Journalistic freedom

Journalistic freedom (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Greta75 -> Journalistic freedom (6/6/2016 10:16:01 PM)
I believe that, journalism should come with the responsibility of reporting the truth and only the truth. So while I don't believe in limiting journalistic freedom. But I believe that, journalists should be prosecuted IF any of their articles are found to be reporting untruth or embellishing the truth. Some kind of regulation of news media should be in place to make sure consumers get accurate information with no personal biastism from the journalist's personal point of view. Reporting should always be objective. What do ya think?

BamaD -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/6/2016 10:23:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 I believe that, journalism should come with the responsibility of reporting the truth and only the truth. So while I don't believe in limiting journalistic freedom. But I believe that, journalists should be prosecuted IF any of their articles are found to be reporting untruth or embellishing the truth. Some kind of regulation of news media should be in place to make sure consumers get accurate information with no personal biastism from the journalist's personal point of view. Reporting should always be objective. What do ya think? Who decides if it is embelished? This sounds like (Bill) Clintons proposal for a law to declare critisizng the govenment to be "hate speach" and made a Federal crime. You are opening a dangerous door. In this country you have a little problem called the 1st Amendment which you may have heard of and which would this would blatantly violate.

joether -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/6/2016 10:36:27 PM)
Jeez, Greta, your going to put FOX 'news' out of work. That and the whole right wing media! What will conservatives do, knowing all the information they are now receiving is factual and truthful? That all the stuff they have been led to believe over the pass twenty years have been a total lie? Like North Koreans when the information age reaches them! Back in the day.... Journalists were held to a high standard. One's reputation for searching out facts and presenting them to the American public was considered a duty and honor. Each wanting to be the next generation's Walter Cronkite. Mr. Cronkite gave the American people the facts. No sugar coating things either. He left his opinion out of the information. Which is unlike FOX 'news' anchors of today whom mix stories with 'conservative bullshit'. To have good journalists now and in the future requires a few things: A ) Some respectable journalists to teach the younger generations B ) More news agencies, rather than less c ) Require news companies to devote one hour during prime time for news information. Only facts. Opinions are left seperated.

Greta75 -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/6/2016 11:29:37 PM)
Not just Fox but MSNBC and New York Times etc. All sides should be held accountable. "Embellish" BamaD just means, if there is no evidence of truth. But just adding personal opinion into it. Personal opinions angle should be left in commentary sections only. And a disclaimer that it's just a personal opinion. But actual news should be based on solid facts only. Currently to get a more objective view on news, one has to read from various both left and right slanted media. To get the in between. It's frustrating sometimes when media mislead base on their own agenda.

BamaD -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/6/2016 11:47:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Not just Fox but MSNBC and New York Times etc. All sides should be held accountable. "Embellish" BamaD just means, if there is no evidence of truth. But just adding personal opinion into it. Personal opinions angle should be left in commentary sections only. And a disclaimer that it's just a personal opinion. But actual news should be based on solid facts only. Currently to get a more objective view on news, one has to read from various both left and right slanted media. To get the in between. It's frustrating sometimes when media mislead base on their own agenda. You may not have a problem with the government telling the press what they think are the facts, but I do. With your laws Nixon would have just told the press at the outset that he had no connection with Watergate then prosecuted anyone who tried to build a case against him. There would be no "scandels" because the press would be afriad to say anything against the government. Yes, we need more responsible journalists but we don't need to scrap the 1st Amendment which your suggestion would do. In 2008 some sheriffs in Mo threatened to go after any paper that said questionable thinks against Obama, to be safe they only said good things about him. Those sheriffs did not threaten to do anything about questionable articles about McCain. And don't forget Clinton's "hate speach" law where he included (among the things it would criminalize) representatives calling for smaller government and tax cuts. I don't want to live in that society. Joether, on the other hand, believes this can help assure that his will always have the upper hand. If there were conservatives where in charge he would see this as being as bad as I do. If you want to let the government decide what is and isn't the truth then you will love this idea, if not you will hate it.

Greta75 -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/6/2016 11:52:36 PM)
I don't know why "hate speech" is being brought into play. Reporting the truth is about not peppering things or keeping anything political correct anymore. I mean, if someone wrote, "All Muslims are terrorist". That is not factual but just an opinion, should be in commentary section. As actual facts alone is that not all Muslims are terrorist. But what are facts is, that, I can look at a Muslim and I cannot tell whether his an ISIS supporter or not and Which interpretation of Islam does he follow? Now those are undeniable facts. Some people may think they got x-ray vision to tell, or are mind readers, but I know I don't have it. If there is one thing I learn about Americans is this extreme distrust of the government to do anything with the right motive. But if the regulation is all about sticking to solid facts, and have some universally agreed guidelines on what constitute as facts, should safeguard against abuse. Everybody can follow the standard guidelines.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/7/2016 12:24:29 AM)
I've spoken on this, before: Reporters and news agencies *are* held accountable, when they commit libel. The issue is that public figures have less protection than average, every-day Joes. The biggest element of a libel case is: the offending words must be false. Let's start with that: " 'User X' is a racist". A pretty offensive statement, but, unfortunately an all-too common one, around here. If the alleged libeler can find one statement that can be twisted to prove that "User X" is, indeed a racist, the alleged libeler is in no trouble. the other element of libel is that the injured party has to prove that some damage has been done to them by the false statement. I don't care what level a person is at, that's a pretty tough element to prove. "Trump is a racist". Is that statement (whether true or not) going to cause him to lose his job? Hardly. He's a self-employed billionaire. You could make the argument that it will cost him a job he wants, but since voting is not a sure thing and there's no real way to prove how much affect that kind of thing had on the voting, he's out of luck. So, the alleged libelous statements have to be false (and demonstrably so) and they have to cause injury, also demonstrably. I will use my friend, BamaD, as an example. I'm writing a piece and I decide I want to include the fact that I saw BamaD getting on with his neighbor's wife. I have photos, but I'm the only one that knows that. BamaD's neighbor goes next-door beats the snot out of Bama. Bama gets a lawyer and charges me with "libel". I produce the photos. Even though Bama *was* injured, I'm not guilty because my piece was true (though, a pretty scummy move. I'll expand on this, in a bit). Same scenario, but I lose my photos somehow. We go to court and I can't produce evidence of Bama's indiscretion. I could, very easily, be found guilty. Journalist need to be almost completely unencumbered in order for our republic to work properly and to survive. Look at what happened a couple of years ago to Rosen from FOX. That was a fucking travesty, but no one has the balls to call Dumbo-Ears onto the carpet. What this government did to Rosen should have had heads, sitting on spikes on Pennsylvania Avenue, but the the lefties control the media and are nothing but a propaganda arm of the government, when the dems are in power. The issue is not legal accountability. The issue is integrity. There's an old news expression: "If it bleeds, it leads". Blood, chaos, etc. sell newspapers (or TV ratings). Blame Roone Arlidge who decided that news divisions should make money. Michael

WickedsDesire -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/7/2016 1:23:10 AM)
I usually quote the BBC and wiki and Frankenstein and from the book of muffins....and the book of shoe - been a long time since I quoth from that one. And I am not saying the first two are not biased at times. The "British press" has its own political slant. Bad. But nowhere near as bad as the American press. Some of the American press articles I have read through the links some of the users have posted on here are staggering; full of vitriol, and hatred, and bile and made up bumf. And ive seen many of you at each others throats at times and myself been footed off here and there myself via the medium or libel (and slander). It all full fills the criteria of libel as far as I am concerned. Sophistry at its finest. Here are some random, additional, examples. Immigrants take our jobs and welfare and healthcare & contribute nothing Guns do not kill people do. You need them to defend your house from crack heads, johnny foreigners, burglars, Martian invasion fleet. We promise to pay the deficit not to be confused with national debt. Climate change does not exist.

