Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/14/2009 6:26:19 AM

fungasm

Posts: 321
Joined: 8/2/2007
Status: offline

I've had it up to *here* with the trampling of civil liberties in the name of "National Security." That is bullshit. The news is there to report the NEWS. When newspapers like the New York Times tells citizens what is going on in the world, rather than reporting where Paris Hilton's chihuahua decided to defecate, it is doing it's job.

Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Information means that we the people get to see what our government does. It means that the PEOPLE who are in our government are held accountable for their actions.

I firmly think that if you want to live some place where newspapers are censored and where the government decides what is good for you, that you go to Iran, or the Russia or some place like it. You don't like losing your freedoms? Then don't give this one up so easily.

Alison

_____________________________

"Science is a lot like sex. Sometimes something useful comes of it, but that's not the reason we're doing it." (Richard Feynman)

Blog: http://antidomme.sensualwriter.com

Post #: 1

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/14/2009 6:45:47 AM

colouredin

Posts: 4279
Joined: 2/2/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fungasm

I firmly think that if you want to live some place where newspapers are censored and where the government decides what is good for you, that you go to Iran, or the Russia or some place like it. You don't like losing your freedoms? Then don't give this one up so easily.

Newspapers have never really been giving us facts though have they, they are commercial to sell money, celebrety sells. Even when a newspaper does report world events they are sensationalised and contain manipulation and opinion. This hasnt ever changed.

_____________________________

Resident Lime(y) Tart
There would be no gossip without secrets
I don't want to be anything other than what I've been trying to be lately

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELvfMJoKDAk

(in reply to fungasm)

Post #: 2

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/14/2009 7:10:41 AM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fungasm

I've had it up to *here* with the trampling of civil liberties

Might want to buy a snorkel, then. The end of our political spectrum that thinks censorship is a good thing is about to be in complete control of the executive and legislative branches of government. Can you say, "Fairness Doctrine?"

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to fungasm)

Post #: 3

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/14/2009 7:19:04 AM

UncleNasty

Posts: 1108
Joined: 3/20/2004
Status: offline

I understand your gripe.

It has been decided in federal courts in Florida that the media is under no obligation to report the truth.

I use the internet myself. More information to digest and cover, and sometimes harder for me to decide what I think and feel the truth is, but at least I have the source.

Uncle Nasty

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 4

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/14/2009 7:39:45 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Might want to buy a snorkel, then. The end of our political spectrum that thinks censorship is a good thing is about to be in complete control of the executive and legislative branches of government. Can you say, "Fairness Doctrine?"

How exactly does the Fairness Doctrine promote censorship?

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 5

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/14/2009 7:42:03 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

~FR~

I know this won't wash with many of you, but newspapers haven't suddenly gone downhill. They've always been a partisan, biased mess--including the press Thomas Jefferson trusted more than government.

Rich, I don't understand your censorship comment. All administrations try to control the press, and Bush/Cheney certainly did, often to levels we haven't seen for a while. For six of those years, the same party controlled Congress.

And yes, Freedom of Speech means freedom to say your piece. Accuracy not required.

As Don Hewitt once observed in The Wall Street Journal, "the problem [people have with news reporting] isn't that the news is biased, but that it isn't biased their way."

We have a range of newspapers, from The Christian Science Monitor to The Washington Post, along with several rags and bloggers of widely varying skill and credibility. It all belongs--let the reader choose.

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 1/14/2009 7:44:01 AM >

(in reply to UncleNasty)

Post #: 6

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/14/2009 7:46:04 AM

kittinSol

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

Bingo - people will always whine against newspapers, but it's a wonderful thing that newspapers still manage to irritate so many: it's evidence that the press is doing its job properly.

_____________________________

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Post #: 7

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/14/2009 9:01:47 AM

Hippiekinkster

Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Might want to buy a snorkel, then. The end of our political spectrum that thinks censorship is a good thing is about to be in complete control of the executive and legislative branches of government. Can you say, "Fairness Doctrine?"

