Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 258/937
(24-Apr-2003 at 09:42)
The media

I agree with free press but don't you think the media has too much freedom.

The cure for stupidity is ... ah never mind it will attract too many warning points
#1  
View Public Profile Find more posts by treason keep Add treason keep to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 191/1675
(24-Apr-2003 at 12:16)


it didnt have enough freedom in the war..

overall i think its fine - the media is more or less the only thing that can 'control' the government, so the more freedom the merrier

"Observers worldwide have been expressing great pity for the people of Gaza [...] This pity may be a natural emotional reaction, yet it is unethical and immoral." - Adi Dvir, Ynetnews editor
#2  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Peppie Add Peppie to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Steiger)
Posts: 335/381
(24-Apr-2003 at 12:23)


It depends if the media are taking advantage of their freedom by twisting the news article into putting forward their own view\slant and not being objective about it all.

How do you know she's a Witch?
#3  
View Public Profile Visit Steigere's homepage Find more posts by Steigere Add Steigere to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Old lmc
Posts: 232/1208
(24-Apr-2003 at 13:16)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Steiger)

It depends if the media are taking advantage of their freedom by twisting the news article into putting forward their own view\slant and not being objective about it all.
All media is subjective. It is events interpreted and relyed to us by others. It cannot come to us without the imprint of the journalists and editors who select what is important for us to know and how it is presented.

This only becomes a problem when there is little or no intention to portray the reality, or where the intent is to mislead or to present only a particular viewpoint. In this regard I would find Al Jazeera's understandable Arab bias reasonable while Fox's sensationalising of US achievements and ignoring the reality of war for Iraqi's is quite disturbing.

Freedom of the press is about more than lack of Government restrictions. When a handful of mega-corporations and individuals are allowed to contol virtually all mass media, only their agendas can prosper. The US does not have a free media.

Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.

Groucho Marx
http://tangenitaldrunkeness.blogspot...ac22c48044bdd8
#4  
View Public Profile Visit lmc's homepage Find more posts by lmc Add lmc to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Crazed)
Posts: 234/408
Donated $0.56
(24-Apr-2003 at 13:51)
Re: The media

Quote:
(Originally posted by treason keep)

I agree with free press but don't you think the media has too much freedom.
What do you mean. If the media defame's someone they are sued. The media is their to inform us. Sure it is opioniotive, but thats the only way they are going to get people to respond to it.
#5  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Blur Add Blur to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 230/1474
(24-Apr-2003 at 16:35)
Media is a scary tool that can destroy a person or destroy a valid cause when one make one silly mistake and thats it.
And we dun knows the exact borders and limits where they can go...coz we dun really know whether the correct report will have a good implications.

forget about it...it is really dumb whether people will ever read it...
#6  
View Public Profile Find more posts by peipoh Add peipoh to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 186/759
(24-Apr-2003 at 16:49)


There should be strict rules on who can own mass media. No one person or organisation should have a controlling share in more than one national media organisation. I would consider that one organisation owning a national Television broadcaster, a national paper and a national radio station as OK. Own more than one organisation in any of those area's should be strictly illegal. The same rules should apply to local media organisations where no one organisation can own more than one local media outlet per media stream. That would preserve diversity in the local, national and international media. My 2c.

I'm Mad As Hell And I'm Not Going To Take It Anymore!
#7  
View Public Profile Find more posts by PornDog Add PornDog to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as brandonc)
Posts: 362/2069
Donated $5.36
(24-Apr-2003 at 17:07)


Re: The media

Quote:
(Originally posted by treason keep)

I agree with free press but don't you think the media has too much freedom.
Not at all. Governments have too much freedom.

