What Would This Country Look Like With A Truly Free Press?

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

Rclay
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

14 years ago

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?

Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your CigarBid Forums forum account or Register a new forum account

fiddler898
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

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
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

14 years ago

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
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

Rclay wrote:

So, essentially a fantasy where everyone is a robot.

daveincincy
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

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!

Edited by user 14 years ago | Reason: Not specified

kharzhak
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

Rclay wrote:

Bah - that's not "free" ... you've already imposed regulations ...

Rclay
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

14 years ago

Bah - that's not "free" ... you've already imposed regulations ...

kharzhak wrote:

Which ones seem unacceptable?

rfenst
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

Rclay wrote:

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
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

Which ones seem unacceptable?

Rclay wrote:

A goal to inform the people. =d>

herfidore
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#10

We are children. We can't handle the truth.

FuzzNJ
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#11

daveincincy 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.

wheelrite
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#12

FuzzNJ wrote:

Fuzz ia a Media Matters flunkie...

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#13

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
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#14

Complainers are nuts?

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

ZRX1200 wrote:

The reading comprehention is weak in this one.

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.

ZRX1200 wrote:

Nice way to prove perception rules all. Thanks!

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#15

ZRX1200 wrote:

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
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

14 years ago

#16

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
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#17

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.

Rclay wrote:

so take away their freedom, and eliminate the op.

FuzzNJ
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#18

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.

Rclay wrote:

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
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#19

Fact Czar?

Shut up or well get one! Barry loves him some Czars!

kharzhak
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#20

Which ones seem unacceptable?

Rclay wrote:

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 😉

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: