Adam Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Now we all know that the Constitution gives the right of freedom of the press. Now, here's my dillema- when does the media stop being the press (as intended by the Constitution. It seems that many want to just stir up controversy, entertain, and politicize everything. I don't feel that doing this reports pertinent information in an unbiased manner, and is worthy of those freedoms. I'm sure that I'll see many similar and differing views on this, and look forward to your thoughts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Now we all know that the Constitution gives the right of freedom of the press. Now, here's my dillema- when does the media stop being the press (as intended by the Constitution. It seems that many want to just stir up controversy, entertain, and politicize everything. I don't feel that doing this reports pertinent information in an unbiased manner, and is worthy of those freedoms. I'm sure that I'll see many similar and differing views on this, and look forward to your thoughts! 604541[/snapback] Who says it has to be unbiased?... For the first part (and better part) of our history, this (red) is exactly what happened. Again... Seems with all our media choices nowadays, America is returning to its past. A past where people WERE EXPECTED to take sides. Unbiased reporting is a relatively new (within the last century) concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cripes Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Your dillemma solved: The press is anything that's written. Speech is anything that's said. "Congress shall make no law"...case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 16, 2006 Author Share Posted February 16, 2006 Your dillemma solved: The press is anything that's written. Speech is anything that's said. "Congress shall make no law"...case closed. 604566[/snapback] Ok, what do you think about the visciousness of the media- its never been this bad. Also, I think the intent was to get pertinent information out there- nothing else. Pretty much to prevent cover ups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Ok, what do you think about the visciousness of the media- its never been this bad. Also, I think the intent was to get pertinent information out there- nothing else. Pretty much to prevent cover ups. 604612[/snapback] 1) Never been this bad? I suggest you do some further research and base your argument less on off-the-cuff emotion of MEDIA BAD! Can anyone say 'idealized past'? If you don't like it, you are well within your rights to turn off the radio, disconnect the Internet, unsubscribe from your newspaper, dismantle your satelite dish and live in a cave. Save for some classic rock stations and the Internet (which is getting harder and harder to justify spending $15/month), I'm almost there myself. 2) You think it was just meant to bust up conspiracies. Well, hell, let's just go ahead and change the Constitution then! 3) Whether they are "worthy of those freedoms"? WTF is this crap? Let me don the headgear of Karnak the Magnificent.... You believe that certain of media outlets are worthy, while certain of others are not. 4) Just like the Islamics burning, killing, rioting over a fecking cartoon, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 16, 2006 Author Share Posted February 16, 2006 1) Never been this bad? I suggest you do some further research and base your argument less on off-the-cuff emotion of MEDIA BAD! Can anyone say 'idealized past'? If you don't like it, you are well within your rights to turn off the radio, disconnect the Internet, unsubscribe from your newspaper, dismantle your satelite dish and live in a cave. Save for some classic rock stations and the Internet (which is getting harder and harder to justify spending $15/month), I'm almost there myself. 2) You think it was just meant to bust up conspiracies. Well, hell, let's just go ahead and change the Constitution then! 3) Whether they are "worthy of those freedoms"? WTF is this crap? Let me don the headgear of Karnak the Magnificent.... You believe that certain of media outlets are worthy, while certain of others are not. 4) Just like the Islamics burning, killing, rioting over a fecking cartoon, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED!!!!!!! 604618[/snapback] Well, first off, I feel THEY have changed the constitution. The media is not here for ratings, or to entertain us. The founders of our country did not write the Constitution to create a country of entertainment....not to say that entertainment shouldn't exist, but civil liberties are too importantto be afforded for that purpose. The Government should NEVER be allowed to impede vital information from getting out, unless it would be harmful for that information to get out (and they shouldn't have to prevent that from leaking- the media should know well enough to do that themselves.) I think that last statement sums up my views- the media should sart being smarter, report the facts, and stop being the second coming of the porpaganda machine. I think better education would help as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 1) Never been this bad? I suggest you do some further research and base your argument less on off-the-cuff emotion of MEDIA BAD! Can anyone say 'idealized past'? If you don't like it, you are well within your rights to turn off the radio, disconnect the Internet, unsubscribe from your newspaper, dismantle your satelite dish and live in a cave. Save for some classic rock stations and the Internet (which is getting harder and harder to justify spending $15/month), I'm almost there myself. 