Отиди на страница:
| United Kingdom - Broadcasting Standards Commission (Fairness) Broadcasting Standards Commission Code on Fairness and Privacy, effective 1 January 1998. Preamble 1. In any democratic society, there are balances to be struck between the citizen's right to receive information and ideas, and the responsibilities of broadcasters and journalist to behave reasonable and fairly and not to cause an unwarranted infringement of a citizen's basic right to privacy. The guidelines in this Code cannot resolve that dilemma. But it sets out what the Broadcasting Standards Commission considers are the principles to be observed and practices to be followed by all broadcasters (including the providers of teletext services) to avoid unjust or unfair treatment in radio and television programmes, and to avoid the unwarranted infringement of privacy in the making the broadcasting of such programmes. Broadcasters and broadcasting regulatory bodies should reflect this guidance in their own codes and guidelines. The Commission will, as required by the Act, take the provisions of this code into account as it considers complaints, and the Code will be revised, as necessary, in the light of its experience. But the guidance in a code can never be exhaustive. Whether the needs of fairness and privacy have been met can only be judged by considering each particular case in the light of the information the broadcaster had available after diligent research at the time the programme was made or broadcast. Fairness General 2. Broadcasters have a responsibility to avoid unfairness to individuals or organisations features in programmes in particular through the use of inaccurate information or distortion, for example, by the unfair selection or juxtaposition of material taken out of context, whether specially recorded for a programme, or taken from library or other sources. Broadcasters should avoid creating doubts on the audience's part as to what they are being shown if it could mislead the audience in a way which would be unfair to those featured in the programme. Dealing fairly with contributors 3. From the outset, broadcasters should ensure that all programme-makers, whether in-house or independent, understand the need to be straightforward and fair in their dealings with potential participants in factual programmes, in particular by making clear, wherever practicable, the nature of the programme and its purpose and, whenever appropriate, the nature of their contractual rights. Many potential contributors will be unfamiliar with broadcasting and therefore may not share assumptions about programme-making which broadcasters regard as obvious. 4. Contributors should dealt with fairly. Where they are invited to make a significant contribution to a factual programme they should: (i) be told what the programme is about; (ii) be given a clear explanation of why they were contacted by the programme; (iii) be told what kind of contribution they are expected to make - for example by way of an interview or as part of a discussion. (iv) be informed about the areas of questioning, and, wherever possible, the nature of other likely contributions. (v) be told whether their contribution is to be live or recorded, and, if recorded, whether it is likely to be edited. (vi) not be coached or pushed or improperly induced into saying anything which they know not to be true or do not believe to be true; (vii) whenever appropriate, be made aware of any significant changes to the programme as it develops which might reasonable affect their original consent to participate, and cause material unfairness; and (viii) if offered an opportunity to preview the programme, be given clear information about whether they will be able to effect any change in the programme. The requirements of fairness in news reports pose particular challenges. The speed of newsgathering means that it is not always possible to provide contributors to news reports with all the information mentioned above. However, that does not absolve journalists from treating contributors fairly or ensuring that the reports compiled meet the needs of fairness and accuracy. 5. Broadcasters should take special care that the use of material originally recorded for one purpose and then used in a later or different programme does not create material unfairness or unwarrantably infringe privacy. The inclusion of such material should be carefully considered, especially where this involves instances of personal tragedy or reference to criminal matters. This applies as much to material obtained from others as to material shot by the broadcaster itself. Accuracy 7. Broadcasters should take special care when their programmes are capable of adversely affecting the reputation of individuals, companies or other organisations. Broadcasters should take all reasonable care to satisfy themselves that all material facts have been considered before transmission and so far as possible are fairly presented. 8. Broadcasters should also be alert to the danger of unsubstantiated allegations being made by participants to live 'phone-ins and discussion programmes and ensure that presenters are briefed accordingly. 