How exactly does the Fairness Doctrine promote censorship?

It doesn't. The right hates the Fairness Doctrine because, if enacted, they would no longer have a monopoly on official truth.

_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 8

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/14/2009 12:42:41 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

The problem is implementing the fairness doctrine. This is more than agreeing to sell equal airtime to democrats and republicans. It's just another one of those things that seem so good in theory, but in reality are practically unworkable.

T

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)

Post #: 9

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/14/2009 1:55:29 PM

thornhappy

Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline

We had it up to 1987, did it not work then?

And I found an interesting detail as part of a Wiki page:

"Do not confuse this with the separate Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with matters of public importance and has no specific equal-time requirement. The Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates. In American political discourse, these two policies are sometimes falsely conflated."

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 10

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/14/2009 2:13:26 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: colouredin

they are commercial to sell money

Absolutely true. Even the most liberal of newspapers, e.g. The Guardian and The Independent, will not report the worst excesses of the British government. People don't want to read about some of the things that are done in our name. It is left to marginalised sources, which is exactly why they're marginalised. The uncomfortable truth isn't palatable.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to colouredin)

Post #: 11

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/14/2009 2:22:56 PM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

The end of our political spectrum that thinks censorship is a good thing is about to be in complete control of the executive and legislative branches of government. Can you say, "Fairness Doctrine?"

...disingenuous TH. Censorship is the state (or other body) demanding that some information must not be broadcast. Say, the actions of the State of Turkey regarding the Armenian Genocide. The Fairness Doctrine at no point says that a given viewpoint can not be broadcast. It's the equivilant of that smallprint on the investment adverts (the value of your policy may go up or down). It's just a caveat that suggests that Rush Limbaugh might not be wholly accurate.
Neither, as other posters have pointed out, is it an equal time doctrine. All it is, is a regulation that says propaganda (from all viewpoints) ought to be marked as such, and that the existence of other valid viewpoints must be acknowledged.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 12

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/14/2009 2:58:27 PM

Evility

Posts: 915
Joined: 12/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
How exactly does the Fairness Doctrine promote censorship?

Those wishing for a return to the fairness doctrine want to reinstate it simply to stifle conservative talk radio formats. They aren't really interested in their own points being made or having equal time. They hate the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and Boortz and want them removed from the airwaves.

This next point involves basic capitalism which is why liberals do not understand it. Radio stations are businesses. They are in business to make money and they carry programming that attracts listeners. If you develop radio shows that center on the liberal point of view that will generate ratings and attract listeners and advertising dollars radio stations across the dial would be foolish not to entertain airing those shows. I'm aware of no law that prohibits production of said show. It's not radio's fault if nobody wants to listen. This "monopoly on official truth" pablum is nonsense. The aforementioned shows are on the air because people want to listen to them. Al Franken tanked on Air America because nobody cared.

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 13

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/14/2009 3:39:38 PM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evility
Those wishing for a return to the fairness doctrine want to reinstate it simply to stifle conservative talk radio formats.

...no i don't. i rather like a universe where everyone has a voice, not just the ones who say things i agree with. However, i also don't like a universe where the only voices are those i disagree with. i'm greedy, i want both.

quote:

They hate the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and Boortz and want them removed from the airwaves.

.....well, i don't like them, that's true......but i don't want them off-air either. Back in the day, back in the UK, when i was but a callow youth i was part of an anti-racist group. i argued then, and continue to do so today, that we must not seek to stop our opponents from speaking. We want them to be heard....because only then can dialogue begin.

Hope this clears up where i'm coming from for ya

< Message edited by philosophy -- 1/14/2009 3:40:51 PM >

(in reply to Evility)

Post #: 14

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/14/2009 5:04:43 PM

ArizonaSunSwitch

Posts: 205
Joined: 11/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evility

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
How exactly does the Fairness Doctrine promote censorship?

Those wishing for a return to the fairness doctrine want to reinstate it simply to stifle conservative talk radio formats. They aren't really interested in their own points being made or having equal time. They hate the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and Boortz and want them removed from the airwaves.

