Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,220 Year: 5,477/9,624 Month: 502/323 Week: 142/204 Day: 12/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can we regulate the news media
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 1 of 69 (687810)
01-16-2013 9:26 PM


I'm not sure if it is or isn't possible to pop something into the 'coffee house' forum without proposing it as a new topic, but I want this to be approved by admin before it goes to it's proper place, which could only be the coffee house IMO.
__________________________________
President Obama made this statement today, as part of his new gun control proposals;
quote:
"if there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try it."
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/...-new-gun-control-proposals
"Even one thing", and "we've got an obligation to try it" - seems to me that he's inviting more thought, inviting more suggestions, about some other, or even ~any~ other thing(s) that could be looked at to help "reduce this violence". (school / mass shootings)
Has no one in U.S. government, or Obama himself, ever wondered what role news media sensationalism plays in prolonging this type of violence? When the shooters picture is splashed all over the news, glorifying him in the minds of other sick people? When microphones are shoved in the faces of grieving people, often children, further glorifying the shooter in the minds of other sick people? Can anyone say that the "copycat" syndrome is totally absent from these recent shootings?
From the link above;
quote:
Some of the main legislative proposals backed by Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are:
* requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales, including private sales
* banning "military-style" assault weapons
* limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds
* strengthening penalties for gun trafficking
Why couldn't some other proposals to "reduce the violence" look like this;
*We could have a new government rule for the news media; Cover the story. Leave the witnesses or victims family alone. Do not ID the shooter. No photo of the shooter. Leave speculation for the investigators. Do not 'report' anything that isn't confirmed by at least three sources. Leave the political commentary to the politicians.
*We could have a new government agency appointed to carefully investigate changes in news ratings, sales and marketing practices, and profits of each major news outlet in measured increments, that is, days, weeks, and months following any mass shooting.
*Based on the above study, we could impose a windfall profits tax on the news media following any major news event involving a mass shooting.
The following is a partial quote that was (apparently falsely) attributed to Morgan Freeman, later denied by him. No matter who wrote it, I think it reflects the opinions of a significant percentage of the U.S. population;
quote:
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
Is there proof that this is wrong? Why isn't this more freely discussed on the news media's opinion and commentary shows? The reason is obvious - the news media doesn't want it discussed. Not only the liberal media, but Fox news and conservative talk radio don't want it discussed either. Conservative news outlets and mainstream news outlets don't have a lot in common, but they'll unite in a heartbeat to maintain the status quo. They're as free as an 1880 wild west gunslinger to do or say anything they want, and they'll destroy any politician who says one word about their first amendment that is comparable to the countless thousands of words spoken against the second amendment.
To be fair to Obama, I realize that no Republican president would ever hint at proposals to restrict news sensationalism either. The news media is a powerful special interest that can destroy any politician of any party. But because they say no to something, does that make Obama's words about "we have an obligation to try it" ring phony?
Is the lack of public discussion of news media sensationalism not seen as a problem among the (usually left leaning) fans of the scientific community?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 01-16-2013 10:14 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 5 by NoNukes, posted 01-17-2013 12:03 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 9 by NoNukes, posted 01-17-2013 1:41 AM marc9000 has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 69 (687811)
01-16-2013 9:47 PM


Thread Moved from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Note: Proposed New Topic version not preserved.
Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 69 (687816)
01-16-2013 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
01-16-2013 9:26 PM


Good Idea
Has no one in U.S. government, or Obama himself, ever wondered what role news media sensationalism plays in prolonging this type of violence? When the shooters picture is splashed all over the news, glorifying him in the minds of other sick people? When microphones are shoved in the faces of grieving people, often children, further glorifying the shooter in the minds of other sick people? Can anyone say that the "copycat" syndrome is totally absent from these recent shootings?
*We could have a new government rule for the news media; Cover the story. Leave the witnesses or victims family alone. Do not ID the shooter. No photo of the shooter. Leave speculation for the investigators. Do not 'report' anything that isn't confirmed by at least three sources. Leave the political commentary to the politicians.
Great idea. Not just for shootings but for news in general, getting away from sensationalism ...
... The reason is obvious - the news media doesn't want it discussed. Not only the liberal media, but Fox news and conservative talk radio don't want it discussed either. Conservative news outlets and mainstream news outlets don't have a lot in common, but they'll unite in a heartbeat to maintain the status quo. ...
Yeah, it would put Faux Noise out of business.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 01-16-2013 9:26 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by dronestar, posted 01-17-2013 9:15 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 29 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2013 7:21 PM RAZD has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


(1)
Message 4 of 69 (687821)
01-16-2013 11:53 PM


Step 1) Return to the Fairness Doctrine , which originally was instituted in 1947, and repealed in 1988 by the FCC under Ronald Reagan.
Step 2) Break up the News stations.. and make a maximum number of stations that any one company can hold.
Step 3) If a station or program calls itself 'News', it has to report News factually , without snide remarks and heaps of opinion. .. It has to tell the truth. If it violates those conditions, it can't call itself News.
Step 4) Regulate the KIND of language being used. Often, you will see yellow journalism use such words as 'perps, or 'slime' or other adjectives to bash someone. Get away from emotionally charged langauage with very little semantic value except to poison the well, and, well, be factual. People can make up their own minds. Oh gosh , that would eliminate Beck, and Olberman, and Limbaugh...