9. Contemporary drama which is based on the lives and experience of real people or organisations should seek to convey them fairly. It should be made clear in advance to the audience whether the drama is loosely based on the events it describes or rather purports to be an accurate account of what happened. In neither case should drama distort the verifiable facts in a way which is unfair to anyone with a direct interest in the programme. Care should also be taken not to convey through characterisation, or casting, or on-air promotion, an unfair impression of the characters on whom the drama is based. Correction and apology 10. Whenever the broadcaster recognises that a broadcast has been unfair, if the person affected so wishes, it should be corrected promptly and with due prominence unless there are compelling legal reasons not to do so. An apology should also be broadcast whenever appropriate. Opportunity to contribute 11. When a programme alleges wrong-doing or incompetence, or contains a damaging critique of an individual or organisation, those criticised should normally be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond to or comment on the arguments and evidence contained within the programme. Non-participation 12. Anyone has the right to refuse to participate in a programme, but the refusal of an individual or organisation to take part should not normally prevent the programme from going ahead. However, where an individual or organisation is mentioned or discussed in their absence, care should be taken to ensure that their views are not misrepresented.(see also paragraph 25.) Deception 13. Factual programme-makers should not normally obtain or seek information or pictures through misrepresentation or deception, except where the disclosure is reasonably believed to serve an overriding public interest (see also paragraphs 14, 16, 18, 23, 26, 28, 31, 32, 33) and the material cannot reasonably be obtained by other means. Where the use of deception is judged permissible, it should always be proportionate to the alleged wrong-doing and should wherever possible avoid the encouragement of conduct which might not have occurred at all but for the intervention of the programme-maker. Prior editorial approval at the most senior editorial levels within the broadcasting organisation should be obtained for such methods. The programme should also make clear to the audience the means used to obtain access to the information, unless this places sources at risk. Privacy General 14. The line to be drawn between the public's right to information and the citizen's right to privacy can sometimes be a fine one. In considering complaints about the unwarranted infringement of privacy, the Commission will therefore address itself to two distinct questions: First, has there been an infringement of privacy ? Second, if so, was it warranted ? An infringement of privacy has to be justified by an overriding public interest in disclosure of the information. This would include revealing or detecting crime or disreputable behaviour, protecting public health or safety, exposing misleading claims made by individuals or organisations, or disclosing significant incompetence in public office. Moreover, the means of obtaining the information must be proportionate to the matter under investigation. 15. Privacy can be infringed during the obtaining of material for a programme, even if none of it is broadcast, as well as in the way in which material is used within the programme. 16. For much of the time, the private lives of most people are of no legitimate public interest. It is important that when, for a short time, people are caught up, however involuntarily, in events which have a place in the news, their situation is not abused either at the time or in later programmes which revisit those events. When broadcasters are covering events in public places, they should ensure that the words spoken or images shown are sufficiently in the public domain to justify their broadcast without the consent of the individuals concerned. When filming or recording in institutions, organisations or agencies where permission has been given by the relevant authority or management, broadcasters are under no obligation to seek the individual consent of employees or others whose appearance is incidental or where they are essentially anonymous members of the general public. However, in clearly sensitive situations in places such as hospitals or prisons or police stations, individual consent should normally be obtained unless their identity has been concealed. Broadcasters should take similar care with material recorded by CCTV cameras to ensure identifiable individuals are treated fairly. Any exceptions to the requirement of individual consent would have to be justified by an overriding public interest. 