This next point involves basic capitalism which is why liberals do not understand it. Radio stations are businesses. They are in business to make money and they carry programming that attracts listeners. If you develop radio shows that center on the liberal point of view that will generate ratings and attract listeners and advertising dollars radio stations across the dial would be foolish not to entertain airing those shows. I'm aware of no law that prohibits production of said show. It's not radio's fault if nobody wants to listen. This "monopoly on official truth" pablum is nonsense. The aforementioned shows are on the air because people want to listen to them. Al Franken tanked on Air America because nobody cared.

They understand capitalism just fine. They understand that under the fairness doctrine it will not be economically viable to have political talk shows. Their supporters on the other hand, either like the idea of there being no conservative talk radio or are too dim to understand the connection.

What they don't understand is that Rush in all likely hood will still be viable even if radio stations have to give 3 hours to some Obama sycophant. They'll be handing him the entire market, at least until he has some kind of fatal accident.

(in reply to Evility)

Post #: 15

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/14/2009 5:08:23 PM

ArizonaSunSwitch

Posts: 205
Joined: 11/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evility
Those wishing for a return to the fairness doctrine want to reinstate it simply to stifle conservative talk radio formats.

...no i don't. i rather like a universe where everyone has a voice, not just the ones who say things i agree with. However, i also don't like a universe where the only voices are those i disagree with. i'm greedy, i want both.

quote:

They hate the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and Boortz and want them removed from the airwaves.

.....well, i don't like them, that's true......but i don't want them off-air either. Back in the day, back in the UK, when i was but a callow youth i was part of an anti-racist group. i argued then, and continue to do so today, that we must not seek to stop our opponents from speaking. We want them to be heard....because only then can dialogue begin.

Hope this clears up where i'm coming from for ya

Excuse me, if you want the other view you can turn on any TV news station or pick up any urban area paper and be exposed to whatever bs the leftists want you to believe. Of course, the fairness doctrine won't apply to them. Hell, in Connecticut the government is talking about bailing out the state based newspapers. Pravda Northeast.

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 16

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/14/2009 6:11:21 PM

corysub

Posts: 1492
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fungasm

I've had it up to *here* with the trampling of civil liberties in the name of "National Security." That is bullshit. The news is there to report the NEWS. When newspapers like the New York Times tells citizens what is going on in the world, rather than reporting where Paris Hilton's chihuahua decided to defecate, it is doing it's job.

Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Information means that we the people get to see what our government does. It means that the PEOPLE who are in our government are held accountable for their actions.

I firmly think that if you want to live some place where newspapers are censored and where the government decides what is good for you, that you go to Iran, or the Russia or some place like it. You don't like losing your freedoms? Then don't give this one up so easily.

Alison

"Freedom of the Press" is not the issue when you cite agenda driven editorials shabbily disguised as news. What is the issue is the right of all Americans to have national secrets aimed at protecting and defending the country continue in covert actions and top secret documents available only to those with a need to know. In a democracy, we elect representatives of our views to Congress and to the White House. If we are unhappy as a nation and desire "change" we have elections in November to peacefully, and hoepfully, accomplish that "change" or we vote for another change in two more years.
It is the "right" of a free press in our country to tell the truth..."all the news that's fit to print"...not all the news that can be slanted for a particular agenda, editorials disguised as news, and making themselves the news by exposing secret activities to not only the nation but to our enemies as well...and jepardize my family and my way of life for the sake of that agenda. This is truly horrendous because the New York Times is exposing lives of people who are working in a clandestine mission for the country. Pardon me, but I don't want to put my trust in the ability of reporters trying to win that phony Pulitzer Prize and sell a book take the responsibility to publish an essay on our intelligence activities. Unless someone is completely unaware, all the senior members of Congress are kept informed of important activities from "water boarding" to achieving a method to cripple nuclear plants in Iran.