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by AZPaul3, posted 01-17-2013 1:23 AM ramoss has replied
 Message 30 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2013 7:25 PM ramoss has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 5 of 69 (687823)
01-17-2013 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
01-16-2013 9:26 PM


Is there proof that this is wrong? Why isn't this more freely discussed on the news media's opinion and commentary shows? The reason is obvious - the news media doesn't want it discussed. Not only the liberal media, but Fox news and conservative talk radio don't want it discussed either. Conservative news outlets and mainstream news outlets don't have a lot in common, but they'll unite in a heartbeat to maintain the status quo.
Perhaps you are using the wrong media. These topics are discussed frequently by guests on NPR.
Regular media is about snagging eyeballs to generate ad revenue. To some extent, the news is about getting your television on the right channel for prime time viewing. Why is it so surprising that the news is sensation only.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 01-16-2013 9:26 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2013 7:36 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2220 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
(1)
Message 6 of 69 (687827)
01-17-2013 1:09 AM


From the interwebs
Freedom of the Press does not mean the government can't, through executive order, require all members of the Press be licensed and have all their stories monitored, categorized and tracked after publication, either.
All requirements for gun ownership, and restrictions thereon, should be applied to the press.
Mass printing and distribution: out.
Two week waiting period before publishing.
Not more than three stories per reporter per month.
Et cetera.
Because these are such reasonable restrictions on the rights recognized by the second amendment, they should be equally reasonable when applied to the first.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by AZPaul3, posted 01-17-2013 1:29 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 10 by NoNukes, posted 01-17-2013 1:49 AM Coyote has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 7 of 69 (687828)
01-17-2013 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by ramoss
01-16-2013 11:53 PM


Return to the Fairness Doctrine
The Fairness Doctrine was needed when the public was limited to a few outlets as a source for news. With cable, satellite, internet this is no longer the case. There is no longer a justification for this doctrine.
Break up the News stations
Not the news stations so much as the news conglomerates like News Corp, Disney, Time Warner, etc. that possess large holdings in TV, print, radio and internet combined. News Corp is, of course, the poster child for slanted political influence on a world wide basis.
We are not going to have objective news since a slant is always present in every news item. And that slant is mostly a reflection of the ownership. Having more owners of various outlets means more varying views.
... it has to report News factually , without snide remarks and heaps of opinion ... Regulate the KIND of language being used ...
Now we run into a problem.
In the Gun Control threads, have you noticed how zealous the 2nd Amendment advocates are?
You ain't seen zealous till you try limiting political speech. Every news outlet of every political stripe will do a tap dance on your head. Besides the big news organizations taking you to court you will have every mom & pop radio station and internet site in the country filing suit for 1st Amendment infringement.
Worse yet, given its history, the biggest gun to shoot down any hint of this kind of limit to political speech is SCOTUS itself.
These last two will not happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ramoss, posted 01-16-2013 11:53 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ramoss, posted 01-17-2013 12:29 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
(1)
Message 8 of 69 (687829)
01-17-2013 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
01-17-2013 1:09 AM


Re: From the interwebs
Mass printing and distribution: out.
Two week waiting period before publishing.
Not more than three stories per reporter per month.
Point received ... and rejected.
Exercising political speech is not the same as killing someone.
But, you knew that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 01-17-2013 1:09 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2013 7:40 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 43 by Jon, posted 01-19-2013 8:39 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 69 (687830)
01-17-2013 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
01-16-2013 9:26 PM


Based on the above study, we could impose a windfall profits tax on the news media following any major news event involving a mass shooting.
I don't want the government to have this kind of power over the press.
We need enough information about these things to be able to discuss policy publicly. I think that means knowing something about the perpetrator and his health and mental state, the size and extent of the event, the reaction of law enforcement, etc. Yes, there is the stuff of lesser value, like the interviews with survivors and the families of the fallen, but some family members seem to want to express their feelings.
Perhaps I need a little more persuading that there is some kind of copy cat effect playing a significant role.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 01-16-2013 9:26 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2013 7:44 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 10 of 69 (687831)
01-17-2013 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
01-17-2013 1:09 AM


Re: From the interwebs
Coyote, right on cue. Let's see if you hang around to discuss this...
Because these are such reasonable restrictions on the rights recognized by the second amendment, they should be equally reasonable when applied to the first.
We have those already.
We have centuries of jurisprudence on the limits of the first amendment. Does Congress truly make "no laws" abridging the freedom of speech, or infringing on the freedom of the press? Of course not.
Not more than three stories per reporter per month.
What would be the state interest that was furthered by such a restriction? We know what limiting gun magazine size is supposed to do.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 01-17-2013 1:09 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2013 7:48 PM NoNukes has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1426
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 11 of 69 (687855)
01-17-2013 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
01-16-2013 10:14 PM