Staleek -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/7/2016 2:24:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Not just Fox but MSNBC and New York Times etc. Absolutely true that. While they aren't as bad as Fox those outlets definitely have a right-wing bias and their coverage reflects that. MSNBC in particular is a joke to journalism. The only decent news outlet I've come across in recent years was Al-Jazeera, ironically a news organization many won't trust. It's truly a bizarre world. The problem is that news isn't reported, news is manufactured and sanitized. When was the last time ANY news outlet east of Poland showed dead civilians after a drone strike? Or when was the last time you heard about the slave labor in the far east that produces goods for consumption in the West? When was the last time that any news outlet actually reported on global warming without getting some fruit-loop to deny it because of "balance"? Has anyone, particularly those reading this on a tablet or smartphone, even heard of Baotou? You'll get the occasional word of these things but it is little more than lip service to claim independence, the actual news on TV and reported by major news shows are crafted to both control public opinion and entertain enough to sell advertising space. So horseshit that few need worry about is made dramatic (Ebola, terrorism threats, Obamas birth certificate), whilst actual real threats which create problems and even take lives daily are completely ignored (guns, corruption, healthcare, welfare). I think a huge part of the problem is that news isn't about news - it's about business. News media is itself corporate, so expecting it to actually be honest and open in a completely corporate system is dumb. It needs to be non-profit and separate from the system, government, and free-market for it to be able to be trustworthy.

WhoreMods -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/7/2016 4:46:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 I don't know why "hate speech" is being brought into play. Because rightards always like to whine about laws against hate speech being used to control the press. It's more of the craving to play victim all of the time that they're noted for.

Termyn8or -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/7/2016 7:38:11 AM)
FR Fuck Snooze went to court and won the right to lie with impunity. That pretty much means all US media is allowed to lie with impunity. And why not ? The government lies all the time. Politicians lie all the time. Business lies all the time. Why do you think I don't listen to this bullshit anymore ? Why do you think a poll showed that people who watch no media are more informed than Fox viewers ? The media are useless in this country, except for a few local stories and they fuck that all up too. Want an example ? Some people I knew, fucked up people but not really bad. They hid their Mother's body for eight months after she died. Well Fuck Snooze said they did it for her social security checks, but they were caught with all of them UNCASHED. And that is despite the fact that the one had total power of attorney to cash them because she had become too infirm to sign them. I know why they did it, and their reasoning was unsound, actually pretty fucked up. But for the media to say they did it to collect her SS when they still had all the checks from the day she died uncashed is not responsible journalism. to say the least. The reason they did it is complicated as hell and though they thought they had a good reason, well it is not something I would do and I would do alot of things. Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see. T^T

MrRodgers -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/7/2016 7:39:05 AM)
In far too many cases journalistic freedom is an oxymoron. Too many places they can't go, too much they can't touch, national security ya'know. No more Watergates, too many celebrities that want to keep that status. Far too many areas the press (journalism) can't touch and far too few sources that can really go after power. It's going to get worse and it isn't ever going to get better. As for bias, that's just the normal course of everybody's take on the news or any subject at hand. For the ignorant...reinforcement for their own biases, for the informed, do their best to...weed out the bullshit. The obvious cause of an increasingly cynical view of the press and the plausibility that they are lying or government is...usually both. Oh and laws would fail...I think. You never know with this court and with only 8 supremes what's constitutional in one appeals court area, could be unconstitutional in another appeals court area.

WhoreMods -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/7/2016 2:21:19 PM)
I like the Fuck Snooze thing: I'd not heard that one before, but it's great. Have to remember it.

AtUrCervix -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/7/2016 5:45:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 I believe that, journalism should come with the responsibility of reporting the truth and only the truth. So while I don't believe in limiting journalistic freedom. But I believe that, journalists should be prosecuted IF any of their articles are found to be reporting untruth or embellishing the truth. Some kind of regulation of news media should be in place to make sure consumers get accurate information with no personal biastism from the journalist's personal point of view. Reporting should always be objective. What do ya think? Too many people believe that in the early 60's, news was reported truthfully...a "golden age". Those same people need to read a book. (At least one).

BamaD -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/7/2016 6:16:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 I don't know why "hate speech" is being brought into play. Because rightards always like to whine about laws against hate speech being used to control the press. It's more of the craving to play victim all of the time that they're noted for. No because Clinton wanted to use that claim to shut down any press source that criticized him.

BamaD -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/7/2016 9:40:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 I believe that, journalism should come with the responsibility of reporting the truth and only the truth. So while I don't believe in limiting journalistic freedom. But I believe that, journalists should be prosecuted IF any of their articles are found to be reporting untruth or embellishing the truth. Some kind of regulation of news media should be in place to make sure consumers get accurate information with no personal biastism from the journalist's personal point of view. Reporting should always be objective. What do ya think? If you look at Joether's first post you will see what is wrong with your sugestion. Too many people on both sides of the ailse see this as a means of silencing opposition because they realise that whoever is in charge of it gets to deciede what the truth is and what embelishment of the truth is. Thus no matter how well intentioned it ends up destroying the freedom of the press.