604618[/snapback] I think it depends on your definition of "bad". Their partisanship, I think, is uncommon but not unprecedented. Their "But we're the press!" whining and bitching, on the other hand, I can't think of a historical precedent for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Well, first off, I feel THEY have changed the constitution. The media is not here for ratings, or to entertain us. The founders of our country did not write the Constitution to create a country of entertainment....not to say that entertainment shouldn't exist, but civil liberties are too importantto be afforded for that purpose. The Government should NEVER be allowed to impede vital information from getting out, unless it would be harmful for that information to get out (and they shouldn't have to prevent that from leaking- the media should know well enough to do that themselves.) I think that last statement sums up my views- the media should sart being smarter, report the facts, and stop being the second coming of the porpaganda machine. I think better education would help as well! 605244[/snapback] The only propaganda the media proffers is in the service of those who support it: i.e. the advertisers. As soon as citizens en masse stop watching and start making their own decisions, and make it clear to business that they can't be bought with sensationalism and pandering, it will stop. In the meantime, most people complain about the liberal media or Fox News but they'll leave one or the other on -- claiming that "at least it's better than Brand X" -- instead of researching the issues on their own, reading a book, taking a course, etc. We are educated by the media because most are too lazy to look deeper or too conditioned to believe that the major channels of information are the best / most reliable. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it till I'm blue in the face. Look who controls the media. Mega-mega-mega corporations like GE, Disney, Viacom. These are not all liberal companies with liberal causes. At the ground level operations there may be more left-leaning reporters, writers, etc. There may not. But in any case, if any of them fail to serve the interests of their employers, which are primarily economic, they won't make it. Right now it's believed a Lowest Common Denominator approach works and that for the distracted media consumer, simply getting that consumer's attention in the service of advertising is paramount. Less to do with politics and mostly to do with business and self-preservation. Not that any of this has anything to do with the unchecked consolidation of media across all platforms and the virtual elimination of localized media. There is hope that the web can open up these issues... we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 I think it depends on your definition of "bad". Their partisanship, I think, is uncommon but not unprecedented. Their "But we're the press!" whining and bitching, on the other hand, I can't think of a historical precedent for. 605268[/snapback] And let me state that my opinion on them is this- they can print what they want, but should be afforded no special privileges. I would just hope that education will take a stand, and do more t promote critical thinking, so people will judge things based on their own merit, not nased on hearing the same thing over and over, then parrotting it mindlessly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it till I'm blue in the face. Look who controls the media. Mega-mega-mega corporations like GE, Disney, Viacom. These are not all liberal companies with liberal causes. At the ground level operations there may be more left-leaning reporters, writers, etc. There may not. But in any case, if any of them fail to serve the interests of their employers, which are primarily economic, they won't make it. Right now it's believed a Lowest Common Denominator approach works and that for the distracted media consumer, simply getting that consumer's attention in the service of advertising is paramount. Not that any of this has anything to do with the unchecked consolidation of media across all platforms and the virtual elimination of localized media. There is hope that the web can open up these issues... we'll see. 605277[/snapback] Who said anything about the left- Rush Limbaugh and Randy Savage are as bad as anyone. Its not about political affiliation, its about spinning and using facts to spread propaganda, and try to get people to believe absolutes- which seldom exist in reality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Who said anything about the left- Rush Limbaugh and Randy Savage are as bad as anyone. Its not about political affiliation, its about spinning and using facts to spread propaganda, and try to get people to believe absolutes- which seldom exist in reality 605298[/snapback] "OOOOOOHH YEAH! SNAP INTO A SLIM JIM!!!! MACHO MAN!!!!" (You probably meant Michael Savage who, somehow, comes off as less intelligent than a pro wrestler.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 "OOOOOOHH YEAH! SNAP INTO A SLIM JIM!!!! MACHO MAN!!!!" (You probably meant Michael Savage who, somehow, comes off as less intelligent than a pro wrestler.) 605315[/snapback] Just seeing if anyone would notice that I slipped that in.....nice job! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 My impression of the MSM: "Oooh, look! A shiny metal thing!!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Who said anything about the left- Rush Limbaugh and Randy Savage are as bad as anyone. Its not about political affiliation, its about spinning and using facts to spread propaganda, and try to get people to believe absolutes- which seldom exist in reality 605298[/snapback] I think the "propaganda" statement generally implies a political affiliation or cause, and there's a lot of banter about the "liberal media" out there. Didn't necessarily mean to attribute that to you, though. Sorry. I gotta admit, the "Macho Man" joke was funny though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 I think the "propaganda" statement generally implies a political affiliation or cause, and there's a lot of banter about the "liberal media" out there. Didn't necessarily mean to attribute that to you, though. Sorry. I gotta admit, the "Macho Man" joke was funny though... 605325[/snapback] The thing is- I don't think the conservative or liberal majorities are represented by the views their media spews. I have heard somegood points made by both sides, and seldom hear that from the talking heads. To be honest, the longer the spew continues, the weaker the democratic party will become- remember- they are looking to regain power, and the spew maing them look bad has a far greater impact. The thing is, too many will just vote for anything not republican, which is sad. Our country is better of with them as a more viable option than they currently are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 And let me state that my opinion on them is this- they can print what they want, but should be afforded no special privileges. 605295[/snapback] I think the current administration has at least generally approached the issue with the proper attitude[/] (though implementation, as usual, I find lacking): they were never democratically chosen by the people to be representatives of the people, they appointed themselves representatives of the people, ergo they are not representatives of the people and should not be treated as such. (And furthermore...like most self-appointed "enlightened" representatives of the people and their interests, they only have their own interests in mind and could care less about those they supposedly represent.) The root of the problem, I believe, goes back to Watergate and the media's discovery that they can exercise real power and push their own agendas (which I know is somewhat of an idealized interpretation on my part...Murrow never exercised saintly objectivity either. So !@#$ing sue me.) But the media, I think, no longer sees it as their responsibility to simply report the story. They see it as their responsibility to report the story in the "proper" context..."proper" being defined, of course, by them. "Here is the news...and here's how you're supposed to feel about it." Murrow may not have been saintly objective...but I never recall him elevating his opinions to the level of actual facts either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 The root of the problem, I believe, goes back to Watergate and the media's discovery that they can exercise real power and push their own agendas (which I know is somewhat of an idealized interpretation on my part...Murrow never exercised saintly objectivity either. So !@#$ing sue me.) But the media, I think, no longer sees it as their responsibility to simply report the story. They see it as their responsibility to report the story in the "proper" context..."proper" being defined, of course, by them. "Here is the news...and here's how you're supposed to feel about it." Murrow may not have been saintly objective...but I never recall him elevating his opinions to the level of actual facts either. 605367[/snapback] I think they go beond that- they want to CREATE the story, and they want to go after those they dont like, and dig things up- even if there is no reason to look Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I think they go beond that- they want to CREATE the story, and they want to go after those they dont like, and dig things up- even if there is no reason to look 605385[/snapback] As I said...Watergate. Which is not to denigrate the Watergate reporting itself...that was good investigative reporting. But everyone's been trying to find the "next Watergate" since (which is why everything has to be suffixed with "-gate" nowadays), and completely ignoring the fact that not everything is Watergate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 As I said...Watergate. Which is not to denigrate the Watergate reporting itself...that was good investigative reporting. But everyone's been trying to find the "next Watergate" since (which is why everything has to be suffixed with "-gate" nowadays), and completely ignoring the fact that not everything is Watergate. 605391[/snapback] Bingo. The "Watergate Syndrome" as I like to call it won't disappear until the boomer generation is dead and gone and absent fromt he media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Can you say "The 4th Estate"? They have been passing themselves off as the forth branch of the government since the Kennedy era, when JFK used them to treat him and show him almost as royalty to the people. Even if he and his family were the scum of the earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts