America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 12 years ago by Stinkdyr. 27 replies replies.
Poll Question : What Would This Country Look Like With A Free Pres
Choice Votes Statistics
No Change, We Already Have One 2 13 %
Sweet Socialism, A Death Knell For Consevatives 1 6 %
More Center-Right 2 13 %
More Far Right 0 0 %
Libertarian Nirvana 2 13 %
Chaos, The Truth Is Far Worse Than You Can Imagine 8 53 %
Total 15 100%

What Would This Country Look Like With A Truly Free Press?
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Rclay Offline
#1 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 8:48 AM EST
Joined: 10-30-2006
Posts: 1,813
It's a glass half-empty kind of morning.

There are times I think we can still make a comeback and re-establish this country with a focus on liberty for the common man. Then there are days like today when I think it's too late and we've been lulled to sleep with comfort and generations have been purposely mis-educated to the point that our populous has been turned in to self-gratifying worker-bees.

I wonder what we would look like with a free press?
fiddler898 Offline
#2 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 8:56 AM EST
Joined: 06-15-2009
Posts: 3,782
Rclay, it would be interesting to know what you mean by a "free press." I know, some think the press is run by liberal elites, others think FOX and its followers are controlled by the right, but even given this is all true (for the sake of argument I won't argue that now), it is really by the choice of those who run the news organizations. Other than inherent bias, in what ways is the press not free?
Rclay Offline
#3 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 9:41 AM EST
Joined: 10-30-2006
Posts: 1,813
Completely Objective. Not corrupted by political ideology, government/corporate alliance. No soft-peddle of agendas by massaging facts. A goal to inform the people, not engorge their own egos. Dogged pursuit of corruption.

And a dedicated focus to destroy fiddles everywhere.
FuzzNJ Offline
#4 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 9:48 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
Rclay wrote:
Completely Objective. Not corrupted by political ideology, government/corporate alliance. No soft-peddle of agendas by massaging facts. A goal to inform the people, not engorge their own egos. Dogged pursuit of corruption.

And a dedicated focus to destroy fiddles everywhere.


So, essentially a fantasy where everyone is a robot.
daveincincy Offline
#5 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 10:43 AM EST
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
Robots? The things rclay mention sound more like responsible people, looking out for the good of all. If anything, the media now are robots. Each side reporting what they are programmed to report for their masters. No disassemble number 5!
kharzhak Offline
#6 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 11:04 AM EST
Joined: 10-29-2008
Posts: 1,825
Rclay wrote:
Completely Objective. Not corrupted by political ideology, government/corporate alliance. No soft-peddle of agendas by massaging facts. A goal to inform the people, not engorge their own egos. Dogged pursuit of corruption.

And a dedicated focus to destroy fiddles everywhere.


Bah - that's not "free" ... you've already imposed regulations ...
Rclay Offline
#7 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 11:32 AM EST
Joined: 10-30-2006
Posts: 1,813
kharzhak wrote:
Bah - that's not "free" ... you've already imposed regulations ...



Which ones seem unacceptable?
rfenst Online
#8 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 11:35 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,431
Rclay wrote:
Completely Objective. Not corrupted by political ideology, government/corporate alliance. No soft-peddle of agendas by massaging facts. A goal to inform the people, not engorge their own egos. Dogged pursuit of corruption.

And a dedicated focus to destroy fiddles everywhere.



For the most part, not humanly possible. No one is free of bias on the whole. No one can report "the facts, just the facts" all the time. Facts can also be manipulated. Leaving one fact out of the report could totally change what the public will think.

I think your search for objectivity can only be accomplished in "small bites" via multiple sources- possibly too many to be reasonably available. It is out there. But, can you analyze the facts and just the facts in each are on your own? No. No one can.

Moreover, I think that the definition and reality of what will be considered "objective" will be determined subjectively.

Last, but not least, across the board objectivity just doesn't sell to the general public.



(When I was in college 30+ years ago, I used to read a variety of different news sources daily. U.S News and Business Report, The Economist and the Christian Science Monitor seemed objective to me back then and I still believe they truly were as a group, as close as possible to what you seek.)
daveincincy Offline
#9 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 11:35 AM EST
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
Rclay wrote:
Which ones seem unacceptable?


A goal to inform the people. Applause
herfidore Offline
#10 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 2:17 PM EST
Joined: 02-21-2008
Posts: 4,031
We are children. We can't handle the truth.
FuzzNJ Offline
#11 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 4:04 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
daveincincy wrote:
Robots? The things rclay mention sound more like responsible people, looking out for the good of all. If anything, the media now are robots. Each side reporting what they are programmed to report for their masters. No disassemble number 5!


As Robert has said, it's not just in the presentation, it's also the perspective of the viewer that makes this impossible. Look now at people complaining about a 'liberal' media. They think it's liberal because the main stream press doesn't do stories on Obama's Kenyan birth, fraudulent birth certificate, traitorous behavior, his dictator tendencies and they think the press is covering for him when the truth is the complainers are just nuts.
wheelrite Offline
#12 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 4:36 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
FuzzNJ wrote:
As Robert has said, it's not just in the presentation, it's also the perspective of the viewer that makes this impossible. Look now at people complaining about a 'liberal' media. They think it's liberal because the main stream press doesn't do stories on Obama's Kenyan birth, fraudulent birth certificate, traitorous behavior, his dictator tendencies and they think the press is covering for him when the truth is the complainers are just nuts.



