How can we regulate the news media

Okay, I don’t listen to NPR, so I did a quick search to find an example of what you’re referring to. Would this be one?http://www.npr.org/.../features/2000/sep/000927.ventura.htmlThis is okay, possibly a worthwhile read, but it doesn’t really even scratch the surface of what I was talking about. Since it’s little more than hand-wringing pleas to the news media to try to do better, it doesn’t compare at all to discussions about gun control. Those discussions are never about pleas to gun owners and the NRA to police themselves, or to take some kind of voluntary action to try to curb gun violence, oh no, those discussions are about what the government WILL DO TO gun owners and the NRA. For NPR discussions of news media sensationalism to be comparable, they would have to discuss propositions of what could be done TO news organizations by the government to achieve a satisfactory goal (as determined by the government) Like gun owners who are nothing more than silent viewers when watching discussions of just how, when and what kind of new gun control ”should be’ passed, a comparable NPR discussion would make the highest level press members nothing but silent viewers, as they watched/listened to proposals of new taxations and restrictions on just how news would be presented in the future. If you claim that’s happening on NPR, I can’t automatically accept your claim without some evidence, because I don't believe it is. Prove me wrong and I'll admit it, but I'll probably not be able to resist comparing whatever amount of it you can show to the amount of discussion on gun control. I don’t think the surprise aspect of it is important. The important thing is, how damaging is it to society? Or maybe, what should be done about it? If one of the recent mass murderers, or a near future mass murderer, was found to have walls in their living quarters plastered with previous news pictures of Eric Harris and Dylan Kiebold, would you rethink your doubt about the copycat issue?[edit] I don't think you'd have to worry, the news media would never report it. Edited by marc9000, : add a lineEdited by marc9000, : sp

Careless political speech, falsely labeled as factual news, can do societal damage that can snowball up to and beyond killing. True, it’s difficult to measure, but no more difficult to measure than the effects gun control has on crime.(I'll make a Christian out of you yet, Coyote)

This kind of power - are you kidding me? The power to tax? Most government taxation isn’t on windfall profits, it’s on everyday profits, with little concern if the taxee has the ability to pay. My suggested “windfall profits” tax would certainly imply an ability to pay. Why do you bestow upon the press such a superior status? Point taken - I don’t claim to have all the answers, and would like to see more discussion on those things, but I’d like to see suggestions of mandates, on something besides the second amendment for a change.

Could you elaborate? Not necessarily a lot of long, drawn out c/p's or links, just a summary in your own words? What laws have they made? Has the press ever broken them? Has the press ever been penalized by the government for breaking them? As far as I’ve heard, the government did not penalize NBC for its serious 1993 crime, involving fraud on a national level.

Personally I find all US news questionable at this point, being more driven by big corporation bottom line profits than on journalism and honest reporting ... it's more "infotainment" these days than news. Not like Walter Cronkite or other old news shows.It just seems that Faux Noise is the worst and most blatant, catering to gullibles that think (because they been told to) there is a liberal bias in reporting the news. Faux News Occupy and other myths -- two posts with enough to start. Fox news = false news -- earlier thread exposing Faux Noise lies.Some "in depth" reporting:Update Your Browser | Facebook Also seeFox Highlights Poll On Belief In Obama Conspiracy Theories That Fox Helped Perpetuate | Media Matters for AmericaEnjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added

Do you have any examples?

Something like this?Fortunately, no-one was killed. Still, it shows what the media can achieve.

I'm not sure we can blame the media for the lack of intellect, critical thinking skills and just plain common sense that some people exhibit. It certainly can exacerbate the delusions of an already sick mind but then so can a pretty girl to a stalker.The comparison of 1st Amendment political speech to 2nd Amendment killing is more than a stretch in this case.Kind of reminds me of the "Twinkie Defense."Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Isn't that rather like saying that we can't blame a conman for the gullibility of his victim? True, we can't, but as no-one actually does that that would be something of a strawman. What we can and do do is blame the conman for exploiting the gullibility of his victim.

If you and I both know about something that happened 20 years ago, in my case when I was a teenager and living in another country, then I think we can say that it has received extensive public exposure. But to be fair to NBC, that's imaginary. Can't you just castigate them for the stuff that they actually did? That's bad enough.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I had not heard Ventura's talk and I'm not going to defend anything he says. Further, I don't believe NPR's job is to counter whatever sensationalism is found in other media. They are responsible for only their own reporting.Another poster sent me the following link. This would be an example of another source of information about gun control and the Sandy Hook shooting event.On the Media: Listen | WNYC Studios | Podcasts I'm not going to bother with this. You don't listen to NPR, yet you've already made up your mind about what is covered there without having done so. Further, I'm not bothered by the fact that you don't like discussion of gun control. The question is whether there is coverage without sensationalism.Something funny is going on with the way your apostrophes register on my browser. I don't see that same problem with everyone else's messages.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Your proposal was for the government to tax news based on content. That power would result in discouraging certain content. I don't want the government to have control over news reporting, particularly when the thing I want reported on most is the government.I apologize for not providing more detail, but I thought the rationale behind the first amendment was quite basic and well understood.

Who said anything about killing people?

Then we blame the pretty girl for setting off the stalker?I recognize the power of the media. After all advertizing works. But the intent of advertizing is to increase sales not increase shoplifting. In this case the intent of the media was to convince a political opinion, not convince someone to go kill. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I did. It was me. Hyperbole, maybe, but it was all me. And it felt so good.