What's your definition of freedom of media?

[heyjude]

Allowing them to restrict access to only those the executives approve of is fascist. Not allowing them is fascist. Okay. Why don't we go back to the way it was before RR changed it. Equal time. It worked.

 

[9sublime]

No, because the american media is privatley owned. Thus, the executives can do what they like with it.

 

[Andy]

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.

Curious... Where in the constitution does the people own specifically 'the air waves'? I guess I am constantly against spontaneous declaration of ownership. NBC owns NBC. CBS owns CBS. We have no right to dictate what's on their channel. We only have the right watch or not watch it.

Have the debates on C-SPAM for instance, since we already funnel our tax dollars to that sink hole already.

 

[9sublime]

While I think that private TV companies should have the right to broadcast what they want (as long as it doesn't breach things like racism and preaching hate etc.) I do think the people should have far more control over the airwaves.

Nobody owns the airwaves - if I want to broadcast on them I should be able to at a much larger extent than I currently can...

 

[Coyote]

For all it's faults, media keeps the government (and the candidates) honest.

 

[Coyote]

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

You've turned into a one-trick pony Bokile and that trick is getting kind of stale...

 

[bokile]

You've turned into a one-trick pony Bokile and that trick is getting kind of stale...

There is no tricks, this is the naked truth

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Pretty much agree with you here, with obvious caveats for things like libel/slander.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Also: bokile, I have to ask: are you hammered?

 

[Dr.Who]

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.

That is a matter of ethics. Ethics that they determine for themselves without government help.

 

[Dr.Who]

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.

We have hundreds of channels on the telly, multiple newspapers, magazines, blogs, talk radio, ham radio, newsletters, word of mouth, etc. A candidate who deserves to be heard will not be stopped because a few networks might exclude him/her.


Which of course is why there is no need for NPR, the FCC, or that law about equal time for the other side.

 

[Andy]

We have hundreds of channels on the telly, multiple newspapers, magazines, blogs, talk radio, ham radio, newsletters, word of mouth, etc. A candidate who deserves to be heard will not be stopped because a few networks might exclude him/her.

yes... but... no. Look at what happened to Fred Thompson for example. People say he announced and then disappeared, but in reality he had public meetings and town halls all over the place, but the media didn't cover it. Further, during the debate, most people said the liked what he stood for more than McCain, yet they voted for McCain because the perception was Thompson couldn't win, his campaign was too small. Why did they think that? Because McCain played up to the major networks who adore him, and Fred did not.

The reason for this perception is because people don't have time to check all the newspapers, all the magazines, all the radio stations, to get a clear informed view of what each canididate stands for. They simply don't have time. So they vote on who looks best, or has the most uplifting speech, and who has the most air time.

Which of course is why there is no need for NPR, the FCC, or that law about equal time for the other side.

Of course, this we both agree on. The solution is to go back to the Constitution, which none of these are constitutionally valid, and would not / have not, solved anything anyway.

 

[Dr.Who]

yes... but... no. Look at what happened to Fred Thompson for example. People say he announced and then disappeared, but in reality he had public meetings and town halls all over the place, but the media didn't cover it. Further, during the debate, most people said the liked what he stood for more than McCain, yet they voted for McCain because the perception was Thompson couldn't win, his campaign was too small. Why did they think that? Because McCain played up to the major networks who adore him, and Fred did not.

Perhaps Thompson was too much like McCain and not different enough to gather the support he could have gotten. The media is made up of thousands of individual reportrers and editorialists. He could have won them over individually - but he failed. He could have won over the bloggers - but he failed. He could have won over a lot of people - but he failed. If we saw that he had overwhelming support in the alternative media but failed only in the mainstream media I would agree with you. he disappeared because he failed to garner support from anyone. He failed to stand out as being superior to McCaine.

The reason for this perception is because people don't have time to check all the newspapers, all the magazines, all the radio stations, to get a clear informed view of what each canididate stands for. They simply don't have time. So they vote on who looks best, or has the most uplifting speech, and who has the most air time.