17. People in the public eye, either through the position they hold or the publicity they attract, are in a special position. However, not all matters which interest the public are in the public interest. Even when personal matters become the proper subject of enquiry, people in the public eye or their immediate family or friends do not forfeit the right to privacy, though there may be occasions when private behaviour raises broader public issues either through the nature of the behaviour itself or by the consequences of its becoming widely known. But any information broadcast should be significant as well as trued. The location of a person's home or family should not normally be revealed unless strictly relevant to the behaviour under investigation. The use of hidden microphones and cameras 18. The use of secret recording should only be considered where it is necessary to the credibility and authenticity of the story, as the use of hidden recording techniques can be unfair to those recorded as well as infringe their privacy. In seeking to determine whether an infringement of privacy is warranted, the Commission will consider the following guiding principles. (i) Normally, broadcasters on location should operate only in public where they can be seen. Where recording does take place secretly in public places, the words or imaged recorded should serve an overriding public interest. to justify: * the decision to gather the material; * the actual recording; * the broadcast. (ii) An unattended recording device should not be left on private property without the full and informed consent of the occupiers or their agent unless seeking permission might frustrate the investigation by the programme-makers of matters of an overriding public interest. (iii) The open and apparent use of cameras or recording devices on both public and private property, when the subject is on private property, must be appropriate to the importance or nature of the story. The broadcaster should not intrude unnecessarily on private behaviour. 19. When broadcasting material obtained secretly, whether in public or on private property, broadcasters should take care not to infringe the privacy of bystanders who may be caught inadvertently in the recording. Wherever it is clear that unfairness might otherwise be caused, the identity of innocent parties should be obscured. 20. Broadcasters should apply the same rules to material shot secretly, by others as they do to their own recordings in taking the decision whether to broadcast the material. 21. When secret recording is undertaken as part of an entertainment programme, care should also be taken to prevent the unwarranted infringement of privacy. Those who are the subjects of a recorded deception should be asked to give their consent before the material is broadcast. If they become aware of the recording and ask for it to stop, their wishes should be respected. In a live broadcast, especial care should be taken to avoid offence to the individuals concerned. Telephone calls 22. Broadcasters should normally identify themselves to telephone interviewees from the outset, or seek agreement from the other party, if they wish to broadcast a recording of a telephone call between the broadcaster and the other party. 23. If factual programme-makers take someone by surprise by recording a call for broadcast purposes without any prior warning, it is the equivalent of door-stepping (see paragraphs 25, 26, 27) and similar rules apply. Such approaches should only take place where there is reason to believe that there is an overriding public interest and the subject has refuse to respond to reasonable requests for interview, or has a history of such failure or refusal, or there is good reason to believe that the investigation will be frustrated if the subject is approached openly. 24. Other recordings of telephone conversations for broadcast purposes made with the agreement of one of the parties but without the knowledge of the other party are to be assess by the criteria which apply to secret recording on private property. (See paragraph 18.) Door-stepping 25. People who are currently in the news cannot reasonably object to being questioned and recorded by the media when in public places. The questions should be fair even if they are unwelcome. If the approach is made by telephone, the broadcaster should make clear who is calling and for what purpose. Nevertheless, even those who are in the news have the right to make no comment or to refuse to appear in a broadcast. Any relevant broadcast should make clear that a person has chosen not to appear and mention such person's explanation, if not to do so could be materially unfair. (See also paragraph 12.) 26. Outside the daily news context, different considerations apply. But surprise can be a legitimate device to elicit the truth especially when dealing with matters where there is an overriding public interest in investigation and disclosure. Door-stepping in these circumstances may be legitimate where there has been repeated refusal to grant an interview (or a history of such refusals) or the risk exists that a protagonist might disappear. 27. Repeated attempts to take pictures or to obtain an interview when consent has been refused can, however, constitute an unwarranted infringement of privacy and can also constitute unfairness. Care must also be taken not to make it easy to locate or identify the refuser's address unless it is strictly relevant to the behaviour under investigation and there is an overriding public interest. Suffering and distress 28. Broadcasters should not add to the distress of people caught up in emergencies or suffering a personal tragedy. People in a state of distress must not be put under any pressure to provide interviews. The mere fact that grieving people have been named or suggested for interview by the police or other authorities does not justify the use of material which infringes their privacy or is distressing. Such use if justified only if an overriding public interest is served. Broadcasters should take care not to reveal the identity of a person who has died, or victims of accidents or violent crimes unless and until it is clear that the next of kin have been informed. 