The laws of Libel in Great Britain are far stricter than, for example, in the USA. In many circles this is believed to be a good thing as private lives are protected, however, there is a belief that these laws are not enough and greater precaution should be taken, in order to protect those citizens 'hounded' by the media. The Official secrets Act of 1911 is still in existence today along with a new Act in 1989, which was established with vigour. These Acts are meant to ensure that journalists do not receive any unauthorised or classified information. Restrictive attitudes are also reflected in the Sus Judice and copyright aspects of British Law. There have been attempts to introduce a Freedom of Information Act but thus far, all attempts have failed. Politicians who have felt the sharper end of the media tongue feel that their personal lives have no bearing on their political competence and are, therefore not relevant for public consumption. Needless to say there is a fear that the media is more interested in the sexual inclinations of politicians such as Cecil Parkinson, Geoffrey Archer and indeed, more recently, Ron Davies than in their political agendas. The rolling camera and the help of a few 'sources close to.' ensured the downfall of these prominent ministers. The Bias of the press, in particular is a concerning issue for many critics. The press in Great Britain is not hampered by the necessity to remain neutral on political issues whereas in broadcasting there is a greater obligation to remain politically impartial. Therefore it is widely accepted that the press of this country is far more dangerous than our other media channels. Politicians are far more concerned with the press than ever before because there are far fewer restraints on the written word which, in the eyes of a politician, is a danger to their reputation. On the contrary, media blocs believe adamantly that politicians are representatives of an electorate and, in light of this, they maintain that it is their duty to uphold democracy.