Fuzz ia a Media Matters flunkie...
ZRX1200 Offline
#13 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 4:41 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,661
Complainers are nuts?

Ill hold you to that next time I see you complain about "faux".

The issue is people perceptions of the medias role. Some media is interested in ratings, some in a role shaping perceptions/conversation, some in a combo of both.

If you think either "side" treats stories of the other the same you're a nut.
FuzzNJ Offline
#14 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 4:52 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
ZRX1200 wrote:
Complainers are nuts?

Ill hold you to that next time I see you complain about "faux".


The reading comprehention is weak in this one.

ZRX1200 wrote:
The issue is people perceptions of the medias role. Some media is interested in ratings, some in a role shaping perceptions/conversation, some in a combo of both.

If you think either "side" treats stories of the other the same you're a nut.


Nice way to prove perception rules all. Thanks!
frankj1 Offline
#15 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 5:03 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,252
ZRX1200 wrote:

The issue is people perceptions of the medias role. Some media is interested in ratings, some in a role shaping perceptions/conversation, some in a combo of both.

If you think either "side" treats stories of the other the same you're a nut.

and, all of those news sources are free to decide how and what to report as news, depending on their motive as Jamie states above, as opposed to a narrow structure defined by the government. Other than provable slander and libel, that is, they are part of a press free of overt governmental constraints.

The fact that both major sides feel the news is unfairly reported probably means that it actually is covered fairly, and to each side's liking somewhere. And the fact that the outlets are reporting it as they wish...well that is what is free about it. Many will never believe that our agencies are not like Tass was, the official government news agency. But they would be wrong.

Being displeased with the slants of the news you receive is not the same as the right of free press being perverted. It means you can't find your own biased beliefs out there to follow.
Rclay Offline
#16 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 5:14 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2006
Posts: 1,813
News should be factual. What we have is heavily editorialized and passed off as fact. That is deception. Perhaps there should be consumer protection laws on newscasts.
frankj1 Offline
#17 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 5:19 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,252
Rclay wrote:
News should be factual. What we have is heavily editorialized and passed off as fact. That is deception. Perhaps there should be consumer protection laws on newscasts.

so take away their freedom, and eliminate the op.
FuzzNJ Offline
#18 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 5:38 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
Rclay wrote:
News should be factual. What we have is heavily editorialized and passed off as fact. That is deception. Perhaps there should be consumer protection laws on newscasts.


Who is going to judge what is 'factual'. A government body of some sort or a Fact Czar? This is another example of how conservatives are not for 'small' government when they want to enforce their world view.
ZRX1200 Offline
#19 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 5:52 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,661
Fact Czar?

Shut up or well get one! Barry loves him some Czars!
kharzhak Offline
#20 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 8:31 PM EST
Joined: 10-29-2008
Posts: 1,825
Rclay wrote:
Which ones seem unacceptable?


It's not a question of acceptable / unacceptable ... the moment you have to accept something, it's no longer free. Blog-posts are the closest there is to "free" press, because they aren't beholden to anyone, but themselves - and what you end up with is 99% bs.

I'm just saying that I think what you meant to ask in your topic heading was "what would this country look like if journalists & news organizations took their responsibility to report the news seriously" ... IMHO Wink
fiddler898 Offline
#21 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 8:41 PM EST
Joined: 06-15-2009
Posts: 3,782
My point is that the press IS free, they've simply chosen - freely - to align themselves with a particular point of view... no one is compelling thm to do that.
kharzhak Offline
#22 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 8:47 PM EST
Joined: 10-29-2008
Posts: 1,825
fiddler898 wrote:
My point is that the press IS free, they've simply chosen - freely - to align themselves with a particular point of view... no one is compelling thm to do that.


+1
engletl Offline
#23 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 10:01 PM EST
Joined: 12-26-2000
Posts: 26,493
Every news media source is biased in some way

the headline "Man kills 12 in shooting" while factual doesn't get the masses stirred up

bias the headline to read "Crazed (enter ethnicity here) man guns down 12 in rampage..." while still factual has introduced bias and will garner much more "interest" from the sheeple that need their opinions feed to them
frankj1 Offline
#24 Posted: Wed, Feb 29 2012, 10:01 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,252
fiddler898 wrote:
My point is that the press IS free, they've simply chosen - freely - to align themselves with a particular point of view... no one is compelling thm to do that.

totally agree.

There is a huge difference between "reporting" and "recording" events.

It's possible that the overlooked cause of disatisfaction with our freedom of the press is really about individuals disliking editorials more than actual news coverage. Anyone desiring the shut down or limitation of opposing views/opinions does not appreciate the value of this freedom.
herfidore Offline
#25 Posted: Thu, Mar 1 2012, 10:04 AM EST
Joined: 02-21-2008
Posts: 4,031
Easy solution. Turn off you GODD*MN TV's and radios and start thinking for yourselves. This was directed at no one in particular, just a blanket statement.
itsawaldo Offline
#26 Posted: Thu, Mar 1 2012, 10:12 AM EST
Joined: 09-10-2006
Posts: 4,221
herfidore wrote:
Easy solution. Turn off you GODD*MN TV's and radios and start thinking for yourselves. This was directed at no one in particular, just a blanket statement.


What would we think about then?
Stinkdyr Offline
#27 Posted: Thu, Mar 1 2012, 11:13 AM EST
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
I kinda need to be told what to think.

I mean, I have always been told to vote either Demican or Republicrat, so I always do.....and it has worked out great so far.


Wub
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top