29. Programme-makers should also be sensitive to the possibility of causing additional anxiety or distress when filming or recording people who are already extremely upset or under stress, for example at funerals or in hospitals. Normally, prior consent should be obtained from the family or their agents. *At funerals, programme-makers should respect their requests to withdraw. * No attempt should be made to enter wards or other places of treatment in hospitals without clear and informed authorisation from the medical staff and the individuals concerned or those acting on their behalf. Broadcasters should also respect any reasonable arrangements made by the emergency services to supervise media access to victims of crime or accident or disaster, or their relatives, in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy. 30. Broadcasters should ask themselves whether the repeated use of traumatic library material is justified if it features identifiable people who are still alive or who have died recently. Re-visiting past events 31. Programmes intended to examine past events involving trauma to individuals, including crime, should try to minimise the potential distress to surviving victims or surviving relatives in re-telling the story. So far as is reasonably practicable, surviving victims or the immediate families of those whose experience is to feature in the programme, should be informed of the programme's plans and its intended transmission. Failure to do this might be deemed an unwarranted infringement of privacy, even if the events or material to be broadcast have been in the public domain in the past. Children 32. Children's vulnerability must be a prime concern for broadcasters. They do not lose their rights to privacy because of the fame or notoriety of their parents or because of events in their schools. Care should be taken that a child's gullibility or trust is not abused. They should not be questioned about private family matters or ask for views on matters likely to be beyond their capacity to answer properly. Consent from parents or those in loco parentis should normally be obtained before interviewing children under 16 matters of significance. Where consent has not been obtained or actually refused, any decision to go ahead can only be justified if the item is of overriding public interest and the child's appearance is absolutely necessary. Similarly, children under 16 involved in police enquiries or court proceedings relating to sexual offences should not be identified or identifiable in news or other programmes. Agency operations 33. Broadcasters should be clear about the terms and conditions upon which they are granted access to police operations and those of other law enforcement agencies, emergency services or bodies working directly with vulnerable people. When accompanying such operations, crews should identify as soon as practicable for whom they are working and what they are doing. If asked to stop filming on private premises by the property owner or occupier, or to leave, they should do so unless there is an overriding public interest. Bystanders caught on cameral should have their identities obscured, where unfairness might arise. |
Perkoles При манипулацията основно се разчита на това , че не си запознат с проблема , или дори и да си запознат не разбираш от него.Или пък че от проблема разбират единици –а останалата част го приема по принцип. Тя е особено опасна когато е съпроводена с богоомайни обещания. А на тези мили родни картинки се нагледахме и наслушахме. Обещаваш едно докато вземеш властта , вземаш я и почваш да си правиш каквото си искаш. И какъв е изхода да си седим ежедневно на улицата и да протестираме. Е от много протести в миналото до къде я докарах ме. До под кривата круша. |
| Я, туй май съм го виждал някъде... Почти същото. ~~ United Kingdom - Editor's Code 2004 The Press Complaints Commission is charged with enforcing the following Code of Practice which was framed by the newspaper and periodical industry and was ratified by the PCC on 28 April 2004. It takes effect from 1 June 2004. The Code All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards. This Code sets the benchmark for those ethical standards, protecting both the rights of the individual and the public's right to know. It is the cornerstone of the system of self-regulation to which the industry has made a binding commitment. It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit. It should not be interpreted so narrowly as to compromise its commitment to respect the rights of the individual, nor so broadly that it constitutes an unnecessary interference with freedom of expression or prevents publication in the public interest. It is the responsibility of editors and publishers to implement the Code and they should take care to ensure it is observed rigorously by all editorial staff and external contributors, including non-journalists, in printed and online versions of publications. Editors should co-operate swiftly with the PCC in the resolution of complaints. Any publication judged to have breached the Code must print the adjudication in full and with due prominence, including headline reference to the PCC. 1. Accuracy i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures. ii) A significant inaccuracy, mis-leading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact. iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published. 