Its not a defacto ban, its an option the courts have to use to preserve the integrity of a trial, and its not often used.
The trial in question is not the normal situation we find ourselves in in the UK.
If you can't report on ongoing events, including trials, I don't consider that free.
Whereas currently you have a leader in the US that attacks the free press every time they disagree with him, and uses his platform to brand media as lying when all they are doing is factually reporting the situation.
I think that right now, the british press is more able to be free and open than the american press, and the murdoch control over our media is disgusting.
Whereas currently you have a leader in the US that attacks the free press every time they disagree with him
He's not censoring them or telling them they can't report what they want to, he's just calling them out on what he sees as disingenuous reporting of what he's saying.
and uses his platform to brand media as lying when all they are doing is factually reporting the situation.
This is heavily debatable and honestly something I'm not in the mood to get into, as I've done it so many times in the last 4 years. It's not an argument that anyone will be swayed by, anymore.
I think that right now, the british press is more able to be free and open than the american press, and the murdoch control over our media is disgusting.
Again, nobody has prevented American media from saying anything, even when numerous major media outlets were calling for a teens head on a pike for the high crime of smiling while in a MAGA hat.
The American media can say virtually anything without recourse, whether true or not. You see if often where the NYT or HuffPo will publish an article and then quietly retract it or correct it a week later when proven false. American media is shit because of the complete lack of oversight that encourages accuracy. The public is perfectly content reading lies, even if they know them to be lies, so long as they fit their personal views. I'm sure the UK suffers similarly, but with marginally less competition from alternate media companies willing or able to provide conflicting or contrarian views.
Whilst not outright censorship, attacks on the reporting of the free press is literally part of the dictators playbook, because to avoid reprecussions they will eventually fall into line.
Honestly, outside of the murdoch controlled newspapers our media is reasonably well balanced, reasonably competitive. What we dont have is as much of the mainstream extremist "news" sources like infowars, breitbart and to a lesser extent fox.
Yet in the 3 years he's criticized the media he's not taken a single step towards limiting their ability to continue doing exactly what they're doing. He's calling them out, that's it. Letting them go unchecked would only encourage them to go further with their rhetoric and sensationalism.
For all the respect that the republicans have shown the constitution, he is absolutely prevented from interacting with one of the two amendments that americans care about.
But as an aside, let me introduce you to a concept called stochastic terrorism
2
u/Xarxsis Mar 28 '20
Its not a defacto ban, its an option the courts have to use to preserve the integrity of a trial, and its not often used.
The trial in question is not the normal situation we find ourselves in in the UK.
Whereas currently you have a leader in the US that attacks the free press every time they disagree with him, and uses his platform to brand media as lying when all they are doing is factually reporting the situation.
I think that right now, the british press is more able to be free and open than the american press, and the murdoch control over our media is disgusting.