Hi, I’m [name] with [station]. Our greatest responsibility is to serve our communities. I am extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that [station] produces, but I’m concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one-sided news stories plaguing our country.

The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control exactly what people think. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

At [station], it is our responsibility to report and pursue the truth. We understand the truth is neither politically left nor right. Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility now more than ever. But we are human, and sometimes our reporting might fall short. If you believe our coverage is unfair, please reach out through our [station] website by clicking on “Content Concerns.” We value your comments and we will respond back to you.

We work very hard to seek the truth and strive to be fair, balanced, and factual. We consider it our honor and privilege to responsibly deliver the news every day. Thank you for watching, and we appreciate your feedback.

------

American free press is getting to choose which reporter presents that script to you

But there is nothing stopping anybody from starting a new news network.

In the UK the judge can legally prevent press coverage of a trial until after it is finished. It's not a new thing. That appears to be what happened here, and the reporter was already on a suspended sentence for a previous violation of the ban. Do you have evidence to the contrary? I don't think I like this kind of ban, but it appears to be a long standing govt right in the UK.

So a lack of press freedom doesn't count if it's ordinary?

US courts have arrested plenty of reporters for contempt, in recent years too.

For an implied prior restraint on speech? Not so much I think.

The UK arrests reporters for reporting. This isn't just about libel (also much more problematic in the UK) or revealing sources. It's about plain old honest reporting of factual events that occur out in public. A reporter reports on people heading into a courthouse, and he gets sent to prison for 13 months. The court then orders that nobody can report on the reporter's arrest either. If not for non-UK web sites ignoring the order, it would be a secret arrest.

But this was ordinary contempt of court for not reporting about an ongoing trial until it was complete. It's a long standing govt right in the UK. Was there anything unusual about this case?

  It's a long standing govt right in the UK.

Well, there's a differentiator right there. In the USA, government doesn't have rights; it only has enumerated powers.

Yeah, I know this is different than the US, but I keep seeing people complaining about it from a US civil rights standard. We should at least appreciate that under UK law there are different rights. For the US, I feel like the enumerated power idea has become a somewhat historical concept instead of being true in practice. As an example, think about civil forfeiture. I don't see how that is enumerated.

If it isn't unusual, then that only supports the idea that freedom of press is lower in the UK.

I think freedom of the press is lower there in the uk. Plus they it's too easy to win a suit for libel there.

I hope you're not talking about Tommy Robinson.

Oh, you are.

In which case, I'll fill in what you conveniently left out:-

* Tommy Robinson was arrested for contempt of court

* Tommy Robinson is still under a suspended sentence for a previous conviction of contempt of court

* The publication ban is because the judge is concerned that by continuing to report on the trial Tommy Robinson was apparently 'reporting' on (quotes mine), there's a risk of prejudicing it

* Tommy Robinson is not a reporter or a journalist - if he was, he'd be aware of the reasons why courts are not best pleased about someone filming the people coming and going

In short - man does thing, is convicted of doing a thing, is given a suspended sentence and told not to do the thing again, and is somehow surprised that the legal system takes a dim view of it. A more cynical person may say that Robinson has his own reasons for doing what he's doing that are particular to the people involved in the trial, but I'll leave that as an exercise for people to figure out with a Google search.

Your comment that "Robinson has his own reasons for doing what he's doing that are particular to the people involved" seems to miss the point of a freedom. Freedom doesn't count if it only applies to things you find unobjectionable. The implication is that his freedom of press is somehow less deserving because of the subject matter he chooses to cover.

Here in the USA, our supreme court decided that the Westboro Baptist Church could protest by going uninvited to military funerals and holding signs that say "GOD HATES FAGS". That, plus dragging American flags on the ground, ensures that they won't get support from either side of the political spectrum in the USA. They still have their right to free speech. A "right" isn't a "right" if it is conditional on being inoffensive.

What Tommy Robinson did (and does) is outright harassment.

Yeah, that's a lack of press freedom. And it's a good thing we don't have it in the USA.