2. Opportunity to reply A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for. 3. * Privacy i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications. Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. ii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent. Note - Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. 4. * Harassment i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit. ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on their property when asked to leave and must not follow them. iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources. 5. Intrusion into grief or shock In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings, such as inquests. 6.* Children i) Young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion. ii) A child under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents. iii) Pupils must not be approached or photographed at school without the permission of the school authorities. iv) Minors must not be paid for material involving children’s welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest. v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child’s private life. 7. * Children in sex cases 1. The press must not, even if legally free to do so, identify children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex offences. 2. In any press report of a case involving a sexual offence against a child - i) The child must not be identified. ii) The adult may be identified. iii) The word "incest" must not be used where a child victim might be identified. iv) Care must be taken that nothing in the report implies the relationship between the accused and the child. 8. * Hospitals i) Journalists must identify them-selves and obtain permission from a responsible executive before entering non-public areas of hospitals or similar institutions to pursue enquiries. ii) The restrictions on intruding into privacy are particularly relevant to enquiries about individuals in hospitals or similar institutions. 9. * Reporting of crime (i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story. (ii) Particular regard should be paid to the potentially vulnerable position of children who witness, or are victims of, crime. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings. 10. * Clandestine devices and subterfuge i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs. ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means. 11. Victims of sexual assault The press must not identify victims of sexual assault or publish material likely to contribute to such identification unless there is adequate justification and they are legally free to do so. 12. Discrimination i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story. 13. Financial journalism i) Even where the law does not prohibit it, journalists must not use for their own profit financial information they receive in advance of its general publication, nor should they pass such information to others. ii) They must not write about shares or securities in whose performance they know that they or their close families have a significant financial interest without disclosing the interest to the editor or financial editor. iii) They must not buy or sell, either directly or through nominees or agents, shares or securities about which they have written recently or about which they intend to write in the near future. 14. Confidential sources Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information. 15. Witness payments in criminal trials i) No payment or offer of payment to a witness - or any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness - should be made in any case once proceedings are active as defined by the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This prohibition lasts until the suspect has been freed unconditionally by police without charge or bail or the proceedings are otherwise discontinued; or has entered a guilty plea to the court; or, in the event of a not guilty plea, the court has announced its verdict. *ii) Where proceedings are not yet active but are likely and foreseeable, editors must not make or offer payment to any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a wit-ness, unless the information concerned ought demonstrably to be published in the public interest and there is an over-riding need to make or promise payment for this to be done; and all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure no financial dealings influence the evidence those witnesses give. In no circumstances should such payment be conditional on the outcome of a trial. *iii) Any payment or offer of payment made to a person later cited to give evidence in proceedings must be disclosed to the prosecution and defence. The witness must be advised of this requirement. 16.* Payment to criminals i) Payment or offers of payment for stories, pictures or information, which seek to exploit a particular crime or to glorify or glamorise crime in general, must not be made directly or via agents to convicted or confessed criminals or to their associates – who may include family, friends and colleagues. ii) Editors invoking the public interest to justify payment or offers would need to demonstrate that there was good reason to believe the public interest would be served. If, despite payment, no public interest emerged, then the material should not be published. ~~ *The public interest There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest. 1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to: i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety. ii) Protecting public health and safety. iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation. ~~ 2. There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself. 3. Whenever the public interest is invoked, the PCC will require editors to demonstrate fully how the public interest was served. 4. The PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain, or will become so. 5. In cases involving children under 16, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally paramount interest of the child. |
