Controversial Figures and the Press

The last fortnight has brought the death of a very controversial figure in UK politics.  The death of Baroness Margaret Thatcher has been plastered over the front page of every newspaper - and some headlines really made me feel a little ill:  thanks to the @SocialistWorker for the headline "Rejoice!" it's nice to know that newspapers remain incredibly tasteful.

Photo taken from http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/papers-mark-thatchers-death/

Newspapers seem to be allowed to print whatever they like without regulation.  I understand the need for free press, but sometimes newspapers step over a line and I question why they should be able to provide any sort of biased view on particular issues.  And even so - who should regulate them?  Should they be trusted to do this themselves?

The reaction of the media to the death of Thatcher is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to either the extreme nature of the press, or its ability to find out things that it shouldn't really know.  The McCaans, Hugh Grant, Charlotte Church, and a huge number of others all brought this to particular attention in bringing the Leveson inquiry to light.  The press are being trusted to self-regulate, but who will decide when a line is crossed?  There is a need for the press to be independent and not interfered with by government - after all, we're a democratic country - yet in the same way that you can't go around spouting racist nonsense, you shouldn't be allowed to print offensive stories, even if they're not based on race.  Personally, I'd put an end to it and have one single neutral newspaper for the entire country that gave descriptions of things that happened without any journalistic flair.  It would be remarkably less interesting, but would also ensure that offensive rubbish does not make it onto every day newstands.