The New York Times publishing this recent piece publishing leaks of our efforts to somehow render the Iranian nuclear plants incapable of working properly is traitorous..Rousing their liberal minions to demand the immediate closing of Gitmo, and yet not know what to do with the 200plus terrorists who want only to kill us, is stupidity personified.
This is not printing "truth" which is the basis of a free press in our country, it is fertilizer nuturing the stupidity of the extreme and very vocal left. Leftists have always been "full of sound and fury" but no answers, huffing and puffing withhout having to ever take responsiblity for actions. It is not surprising that the liberal press has lost touch with reality and the dangers we face in the world this day. Thankfully, by way of stupidity or just defaulting on their responsibility to print the truth, these papers, led by the NY Times are going bankrupt. It seems obvious you can't build a business model with a public disinterested in your product.

(in reply to fungasm)

Post #: 17

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/14/2009 8:09:08 PM

thornhappy

Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline

Cory, you do know that the NYT broke Whitewater (and proceeded to flog it to death for 7 years), covered all the "gates" (Travelgate, etc.), and beat the war drum (with another leftist rag, the Washington Post)...along with giving Bush more favorable coverage than Gore in 2000. Right?

(in reply to corysub)

Post #: 18

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/15/2009 12:29:44 AM

Vendaval

Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline

Thank you for bringing this point up, thorny.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
"Do not confuse this with the separate Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with matters of public importance and has no specific equal-time requirement. The Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates. In American political discourse, these two policies are sometimes falsely conflated."

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE

http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to thornhappy)

Post #: 19

RE: Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information - 1/15/2009 2:35:43 AM

corysub

Posts: 1492
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

Cory, you do know that the NYT broke Whitewater (and proceeded to flog it to death for 7 years), covered all the "gates" (Travelgate, etc.), and beat the war drum (with another leftist rag, the Washington Post)...along with giving Bush more favorable coverage than Gore in 2000. Right?

And your point about a fraudulent land deal by greedy people in Arkansas is? You totally miss it dontcha...It's not a question of left or right politics when it comes to the safety and security of the United States, the exposure of sensitive covert actions that do nothing to change our lives but everything to give a benefit to those who would love to destroy us. We are talking about the New York Times continually "outing" sensitive work that destroy the effectiveness of important actions, for example, the most recent publishing of secret work to try to erode the quality of the Iranian nuclear program by using technology instead of bunker busting bombs as Israel (and me) would have preferred. How is exposing this program in the public service?

How was it in the public interest for the Times to publish Bush's domestic spying program and another secret program by the Treasury Department that tracks private bank records. We were following the money going to terrorist groups and our intellligence community was cut off at the knees by the Times..not to mention the impact of morale of intelligence officers who were working their asses of to protect you and me. As was reported at the time, this program was evidently key to the capture of one of the world’s most formidable terrorists. Riduan bin Isamuddin, better known as “Hambali” — the critical link between al Qaeda and its Indonesian affiliate, Jemaah Islamiya, and thus at the center of the 2002 Bali bombing in which 202 people were slaughtered

How was public interest served by disclosing an effective and highly classified intelligence program that is legal and properly overseen by Congress and the executive branch. As I said previously, ALL major intel programs are made known to Congressional oversight committee's..you are aware of this oversight I assume. My guess is that is where all the leaks come from ...underachievers working in our government motivated by an irrational personal hatred for George Bush and care less about the risk to the country by these revelations.

I can cite numerous other instances where the Times has played "decider" in whittling away at important programs, in addition to the "war against the war" while men and women were being killed on the battlefield. I don't think even Alexander Hamilton would be able to defend Keller as he did Peter Zenger.

As far as the New York Times more favorable treatment of George Bush versus Al Gore...gimme a break! If you call reporting on Gore's secret meetings with Sharpton and keeping the press out of the loop...dern, I guess your right.

P.S.
You were spot on in your description of the Washington Post....

< Message edited by corysub -- 1/15/2009 2:40:00 AM >

(in reply to thornhappy)

Post #: 20

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Freedom of the Press | Freedom of Information

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109