What's your definition of freedom of media?

[wm009]

I'm looking for all perspectives on this. I found myself offended by some views. I thought most people on the internet, especially sites like digg.com were very pro freedom, but I found out I was mistaken.

This was months ago, but basically NBC or CBS or whatever, was having a democratic debate, and they didn't include John Edwards. The short story, a judge ordered that he be put in the debate. I was called a fascist because I disagreed with this move, because I thought it was fascist. Mmmmkay.

Anyway, what is your definition of freedom of media?

For me, it's hands off for the government. The government can't touch, manipulate, threaten(with the FCC), regulate(with the FCC), dictate laws on ownership. The media can say, show, tell, anything they want without the government having anyway of stopping them.

 

[vyo476]

Looks like I agree with you here, for the most part. "Freedom of the press" was designed with the intent of allowing journalists to print the truth without fear of government reprisal, and I don't see any reason that definition ought to change.

The thing with John Edwards is a little ridiculous. If it was some kind of publicly-owned broadcasting company (like the British have with the BBC) and they were willfully excluding a candidate, that'd be different, but private debates aren't owned by the public.

 

[Andy]

I have a sorta odd take on this. This is a natural problem under the current system. By having the a public nationally vote on the president, the candidates must have national exposer through the press. Logically if there is to be a debate, it must be with the largest of media outlets.

Automatically this gives the national press a large amount of sway over who gets the camera time and who does not. This is unavoidable since camera time is very limited and air time is very expensive, and since people will simply not watch a 4 hour debate which would be required to get in every view from every candidate.

The inevitable result is that the press will choose who they like and whom they do not, and exclude those that they choose.

This leads to people feeling like their views were selectively excluded (which they were) and the rise to demand government stop this.

The solution will never happen. The founding fathers purposely had the election of the president take place through the electoral college to eliminate many of the problems we face with a national election, this being one of them. The solution is to go back to that.

 

[bewitched]

media uses contextual objectivity. that means that the media will feed the audience what ever helps ratings, brings in advertisers or money.
that's just how it works, they feed us what we want to see. because if they don't then we change the channel.

so, does media have a responsibility to be responsible and educational?
not at this time.

 

[Libsmasher]

I'm looking for all perspectives on this. I found myself offended by some views. I thought most people on the internet, especially sites like digg.com were very pro freedom, but I found out I was mistaken.

This was months ago, but basically NBC or CBS or whatever, was having a democratic debate, and they didn't include John Edwards. The short story, a judge ordered that he be put in the debate. I was called a fascist because I disagreed with this move, because I thought it was fascist. Mmmmkay.

Anyway, what is your definition of freedom of media?

For me, it's hands off for the government. The government can't touch, manipulate, threaten(with the FCC), regulate(with the FCC), dictate laws on ownership. The media can say, show, tell, anything they want without the government having anyway of stopping them.

I agree with you. The FCC should never have been created. In this country, we have free speech. If you don't like what you see, change the channel.

 

[bewitched]

the FCC is very liberal.
in other countries there is no freedom.

then in the UK the media, especially TV, just sucks.

good TV, entertainment, media comes from the US. we rule. and there has to be some regulation or it would be crappy.

 

[bokile]

anti-serb. anti-jewish pro-muslim, pro-nazi
this is definition of the media in this country

 

[9sublime]

then in the UK the media, especially TV, just sucks.

Whys that?

 

[bokile]

Whys that?

some english people form national party are watching and reading russian news, there is a reason for this, corrupted and stinky western media

 

[Andy]

media uses contextual objectivity. that means that the media will feed the audience what ever helps ratings, brings in advertisers or money.
that's just how it works, they feed us what we want to see. because if they don't then we change the channel.

so, does media have a responsibility to be responsible and educational?
not at this time.

Respectfully disagree. Enough people wanted to hear John Edwards and Ron Pual, that they got support for it. Although I do not know enough about Ron Pual to support him, I did notice the truly lame questions he was asked which indicates how little the media thinks of him.

Debate questions also are a way of selectively eliminating a view. While asking other candidates questions on issues, Ron Pual got the deep question "some of your supporters believe in X. Will you ask them to stop?" What a dumb question. So I still do not know where Ron Pual stands on the issues because the media selectively gave him lame unimportant questions.

So people do want to hear where candidates stand on issues, but the media just likes some candidates over others, and that's all there is to it. Ironically the SNL skits are fairly accurate.

 

[Andy]

the FCC is very liberal.
in other countries there is no freedom.

then in the UK the media, especially TV, just sucks.

good TV, entertainment, media comes from the US. we rule. and there has to be some regulation or it would be crappy.

I can't stand TV. It's so horrible. My TV has been unplugged for 5 months, I don't miss it a bit.

 

[bokile]

So people do want to hear where candidates stand on issues, but the media just likes some candidates over others, and that's all there is to it. Ironically the SNL skits are fairly accurate.

what can you do, media favors nazi clintons-jew haters

 

[Libsmasher]

the FCC is very liberal.
in other countries there is no freedom.

then in the UK the media, especially TV, just sucks.

good TV, entertainment, media comes from the US. we rule. and there has to be some regulation or it would be crappy.

There is no reason at all for an FCC - none.

 

[heyjude]

There might be as many as 50 people running for president if you count every weirdo party out there. They can't all be included in the debates, so the tv networks pick the ones they want to be on. If they don't pick someone like Edwards, that is what they are doing. Discriminating. And courts have backed up their right to do that.

Freedom of speech has always been restricted. The obvious, "you can't shout fire in a crowed theatre if there isn't one." And try saying, "I'm am going to shoot Bush." The noise you hear is the Secret Service beating down your door.

But the media is biased. When all the media is biased, something is rotten. The people own the air waves. And we have an absolute right to control the media, and to demand that they give equal time to all canidates.

 

[9sublime]

Surely the very freedom that the privatley owned media can choose who to put on air is freedom of speech, and forcing them to put on a mix of candidates would be a kind of fascism in itself?