Termyn8or -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/7/2016 11:42:38 PM)
"What will conservatives do,..." Will you please stop calling them conservatives ? The word is neo-con. T^T

BamaD -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/7/2016 11:47:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Not just Fox but MSNBC and New York Times etc. Absolutely true that. While they aren't as bad as Fox those outlets definitely have a right-wing bias and their coverage reflects that. MSNBC in particular is a joke to journalism. The only decent news outlet I've come across in recent years was Al-Jazeera, ironically a news organization many won't trust. It's truly a bizarre world. The problem is that news isn't reported, news is manufactured and sanitized. When was the last time ANY news outlet east of Poland showed dead civilians after a drone strike? Or when was the last time you heard about the slave labor in the far east that produces goods for consumption in the West? When was the last time that any news outlet actually reported on global warming without getting some fruit-loop to deny it because of "balance"? Has anyone, particularly those reading this on a tablet or smartphone, even heard of Baotou? You'll get the occasional word of these things but it is little more than lip service to claim independence, the actual news on TV and reported by major news shows are crafted to both control public opinion and entertain enough to sell advertising space. So horseshit that few need worry about is made dramatic (Ebola, terrorism threats, Obamas birth certificate), whilst actual real threats which create problems and even take lives daily are completely ignored (guns, corruption, healthcare, welfare). I think a huge part of the problem is that news isn't about news - it's about business. News media is itself corporate, so expecting it to actually be honest and open in a completely corporate system is dumb. It needs to be non-profit and separate from the system, government, and free-market for it to be able to be trustworthy. The NYT and MSNBC are right wing? What do you consider left wing, Pravda.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/7/2016 11:47:20 PM)
Not only that Bama but you have that lovely piece of ex-Australian slime running a number of your newspapers now. you wouldn't believe it, but his grandfather was all for the working man and the diggers at Gallipolli and in the trenches in Flanders...................now take a close look at the Rupert Murdoch himself and the slugs and worms he employs. What a prize ersling

Staleek -> RE: Journalistic freedom (6/8/2016 3:35:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Not just Fox but MSNBC and New York Times etc. Absolutely true that. While they aren't as bad as Fox those outlets definitely have a right-wing bias and their coverage reflects that. MSNBC in particular is a joke to journalism. The only decent news outlet I've come across in recent years was Al-Jazeera, ironically a news organization many won't trust. It's truly a bizarre world. The problem is that news isn't reported, news is manufactured and sanitized. When was the last time ANY news outlet east of Poland showed dead civilians after a drone strike? Or when was the last time you heard about the slave labor in the far east that produces goods for consumption in the West? When was the last time that any news outlet actually reported on global warming without getting some fruit-loop to deny it because of "balance"? Has anyone, particularly those reading this on a tablet or smartphone, even heard of Baotou? You'll get the occasional word of these things but it is little more than lip service to claim independence, the actual news on TV and reported by major news shows are crafted to both control public opinion and entertain enough to sell advertising space. So horseshit that few need worry about is made dramatic (Ebola, terrorism threats, Obamas birth certificate), whilst actual real threats which create problems and even take lives daily are completely ignored (guns, corruption, healthcare, welfare). I think a huge part of the problem is that news isn't about news - it's about business. News media is itself corporate, so expecting it to actually be honest and open in a completely corporate system is dumb. It needs to be non-profit and separate from the system, government, and free-market for it to be able to be trustworthy. The NYT and MSNBC are right wing? What do you consider left wing, Pravda. http://www.independent.com/news/refugio-oil-spill/ http://www.theinertia.com/environment/shell-leaks-90000-gallons-of-oil-into-the-gulf-of-mexico/ Two major oil spills in the past month alone. Now please go and find me the left-leaning articles, or indeed any articles, covering these oil spills from the NYT or MSNBC. Here, I'll make it easy for you: http://www.msnbc.com/topics/shell-oil http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click&contentCollection®ion=TopBar&WT.nav=searchWidget&module=SearchSubmit&pgtype=Homepage#/shell/since1851/allresults/1/allauthors/newest/ I have seen this shit on MSNBC though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTbckbx7qSs

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875