Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only a authoritarian’s lackey could disagree that a free press is vital to a healthy Democracy. Stick it up as a poll question though and see, along with is oxygen good to breath and is water wet? I’m sure some future Darwin award winners might disagree.
The way most conservatives talk this days, it seems they strongly disagree.
They apparently want a press that only says what they already think and that kisses Donald's ass under all circumstances.
Or do you believe that only a media that says nice things about you and Donald should be allowed and all others who ask inconvenient questions are "enemy of the People?"
It's kinda like the way that Liberals view 1st amendment rights......you can say what you want be that doesn't mean there won't be any consequences.
The notion of a free press doesn't grant any journalist access to the President, nor does it guarantee the right of any journalist to be a douchebag without consequences we they are granted access.
There are right-wing media outfits, too. How many conservatives are there in the land? Get your own media platforms if you feel under-served. Big money opportunity!
But for God's sake, quite sniveling about how the press is an enemy of the people because it does not conform in all ways to your own bias. That's stupid.
Media does not have to be - nor has it ever been - free of "bias." That's why you're supposed to be an educated adult to interpret disparate sources of information as objectively as possible and form your own opinion.
An educated adult would use sources (primary and secondary) to form their own opinion.
An intelligent adult would only use primary sources.
Or do you believe that only a media that says nice things about you and Donald should be allowed and all others who ask inconvenient questions are "enemy of the People?"
Or do you believe that only a media that says nice things about you and Donald should be allowed and all others who ask inconvenient questions are "enemy of the People?"
If the "press" "independently questioned authority" that would be one thing. It doesn't.
It "critiques" the political enemies of its staff and gives a pass to anyone who it views as being in the political interest of its staff and owners. There is no moral limit to this support, as proven by the fact that the press mostly ignores Gaza and the West Bank among a lot of other things.
In doing so, it is neither technically "press" nor "free" but a propaganda arm of one party and a few select tribes.
In doing so, it both endangers and corrupts the notion of press freedom, showing broad disrespect for this nation's institutions and how we had to fight for them.
The only thing that the modern press is "vital" for is keeping their own political interests paramount and, when appropriate, using their power to undemocratically sway this nation's political actions.
Or do you believe that only a media that says nice things about you and Donald should be allowed and all others who ask inconvenient questions are "enemy of the People?"
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy really works, and who the press really is.
1) The media consists of people. And everyone has an agenda.
2) The media is a business, which exists to make money. And it gets its money from other corporations(IE advertising and other sponsorship).
3) The kinds of people who go into the media, and Hollywood for that matter, are not "normal people". They are basically a bunch of narcissists who need constant attention. And with egos the size of the sun.
4) The media doesn't have the same interests as the rest of us. They aren't blue-collar workers, and they often have no ties whatsoever to normal people. They basically live in a "bubble", cut off from reality. And they are largely insulated from the ills of things like immigration, because they live in expensive gated-communities. On the other hand, they benefit from cheap labor and ethnic cuisine. I'll make a partial exception for Chris Matthews on MSNBC, because his family was/is blue-collar and he seems to spend a lot of time talking to them.
5) Until the rise of youtube, it was incredibly expensive to be a media organization. Which is why a handful of international media companies, worth billions of dollars each, practically monopolized the entire market. And the future of youtube will likely be more censorship and demonitization of "offensive" content.
6) As for democracy. We need to understand that democracy does best the fewer media companies there are. Which produce a narrow band of acceptable topics for debate, which pushes most people "to the middle".
The problem with the internet, is that it has "democratized" the media. Which has caused the radicalization of all political factions, from the left to the right. Everyone can surround themselves with like-minded people, and get their information from like-minded people. Unless private-companies like youtube, as well as the government, begin to clamp down on these independent media organizations by labeling them "hate-speech", or "enemies of the people", or "enemies of the state", you could in a very short period of time see the collapse of all civility, and with it, the country.
The problem with democracy, is that it doesn't actually solve anything. And the only reason democracy functions as well as it does, is because we have international media conglomerates who are able to shape public-opinion in the direction that the corporations who fund these private media companies want it to go.
Basically, democracy is always controlled by the money, but the people imagine that they are in control, so they go along with it, support it, defend it, etc. It is quite ingenious.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-29-2018 at 01:59 PM..
If the "press" "independently questioned authority" that would be one thing. It doesn't.
It "critiques" the political enemies of its staff and gives a pass to anyone who it views as being in the political interest of its staff and owners. There is no moral limit to this support, as proven by the fact that the press mostly ignores Gaza and the West Bank among a lot of other things.
In doing so, it is neither technically "press" nor "free" but a propaganda arm of one party and a few select tribes.
In doing so, it both endangers and corrupts the notion of press freedom, showing broad disrespect for this nation's institutions and how we had to fight for them.
The only thing that the modern press is "vital" for is keeping their own political interests paramount and, when appropriate, using their power to undemocratically sway this nation's political actions.
By posting this, aren’t you the press? And therefore part of the “propaganda” that you rail against? Guess what? In 2018 ANYBODY can be the press.
In general, however, courts have defined “the press” so as to include all publishers. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, has said that First Amendment protections extend to “‘every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.’” von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir.) (quoting Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938)), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1015 (1987).
Looks like you’re apart of the Machine afterall... buddy.
Or do you believe that only a media that says nice things about you and Donald should be allowed and all others who ask inconvenient questions are "enemy of the People?"
If you've been around as long as I have, the Media is soft on Democrats and hard on Republicans, with the exception of Democrat Jimmy Carter, but that was only because Carter didn't like the Media, and the Media didn't like Carter.
The reason the Media is soft on Democrats is because journalists are now, and have always been, very Liberal.
Liberals do not question their views, and don't permit others to question them, either.
When the New York Post ran the first of a what was to be a series of articles on the British Politician Sex Scandal in which they the "highest ranking politician in the US" was involved, RFK was on a plane to New York that day and threatened the editors and their families with violence if the continued to run the story.
When Walter Lippman was going to run a story on how JFK caved in on the Cuban Missile Crisis, RFK asked Lippman -- he didn't have to threaten since Lippman was a Liberal -- not to run the story, because it would undermine JFK's presidency and doom his chances of re-election in 1964, and Lippman agreed.
Note that the Media never question Obama's tariff increases, but when Trump increases tariffs, it's front page news.
That's pretty much how the Liberal Media operates.
Welp. The OP was seeking to have a decent and fact-based discussion.
But leave it to literally the very first reply, and we get (look at the screen name I'm quoting) to start pointing fingers at the group of people who have different views/opinions than him.
I'm shocked, I tell you. Completely blindsided.
LMAO!!!
Or do you believe that only a media that says nice things about you and Donald should be allowed and all others who ask inconvenient questions are "enemy of the People?
It is shocking!!
To your first point: Did those who now think the press is the enemy feel that way when news reports repeated false claims about Obama’s birthplace, or during all the media attention to Hillary Clinton’s emails? Would they be as willing to let the president shut down news outlets if those determining what is “bad behavior” were Democrats?
To your second: For free speech to endure, we must protect the rights of people who say things we find abhorrent. And for a free press to continue working to keep our government open and responsive, we must allow journalists to function even when they are scrutinizing and criticizing those we favor.
It’s often said that one of the first actions of a would-be dictator is to suppress the free press.
Safeguarding the liberties that make our country great is not easy. It requires defending those liberties despite the fluctuation of politics.
When Obama constantly criticized Fox News and actually had the Justice Department spying on Fox News reporter James Rosen.......
Did you cry foul and claim it was an "attack on the Free Press"?
No?
Color me shocked....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