Is there a Joseph Goebbels in the house?
RAZD writes:
Yeah, it would put Faux Noise out of business.
Hi Razd,
I think Herr Obama and congress prefer that Faux News not only stay in business, but have MORE competition . . .
May, 2012
quote:
NDAA 2013: Congress approves domestic deceptive propaganda
The amendment updates the antiquated Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987, essentially clarifying that the US State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors may “prepare, disseminate and use public diplomacy information abroad,” but while also striking down a long-lasting ban on the domestic dissemination in America. For the last several decades, the federal government has been authorized to use such tactics overseas to influence foreign support of America’s wars abroad, but has been barred from such strategies within the US. If next year’s NDAA clears the US Senate and is signed by President Obama with the Thornberry-Smith provision intact, then restrictions on propaganda being force-fed to Americans would be rolled back entirety.
Error 404 RT
Jan/2013
quote:
President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act
The National Defense Authorization Act greatly expands the power and scope of the federal government to fight the War on Terror, including codifying into law the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. Under the new law the US military has the power to carry out domestic anti-terrorism operations on US soil.
President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What?
NDAA Signed Into Law By Obama Despite Guantanamo Veto Threat, Indefinite Detention Provisions | HuffPost Latest News

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 01-16-2013 10:14 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 01-17-2013 9:40 AM dronestar has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 69 (687856)
01-17-2013 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by dronestar
01-17-2013 9:15 AM


Re: Is there a Joseph Goebbels in the house?
I think Herr Obama and congress prefer that Faux News not only stay in business, but have MORE competition . . .
I don't understand your logic. You are pointing out that Obama signed the NDAA. Why is that an indication or an example of why Obama would prefer even more press coverage?
I don't want the government controlling the press because I want stories like this to be published. I have no idea what your point is.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by dronestar, posted 01-17-2013 9:15 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by dronestar, posted 01-17-2013 10:23 AM NoNukes has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1426
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 13 of 69 (687862)
01-17-2013 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by NoNukes
01-17-2013 9:40 AM


Re: Is there a Joseph Goebbels in the house?
marc9000 writes:
Do not 'report' anything that isn't confirmed by at least three sources. Leave the political commentary to the politicians.
RAZD writes:
Great idea.
Yeah, it would put Faux Noise out of business.
Drone writes:
I think Herr Obama and congress prefer that Faux News not only stay in business, but have MORE competition
NN writes:
I don't want the government controlling the press because I want stories like this to be published. I have no idea what your point is.
quote:
If next year’s NDAA clears the US Senate and is signed by President Obama with the Thornberry-Smith provision intact, then restrictions on propaganda being force-fed to Americans would be rolled back entirety.
I believe marc9000's OP is suggesting the corporate news' sensationalism helps inspire today's crazy shootings. marc9000 seems to suggest that the government should create rules (laws?) so that the media downplays the sensationalism.
My post was to show the irony of that suggestion because the President and congress has just revised an old law so that even MORE sensationalized propaganda (support for more needless wars?) be given to the american people.
I've long been a critique of the corporate media. Americans are known the world over for their actions against their own best interests. The government can accomplish this through violence or very effective propaganda. Obama and Congress has just made the effects of propaganda on the american people even more successful.
Do you agree with my opinion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 01-17-2013 9:40 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by AZPaul3, posted 01-17-2013 11:03 AM dronestar has replied
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 01-17-2013 11:37 AM dronestar has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 14 of 69 (687868)
01-17-2013 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by dronestar
01-17-2013 10:23 AM


Re: Is there a Joseph Goebbels in the house?
Joseph Goebbels in the house?
Talk about inflammatory propaganda. You sure are good at it.
You seem to think that propaganda is all "the big lie," deliberate deceit and distortion. That was certainly the use of the NAZI's.
If you ever listened to a Voice of America broadcast then you heard US government "propaganda." Not deliberate deceit or miss-direction, but "our side of the story."
Nothing wrong with that.
In this country do you really think the government watchers will not spot and loudly proclaim any evil falsehoods spread by this domestic information flow? We have you, dronester, and others to point out such attempts at deception. And, thank you, by the way.
Despite your own use of propaganda I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the government until I see otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by dronestar, posted 01-17-2013 10:23 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by dronestar, posted 01-17-2013 11:08 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1426
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 15 of 69 (687871)
01-17-2013 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by AZPaul3
01-17-2013 11:03 AM


Re: Is there a Joseph Goebbels in the house?
AZPaul3 writes:
In this country do you really think the government watchers will not spot and loudly proclaim any evil falsehoods spread by this domestic information flow?
Cough, (WMD in Iraq)
AZPaul3 writes:
Despite your own use of propaganda I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the government until I see otherwise.
You're in good company there Skippy . . .
quote:
I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that.
BRITNEY SPEARS, CNN interview, Sep. 4, 2003

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by AZPaul3, posted 01-17-2013 11:03 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by AZPaul3, posted 01-17-2013 11:20 AM dronestar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024