I'm sorry, but 'responsibility' is in the eye of the beholder. In the case of the 10 year recovery projection - yes, that's damn scary. But I also think it's more than a distinct possibility for Britain. You could well be right that it might damage consumer and business confidence, and in effect become a self-fulfilling prophecy - but what's the alternative? Not broadcast bad news at all?
The media has an important job to do in disseminating information. We might not always like what they tell us - but it's never a productive course of action to go 'shooting the messenger', as it were. Certainly I'd rather take my chances with a free press that might go a bit overboard sometimes than have media be tightly regulated by government agents in the name of 'responsible broadcasting'.
I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't broadcast bad news, just maybe be a little more thoughtful in how it's put across to the viewer. Sometimes it feels like the world is coming to an end when you listen/watch the news sometimes for even minor news stories are treated like a catasrophe.
Certainly any regulation regarding the media should in no way be connected to government, this would only make things worse.
Who knows maybe it's just me who see's it like this but there was a time where you could watch the news and get fact, not prediction and speculation.