No Comment
#8  
View Public Profile Find more posts by BrandonC Add BrandonC to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Former Global Moderator)
Research Group
Posts: 659/5374
(24-Apr-2003 at 17:41)


Quote:
(Originally posted by PornDog)

There should be strict rules on who can own mass media. No one person or organisation should have a controlling share in more than one national media organisation. I would consider that one organisation owning a national Television broadcaster, a national paper and a national radio station as OK. Own more than one organisation in any of those area's should be strictly illegal. The same rules should apply to local media organisations where no one organisation can own more than one local media outlet per media stream. That would preserve diversity in the local, national and international media. My 2c.
Why make it illegal? Why get the gov't involved. Let them own as many media outlets as they want. Instead of complaining, go make your own media outlet. Do your own thing, don't get the gov't to regulate. There shouldn't be a rule, but if you don't like it, do your own.

The Kiowa swooped and banked hard in front of the car, firing three more shots through the front hood, the universal sign for “stop.”
There are two important rules for sucess in life.
1. Never tell anyone everything you know.
#9  
View Public Profile Visit Hawkeyekid's homepage Find more posts by Hawkeyekid Add Hawkeyekid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 144/382
(24-Apr-2003 at 22:32)


it's great that they have the freedom that they do but they need to get all the facts before reporting on a story.
#10  
View Public Profile Find more posts by silverbeam Add silverbeam to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 169/261
(24-Apr-2003 at 22:54)
Quote:
(Originally posted by lmc)
This only becomes a problem when there is little or no intention to portray the reality
and that becomes a major problem when people start to rely on one source.

We have alot of major world wide media companys, all you have to do is watch/read a variety and you generally get an accurate view. I've seen in our natinal media one major story presented one way, and than a nother news channel to sideline it and then another to present it another way. I have my favourite news channels but try and watch a variety, if I have time.

The media should be as free as they like. If they make damaging claims against indivduals than they sometimes have to back it up in court. They are a good balancing force, even if I worshipped the goverment, I would still want someone to critise them.
#11  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Phoneix Add Phoneix to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 401/2426
(24-Apr-2003 at 22:59)


What I dont like with today's media is than they are more interested in making big money than really informing people. Hnece come sensationalism like Quebecor media here in Québec and Fox News in America (And CNN at a lesser extent) because sensationalism SELLS! Check out the "intelelctual newpapper" : barely anyone buy them. It's all a matter of making money : Higly detailled articles with little to no photos wont sell your newpapper. The companies are only offering what the peopel want to have. The info is they're : its up to you to go search for it. With the Internet you can access to virtually any point of view now.

Check out Quebecor philosophy for eg, its taken from their website:
Quote:
To set itself apart from the competition in Montreal’s hotly contested newspaper market and become the largest French-language daily in North America (which it remains to this day), Le Journal de Montréal tested an innovative format and content, publishing in the morning seven days a week, carrying no editorials, an abundance of photos, and strong local and sports coverage.
http://www.quebecor.com/htmen/0_0/0_3_2_2.asp

They do it this way (sensationalist) because thats what SELLS!

If you dont like a product (media in this case), boycott it. If enough people do it, the media will change its way or they will go bankrupt. Money is power.. a company with no customer is a dead company.

I think than the governement should only stop hainous propaganda and than it should do anything in its power when it believe than a media inst being unjust for a given issue (I mean by that than the media is telling obvious lies) to give an alternative point of view to the population, without controlling the media (excepted state owned TV... here state owned TV is BY FAR the highest quality media I think)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - American Declaration of Independance, July 4th, 1776
#12  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Jean831112 Add Jean831112 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 11/14
(24-Apr-2003 at 23:24)
Quote:
Why make it illegal? Why get the gov't involved. Let them own as many media outlets as they want. Instead of complaining, go make your own media outlet. Do your own thing, don't get the gov't to regulate. There shouldn't be a rule, but if you don't like it, do your own.
The thing about corporations is that they are like a cockroach infestation... if you don't squish 'em, they get so out of hand that they drive YOU out. The free-market is a great thing, and you get alot of benefits from the corporations competing with each other- but that only lasts until the piranha's start to grow. Then you get less good stuff, more corruption.... yeah . Its all about the whack-a-mole.
#13  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Rhuarc Add Rhuarc to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 123/280
(24-Apr-2003 at 23:34)


Media are not objective in those things the so called "editorial line" of the owners marks. Hence, you can have owners behind this or thata party that will say "our paper goes with this" or "our paper goes with that". This, sadly, can be applied to any other kind of new other than directly related to politics. It is kind of thing like if you say "ilegal immigrants rise crime" just because the proportion of ilegal immigrants that can not get a decent job is big and so on. It´s all an extension of propaganda if the press wants. However, I being scientist, I have the press for a low job, they have commited such errors when publishing about science... (at least in my country)

This post does not exist.- Someone you know is One of Us. - FNORD!
#14  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Illuminatus 1st Add Illuminatus 1st to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 23/34
(25-Apr-2003 at 00:28)
then only time that i think free press should ever be stunted is if it involves national security and the safety of the american people...my opinion on war time journalism is that i dont think that we need play by play broadcasting of every casualty and every building that is blown up i remember cursing the media at times for going to far in to these categories just to sell their show

i also dont believe that people should be able to be slandered in the media and i believe that the media should give an as unbiased view as possible to the people.
#15  
View Public Profile Find more posts by joekndll Add joekndll to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 17/447
(25-Apr-2003 at 00:51)


So . . . you propose that to free the media, we more tightly regulate the media. Just gettin' it straight.
#16  
View Public Profile Find more posts by alx310 Add alx310 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 187/759
(25-Apr-2003 at 17:12)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Hawkeyekid)
Why make it illegal? Why get the gov't involved. Let them own as many media outlets as they want. Instead of complaining, go make your own media outlet. Do your own thing, don't get the gov't to regulate. There shouldn't be a rule, but if you don't like it, do your own.
The problem is that in an established duopoly (or triopoly) it becomes nigh on impossible for new and independent outlets to establish themselves. Those that do quickly get swallowed up into the larger conglomerates. At the end of the day we have a small number of individuals (or corporations) that control what the vast majority of people see and read - thus they control what people think. This is the problem, this is why regulation of ownership and ensuring multiple voices are heard is of such major importance.

I'm Mad As Hell And I'm Not Going To Take It Anymore!
#17  
View Public Profile Find more posts by PornDog Add PornDog to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 170/261
(25-Apr-2003 at 17:59)
Quote:
(Originally posted by joekndll)
then only time that i think free press should ever be stunted is if it involves national security and the safety of the american people...my opinion on war time journalism is that i dont think that we need play by play broadcasting of every casualty and every building that is blown up i remember cursing the media at times for going to far in to these categories just to sell their show

i also dont believe that people should be able to be slandered in the media and i believe that the media should give an as unbiased view as possible to the people.
Who decides when its a threat to national secruity? It would defeat the point to give that kind of control to the goverment. You might one day have a goverment who really is fake/screws you over and decides it can't be reported because of 'national secruity' They are obvious limits, the war reporters didn't give their co-ordinates or anything, but that doesn't require any overall goverment control.

It would be very hard to give an unbiased view, do you think the western media could objectivly and with no bias talk about things they might find repulsive?
#18  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Phoneix Add Phoneix to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Belnick HaJ)
Posts: 540/1695
(25-Apr-2003 at 18:43)


I do, WAY to mutch

if I were a rich celeb, media ppl would be in grave danger

hate all the lies that is spread and all those paparatzis(spelling)
would prolly hire a hitman to have them killed

Within darkness comes enlightenment.
There is no god, there is no Devil, there is no heaven or Hell
STYX HaJ challenged Lord Hawk - He ran off

Last edited by Belnick the God, 25-Apr-2003 at 18:44.
#19  
View Public Profile Visit Belnick the God's homepage Find more posts by Belnick the God Add Belnick the God to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 225/1004
(25-Apr-2003 at 21:01)


Think about it in broader terms, people.

Quick statistic for you guys: in America, five corparations control aproximatley 95% of everything we're exposed to. And that goes well beyond the news. It includes the music you listen to, the TV shows that you like, movies, magazines, products...

I'd say the media has way too much power. They just make you think that they don't.

In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams
#20  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Erik64 Add Erik64 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 08:28.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.