|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How can we regulate the news media | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
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: 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: 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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
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 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 632 days) Posts: 3228 Joined:
|
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
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: Error 404 RT Jan/2013
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
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: BRITNEY SPEARS, CNN interview, Sep. 4, 2003
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024