tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25200961.post2944368764907103226..comments2024-03-26T07:19:50.901+00:00Comments on Dr Grumble: JournalistsDr Grumblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04417731064007601504noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25200961.post-14843389235305174912009-02-10T07:47:00.000+00:002009-02-10T07:47:00.000+00:00Unusually for Grumble he slipped into the first pe...Unusually for Grumble he slipped into the first person. Actually Grumble did not march on the streets. Some of the protests of years ago were plain daft. When Dr G matriculated there were students protesting outside the ceremony. "Matriculation makes you blind," was their ludicrous chant. And it is true that those who went on the marches are the very people who are responsible for what we have now. And it has astonished Grumble how their views have done an about-turn.<BR/><BR/>So I don't really see that era through rose-tinted spectacles. The opposite in fact. Grumble was not really part of it. But it does seem that people were then active in political matters and that now there is a political emptiness. And that could be bad. Do you really want the country to be run by the former protesters who have regrouped into powerful low-profile organisations like Common Purpose? Or would you like the young to be involved via political channels?Dr Grumblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04417731064007601504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25200961.post-39798254416726465652009-02-09T23:45:00.000+00:002009-02-09T23:45:00.000+00:00For all its stated lack of apathy and inclination ...For all its stated lack of apathy and inclination to occupy the refectory, what did your generation actually achieve politically, Dr G? Except for nurturing and sustaining the Thatcher government?<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that your generation have all that much to be proud of given that it has proven unmatched in wealth accumulation thereby causing the many disparities and vested interests driving the very phenomena you outline. <BR/><BR/>You views are normally well considered but in this case your rose tinted spectacles are perhaps too thick. The world is not and has never been black and white. As a clinician, you of all people should know that.<BR/><BR/>LionelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25200961.post-89379178426714548492009-02-09T19:31:00.000+00:002009-02-09T19:31:00.000+00:00Thanks for your comment, Andy. It's a small world....Thanks for your comment, Andy. It's a small world. You won't remember but you have met Dr Grumble!Dr Grumblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02459592334604944530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25200961.post-127823744491104502009-02-09T17:30:00.000+00:002009-02-09T17:30:00.000+00:00That's all fairly hard to disagree with, as a jour...That's all fairly hard to disagree with, as a journalist and editor. We have, unfortunately, got the media we have settled for - and therefore deserve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25200961.post-20576889996276109482009-02-08T15:22:00.000+00:002009-02-08T15:22:00.000+00:00You need something like the Advertising Standards ...You need something like the Advertising Standards Authority I suppose - an advert for some woo meister saying what the ludicrous JB said could never have got away with it. As for JBarnett - noone who appears on Loose Women should ever be taken seriously - they spout nonsense on every issue not only MMR.Betty Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02106396238018550134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25200961.post-79474234653438724672009-02-08T14:14:00.000+00:002009-02-08T14:14:00.000+00:00Here's an interesting point made by Cedgray on ano...Here's an interesting point made by Cedgray on another blog:<BR/><BR/><BR/>It's hard to believe that there isn't some kind of legal restraint made on journalists and broadcasters regarding the dissemination of (e.g.) incorrect medical information that has been shown, in a court of law, if necessary, to be false. If they break that putative law, thereby endangering people, then they get banged up, and have to make a public apology and retraction.<BR/><BR/>It should have the same measure of legality as practising medicine without a license, or incitement to cause civil unrest...<BR/><BR/>Naturally you'd have to make it very specific to medical knowledge, otherwise it'd be misused by naughty governments to silence dissenters, and there would still need to be a channel through which people could argue about a topic, but not one by which they could actually broadcast their dangerous ignorance all over the country while they're doing it, just to chase ratings with the old 'manufactured controversy' ploy.<BR/><BR/>Sure, journalists and broadcasters should have their rights – NEED to have their rights – but they really should be balanced with responsibilities as well.<BR/><BR/>*******************<BR/><BR/>Well done, Cedgray. It is certainly the case that any doctor who spouted the drivel we have heard on LBC would be struck off the register. The reason for this is that the public need to be protected from maverick doctors. So why shouldn't the public be protected from maverick broadcasters who attract unwarranted gravitas by virtue of their medium and have the potential to cause very much more harm than a doctor working one to one?<BR/><BR/>It's a shame to have to go this way but, as you say, with the ability to broadcast comes responsibility. LBC have been thoroughly irresponsible over this. It grieves me to say it but it seems you may have a point and that there is a role for better regulation or even legislation. The broadcasters have brought this on themselves. Their brazen use of copyright lawyers has served to exacerbate the situation.Dr Grumblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02459592334604944530noreply@blogger.com