| Бели Негре, Не знам как е другаде но в Щатите разследваща журналистика в смисъла който се влага в България няма. Каква разследваща журналистика бе, алоу?! Още никой не е открил кой и защо уби Кенеди даже. Не говорим за Септембър 11. Като резултат от "разследванията" се появи предизборния клип на Мор само. От който спечели само той. *** Сега хайде да помислите защо е така. Рейвъне, а? |
| Шопаре, Къде набара тоя българо-английски етичен документ? Не го ли пазят секретно? Щото би трябвало...  |
| Науме, гражданският договор за консултантски услуги (дали на подкупвания или чрез фирма или енджио на шурея е все едно) и в момента е най-рафинираната форма на рушвет и то не само в България. Това са рушвети на горно средно и високо ниво Но не е разпространен сред митничарите, да ме прощаваш. Не знам дали съм на светлинни години, но определено тези три мерки са задължителни. Ще имат превантивен ефект на ниско и средно ниво. Страх лозе пази. Колкото до лекарите, сегашната ситуация се поддържа умишлено преди приватизацията на МБАЛ-ите (те са ЕАД). Сега огромния бюджет на НЗОК и субсидиите, получавани от Министерство на здравеопазването се разхищават чрез всевъзможни начини и методи, но не постъпват легално в джобовете на лекуващите лекари (щото има и лекари чиновници - пример Спас Спасков). Когато се натъманят и приватизират болниците нещата ще се понаместят. Все пак не може заплата на лекар в шокова зала в Пирогов да е два пъти по-ниска от касиерка в банка, да ме прощаваш. |
| хунвейбин, протести.. хи-хи... Тоо и сино ми протестира, като не му купим онова, дето си е навъртел на пръсто. Не стига това, ми му отперем един зад врато па му окнем: че го турим на ....... ... Отидем язе при маика му.. И те- па...двоино печелим.. Ма, кои да те контролира... ..Имам аз една идея, ама на кои да я кажем!? (ефикасна е, ъхъ) |
| Каруцаря Има и други не по- малко гъвкави методи. Отпускаш голяма сума или да речем стока на отложено плащане. Ясно е , че е от държавна фирма. След това казваш не мога да си взема парите- от тая там твоята или на баджанака ти фирма. Явява се друга фирма която срещу 30 % комисионна го прави. А комисионната се дели на трите страни. Дори може и журналист нещо да по напише. И всичко това само чрез подписчета.И якя суха пара се лее. |
| Каруцар, Абе немога да си обясня , колко ни е акъла щом ромънчето го искарват , за радост само някой , българско патриотче , оправящо ни кривиците. Колко е голямо това проникновение. |
| Мене мамалигарина не ме вълнува. Искам нашите журналисти да се научат да правят пазследващи предавания не само за течове, неработещи светофари, улици с дупки и пияни кметове. Това е. Румънеца да го духа. Все ми е тая за него. |
| Дискусията иначе беше интересна с това че открехна мерака на некои форумци с професия пописващ да ловят в мътна вода риба... Гнусничко. И на тези хора да им се даде правото да бъдат над закона?! *** Не знам откъде в българското обществено съзнание се е пръкнало убеждението че журналиста е едно същество от по-висш порядък в сравнение с ординерните сивички труженици. Може би от времето на "Писма на читателите" и разследващата журналистика която яко наругаваше некой ТВ-техник ?! *** В останалия свят немат такива илюзии. Може би затова и няма разследваща журналистика. Тя не може да съществува реално. Колкото и да плаче Рейвъна. |
| Каруца, Щото си много отгънат, ме караш да ти обяснявам някои неща, дето съм ги чел от Ревизоро.. Да речем, че на Връшка чука работят 30души, а в управлението 400. Тези в управлението си чакат реда, въртят ги и им се случва да отидат на трасето-може да е за няколко месеца на няколко години, но се някога.. а може и хич... Тези на трасето не се занимават с вносове-там се осъществява само транзитно обработване на документацията и първичен физически контрол на стоките , които се освобождават на вътрешна митница . Свърши тя тая басня с тировете, дето не ги записвали или пишели едно , пък минавало друго. Те с далавери с мита и вносове не се занимават, щото и да искат не могат, понеже зад тях седи още една, вътрешна митница, която може да е на майната си... Съгласи се, че и не е редно да клецаш прав 12 часа за заплата, в пъти по малка от тази на метачка вя банка, да правиш актове и да браниш интересите на държавата. Обаче всеки ден стават панаири и митничарите постоянно са под натиск, разкарват ги по дела, пишат обяснения и прочие..Знаеш ли, че като има някой особен случай им се случва по 24 часа да не си отиват от работа? Знаеш ли и досега колко бяха изгонени, командировани, имаше и арестувани, които седяха по арести с месеци и после реабилитирани.. Ти тях ли искаш да хванеш? И да искаш, не става-ако си ходил в казарма при соца, сещай се за кво иде реч.. Ми добре, виждаш, че не става никак и все пак, що ся, когато след година няма да има митници? Ти как мислиш? И как ще работят и защищават държавните интереси, като знаят, че всеки нередовен може да ги шантажира и плаши с органите? Да ги снима и да продаде снимките на засегнат? То им стига да ги привикват служби и инспекторати и да пишат обяснения с месеци . Тези пък, които са на вътрешни митници, точно тях също не можеш да бутнеш, щото работят, ако са от лошите, с посредници. По принцип обаче, ако си редовен и не искаш да чукаш дявола във въздуха, никой не те закача и нямаш никакви проблеми. Редактирано от - Наум на 23/11/2004 г/ 16:22:46 |
| Мунчо, ето защо мисля така за журналистиката: ДИМИТРИ вече го поздравих, но сега искам да му пожелая още дълго да ни провокира от завоя на алеята във Форумния парк ПЕТЬО ЦЕКОВ, бъди жив и здрав и благодари на Бога, че имаш късмета да работиш с Джимо и с екипа на "Сега", честито! АЙ СИКТИР, подкрепям те за "Банкеръ", макар че съображенията ни може и да са различни. Използвам случая да споделя едно може впечатление от днешните вестници - с чувство на лека тъга и отминала романтика си спомням времето след 10.11., когато на освободената преса се опитваха да сложат намордник чрез създаване на умишлен дефицит на хартия, жестоки цени, прекратяване на договори за доставка поради неплащане и пр. Тогава вестниците буквално беряха душа, а читателите бяха жадни за новини...Появиха се стотици нови издания, някои - еднодневки, други оцеляха, а на трети грубо беше запушена устата... Какво стана сега - водещите ежедневници и седмичници, в вт.ч. и Банкеръ, са едни от най-богатите стопански субекти, а техните собственици и редактори - част от елита и хайлайфа на държавата ни. Ако се погледнат тиражите им се вижда, че пренебрежимо малка част от приходите им се формира от продажби. Всичко е от реклами и изпълнение на всякакви нечистоплътни поръчки. Разходите са сведени до възможния критичен минимум - хартия, печат, поддръжка на офиси и мнимален персонал. По-голямата част от вестниците нямат собствени кореспонденти нито в страната, още по-малко пък в чужбина. Преписват се едни други, а дори се публикуват и откровени лъжи и измислици на амбициозни репортерчета като репортажи от мястото на събитието. Вадят се от архивите остарели и позабравени "новини", написват се в сегашно време и се поднасят на читателите като новина, получена от първа ръка. Подобен случай има в последния брой на Банкеръ. Още по- позорна е и практиката журналистите да пишат под няколко имена и така да продават писанията си на различни вестници с цел да изкарат някой лев. Въобще почтеността и самоуважението в журналистическата професия са на крайно ниско ниво, всъщност въобще отсъстват. Разследващи журналисти няма. Дори и при така описаната картина, все пак понякога се промъкват интересни новини, които странно защо, не получават никакво развитие по-нататък. И ако няма наистина наложена цензура, мисля, че самата гилдия си налага автоцензура в името на Мамона, а "загрижеността" за информираността на читателите е само фасада на един не само меркантилен, но и доста мръсен, клеветнически бизнес. Подобно поведение е сравнимо само с дейността на така заклеймяваните доносници, за които текат вече толкова години разгорещени политически и обществени дебати... В цялата тази картина наистина се открояват някои вестници, както ежедневници, така и седмичници, които са ценни именно с анализите по вече случили се събития и авторските материали в тях. В някаква степен такъв е и вестник "Сега", такъв е "Капитал", отчасти и "Банкер", а бих казал дори и "Монитор", и "7". И доколкото преобладава мнението, че вестника го правят журналистите, не мога да не подчертая изключителната роля на главните редактори, които всъщност решават с кои журналисти да работят. Над тях естествено, са собствениците, които дават или не дават съответната свобода на главния редактор, водени от различни мотиви - печалба преди всичко или обслужване на определени политически интереси, които обаче, пак да водят до постигане на някакъв вид печалба. В крайна сметка метаморфозата на българската печатна преса е налице - от "Малката кибритопродавачка", бедна, мръзнеща и просеща пари за хартия, но богата със свободно слово и трубадури на истината, тя се превърна едновременно в послушен далматинец и Крюела ДеВил /КРЮ, знаеш, че не става дума за тебе/, вдигнал послушно лапи за поредната хапка и вманячена и освирепяла дама, готова да продаде и душата си за пари.... Извинете ме, ако ви е било скучно, уважаеми Форумци, ама нали само тука мога да извикам "Цар Траян има магарешки уши" и някой да ме чуе.... Ето това мисля, Мунчо. Може и да има отделни лястовици между журналистите, но те не оцеляват в тази среда. |
| Британските журналисти не са изваршили простапка сагласно британските закони [имг]хттп://форум.скъцоде.цом/имг/и_нод.г иф[/имг] , т.е. нищо нередно в това, че са натрили по подходящ начин нечий корумпиран нос [имг]хттп://форум.скъцоде.цом/имг/нутс.ги ф[/имг] . Британците са преценили, че имат журналистика и са и дали саответните права. Тези, които претендират за аналогични права у нас, нека парво докажат, че са журналисти. Дотогава да не впрягат каруцата пред коня. А на бат'Ванйо успех! Голямо садене ще падне, няма що![имг]хттп://форум.скъцоде.цом/имг/33.г иф[/имг] [даркред][/даркред][индиго][/индиго] Редактирано от - bot на 23/11/2004 г/ 16:32:13 |