wider public for their private actions. Given the practical, social and legal issues that arise in policing content in such a quasi-public sphere [see below for link], it has been argued that search engines and other intermediaries should have public interest obligations, perhaps by analogy with common law duties that govern public utilities [see below for link]. In particular, free speech norms should not only be about protecting speakers against a heavy-handed state but also about protecting speakers and readers against heavy-handed intermediate gatekeepers. This debate is now being played out online and on the op-ed pages of US news papers.

Such intermediaries are effectively gatekeepers are those who enable – and control – our access to that information, and this raises profound issues of principle about the role of intermediary gatekeepers in the structure of free speech […]. At present, such intermediary gatekeepers are all private entities, operating to their own rules, and it is not at all clear how they can be made accountable to their users or the wider public for their private actions. Given the practical, social and legal issues that arise in policing content in such a quasi-public sphere [see below for link], it has been argued that search engines and other intermediaries should have public interest obligations, perhaps by analogy with common law duties that govern public utilities [see below for link]. In particular, free speech norms should not only be about protecting speakers against a heavy-handed state but also about protecting speakers and readers against heavy-handed intermediate gatekeepers. This debate is now being played out online and on the op-ed pages of US news papers.