You are correct. Too few people do have time. It is up to the ones who do have time to make their views known. Maybe they evaluated Thompson and did not fine him worthy of supporting. Any movement starts small and grows. His failed to grow primarily because of who he was and not because of what the mainstream media did to him.

Neverthless, I do not disagree with you completely. The media is a force. You are right to see it that way and if we were to discuss this longer we would probably find that we just look at the same situation from different sides or we agree but just see a differnt emphasis or focus.

Of course, this we both agree on. The solution is to go back to the Constitution, which none of these are constitutionally valid, and would not / have not, solved anything anyway.

I agree we need to get back to the constitution. I have to admit I lost track of the rest of the train of thought and don't get the rest of what you said.

 

[Andy]

Perhaps Thompson was too much like McCain and not different enough to gather the support he could have gotten. The media is made up of thousands of individual reportrers and editorialists. He could have won them over individually - but he failed. He could have won over the bloggers - but he failed. He could have won over a lot of people - but he failed. If we saw that he had overwhelming support in the alternative media but failed only in the mainstream media I would agree with you. he disappeared because he failed to garner support from anyone. He failed to stand out as being superior to McCaine.

Thompson is nothing like McCain. He was the last candidate that was actually different than the clones currently on the ticket. He actually support lower taxes, reduced government, cutting spending, finishing the rebuild of Iraq, and pulling out, cutting economy destroying regulation. He's one of the few that has been consistent in his views. Unlike the 3 now running that change their views routinely to whatever is politically correct.

You are correct. Too few people do have time. It is up to the ones who do have time to make their views known. Maybe they evaluated Thompson and did not fine him worthy of supporting. Any movement starts small and grows. His failed to grow primarily because of who he was and not because of what the mainstream media did to him.

That's the whole problem. No one is going to take the time to research the views of all those running. It is simply not possible. Even if there is a reporter somewhere covering Thompson, no one is going to search diligently through all the newspapers to find that one elusive article on him. Instead they flip through the headlines and click past all the major networks. The result is those on the front page and at the top of the news hour appear to momentum. Perception is reality.

Neverthless, I do not disagree with you completely. The media is a force. You are right to see it that way and if we were to discuss this longer we would probably find that we just look at the same situation from different sides or we agree but just see a differnt emphasis or focus.

I agree we need to get back to the constitution. I have to admit I lost track of the rest of the train of thought and don't get the rest of what you said.

To explain my prior remarks, the Constitution had the president elected by the electoral college. There was never supposed to be a direct election of the president by the public. Instead, the public of each state elected representatives who then elected the president through their respective electoral colleges. Hence a "Representative Republic".

The founding fathers were far wiser than we give them credit. All the issues they said this system was supposed to deal with, are now showing up since we moved away from their system.

Voter fraud: The founding fathers said that a public vote on the president would inevitably lead to corruption. Dead people vote, felons vote, non-US citizens vote, and of course the bussed in people from other states vote.

Uninformed Voters: The founding fathers knew that if the president was voted for in a public vote, most people wouldn't know anything about who they voted for. Unlike voting for someone who has a direct influence on your own state, you can't go and have in-depth check of each candidate. For example Al Gore lost his home state, because they had first hand experience. But the rest of the country did not, and he still had a good showing nationally. People do not have time to go through Mitt Romney's MassHealth program and how it's bombing out in Mass.

Voting based on feelings and looks: Remember when Al Gore kissed his wife on the stage, and instantly got thousands of voters? Look at the presidents that were elected prior to TV, verses those elected after.

Policy based on Votes: The main reason that Amnesty is supported is because they know whoever gets it passed will get millions of votes of illegal immigrants. What do you think food stamps, welfare, and public housing is all about? Publicly funded purchase of votes.

 

[jff.law]

Seems a little naive to think that way. If there is no control of the media, then they could say anything they want about anyone, true or not. The other side of the coin is the Gov controlling absolutely, which could be simple brainwashing or mind control such as we see in communist and ultra orthodox religions, would not go over well in a “free” country.
The fact that people can disagree with your opinion is what makes the Internet so good, everyone can have a position, and in a perfect world, that would be respected, but retorted as well as not being rude about it. That is just respect, and politeness, which we no longer have.