The cost of a free press

As we are constantly reminded by the media, our press must be free and unfettered. If it is not, how can it fearlessly expose facts that are uncomfortable for those in power. How else will we know about politicians absconding with taxpayers money. Or about the dealings of financial tycoons who, at times, exploit friendships with people in high government bureaucracy positions to get good deals. How would we know about employers harassing their employees if they cannot protect their sources. The media self-glorifies in its journalistic achievements of exposure, revelations, leaks and full disclosure of all the details we are not supposed to know. And the media lashes out at anyone who incringes on its rights of freedom of the press and freedom of expression. Except when the media itself comes under scrutiny. As in this recent example: The BBC has said new rules to force it to reveal the pay of its on-air talent are “disappointing” and likely to cause a “massive headache” after the government confirmed that any employee earning more than £150,000 would be identified. Culture secretary Karen Bradley said the new obligations to reveal details of stars' pay would help make the BBC a more “transparent and open” organisation as she launched a draft charter which also confirmed changes to the BBC's historic system of governance. In response, Rona Fairhead, who is to stand down as chair of the BBC Trust, said the governing body was “disappointed” by the change in disclosure rules. So, payments, salaries, perks, etc. of politicians, government officials, bank managers and football players are fair game but not television presenters' income? I guess a society is only as free as its press is ethical, moral and loyal to the same obligations we all have. ^

The cost of a free press

Katz: Hezbollah chief Qassem won't 'live to see' response

France bans Muslim gathering in Paris, citing security risks

The cost of a free press

See more on