Question of the Day: Day 183
Do you think that the media (radio, TV, newspapers, and magazines) should be able to put anything at all out there to the public or do you think that there should be some limitations (national security, under-age identities, etc) that the media must respect and follow or face legal consequences?
posted by Michelle at 9:18 AM
5 Comments:
In my opinion news media should be publicly held, separate from entertainment media. The privatisation of the news media, and it's focus on profit has generated so much partisan content, competition that breeds drama and misinformation, and a focus on the negative side of culture that we become less informed if we rely on it as a source of unbiassed information.
Restricting the media in terms of national security and privace for individuals is (IMO) necessary, but it should be restricted only when that necessity is apparent.
Maintaining a balance where Freedom of the Press can thrive and support the people of a country requires a responsible media organization, intelligent citzenry, and a responsible government - elements which, by and large, are sadly lacking - and, it's likely going to continue to get more difficult to rely on broadcast meida for accurate news.
In that light, I do not have TV anymore, and won't unless it becomes absolutely necessary. Of course, when that time comes, it's likely there won't be much media left.
Yes, I think there are things that the media should not broadcast, as the negative consequences outweigh the positive. The problem is, who gets to decide? I'm not aware of any way to mandate common sense. And the world is far too diverse a place to be able to reach any consensus. So I think the best thing is to have relatively few restrictions on the media and let the public decide what they want to believe. Many would wish to "protect" the populace from biased views, but I believe EVERYTHING is biased, and people learn to trust their instincts.
In particular I am opposed to more governmental control of the media, as there is often a conflict of interest. While the Soviets were still in power there were two government controlled newspapers - one called "Truth" and the other "News". The joke was that there was no news in Truth, and no truth in News. :-)
I trust less and less what my eyes
and ears process from sources other than my spiritual discernment...
I apologise for rehashing yet again a previous posting in a journal, but it pretty much explains my feelings on this subject...
Hello my friend(s),
The Google word of the day is "imbue" and curiously
(at least for a self described wordsmith), is defined as meaning "to dye" and "to instill profoundly".
Now, as I sit here, typing @ my blazing speed of approx. 10wpm, and listening to a favorite FM station streaming
Ike and Tina Turner performing "Rolling On The River", and it's snowing,and I'm mindlessly grazing
on the endless offerings of what some darkly oriented
and overly pessimistic purveyor of so called "news"
desperately uses to capture my sub concious for the enemies within paritisan politics and target marketing
and global community alignment,so as to "help" me form an opinion or perception of independent thought about what is real and what is lasting and what I need to get to the promised land---......so that I will finally be able to tell the difference between a hemorroid and an asteroid.
Then and only then will I be able to reconcile my context and perspective to a self fulfilled time line.
Thusly, when "imbued", I will dye from profound instillation.
I think that many people are under the impression that "freedom of speech" or "freedom of the press" implies that there are no limits or responsibilites that are inherent in the words that we put out there into the world.
That is simply not true.
I don't know how we find that balance between what the public has a right to know and what it doesn't. I do not have trust in the federal government to be able to make that decision because there are too many areas where conflict of interest prevents them from being able to separate the interest of the people from the interest of the government. Was there ever a time when it wasn't so complicated? I don't know.
We do have the US Supreme Court to help us define these issues but, to be honest, I'm not even sure that they can manage it. They do, however, happen to be our last, best hope for figuring this out. I hope that they choose wisely.
In general, I think that much of news media coverage has become pure sensationalism. The more outragous, scandalous, and/or defamatory ~ sadly~ the better the ratings.
RE: national security & the like, both irresponsible and selective reporting do pose problems for those who want to be adequately & competently informed.
In regard to media reporting, as with most things in life, "we" need to establish reasonable boundaries- & limitations. First things first;
agreeing on an acceptable definition of reasonable disclosure ... reasonable limitations.
Post a Comment
<< Home