Yes, we need freedom of speech & the press!!!!

originally posted by: jholt5638
a reply to: CriticalStinker

You're free to make your own news report and distribute it in manner you want.

Not on cable without the fcc..

I get the point you're trying to make, but it's not as easy as you put it.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

Freedom does not offer a licence to break the law.

Unpopular speech, even lying isn't illegal.

Nowhere in the world can you say whatever you want without consequences you may not like.

The 1st Amendment guarantees that the government won't imprison you or fine you for free speech. It doesn't guarantee there won't be civil consequences.

There can also be legal ramifications for what you say.
Truly free speech does not exist anywhere on earth.

Those would civil ramifications. Civil law suits, you know, where one private citizen sues another private citizen for damages. Not criminal ramifications, not criminal court.

originally posted by: ketsuko
So if all of these so-called memos and anonymous sources are proven to not exist, would this then be the biggest libel case in the US history?

Are you suggesting it's only a fabrication?

a reply to: UKTruth

Freedom does not offer a licence to break the law with impunity.

What laws have the press broken?

The writer of a "news story" can do the job a few different ways. Consider the headline; Dog Bites Man.

The story could simply say that a dog bit a man, why, and what happened to them afterwards.

That same headline could be; Vicious Dog Mauls Innocent Victim. That frames the story in an unnecessary way. And this is exactly how every news agency is currently operating. If not in the headline then the fluff comes in the actual stories themselves.

The problem is that it's just a dog biting somebody. No more, no less and no need for fluff.

That fluff is essentially low-grade mind control. And most people don't even know how to recognize it.
Heck, there are some quality propagandists on this very site that use these techniques regularly.

True unbiased, objective news would and can simply provide unframed, fluffless facts and let the reader make their own decisions but not one news media agency that I know of actually does that anymore. And that needs to return. The press can be free and unbiased and objective without manipulating people.

And until that does return, yeah, I'm starting to think there should be some kind of penalty for operating in a journalistic field without a shred of journalistic integrity.

Freedom of the press is important; unfortunately the Constitution only protects us from undue 'government' influence. It says nothing about the influence of money on that freedom.

Though the Trump Troop would love to legislate not defaming the government (rather like Russia), the real danger to our society (if we can call it that) is the stranglehold that big money has on the press/media.

What would help would be to bring back "The Fairness Doctrine" - look it up.

a reply to: jholt5638

Seems we need freedom of expression to COMBAT the press, but I agree, we need more freedoms, not less.

a reply to: Noncents

And until that does return, yeah, I'm starting to think there should be some kind of penalty for operating in a journalistic field without a shred of journalistic integrity.

Return from where? This is even less likely than the "jobs coming back" considering that what you describe never existed.

a reply to: theantediluvian
All I can say is that I appreciate that it is you of all people that chose to say something. And all you've got is to nitpick the way I worded something. Because you don't understand the intent of what I was saying... right?

a reply to: jholt5638

Here here.
Hear here.
S&F

a reply to: FyreByrd

I don't see the Fairness Doctorine coming back and honestly, given the volume of media and the size of the FCC and the availability of foreign news outlets thanks to the Internet, I don't think it would be practical.

That's really secondary though. The Fairness Doctorine is simply a bad idea and I say this knowing that its end facilitated the rise of right-wing broadcast media. FCC regulators shouldn't be judging how fair the news is. That's basically turning them into government censors.

What I would suggest is stronger antitrust laws focused on media organizations to reverse market consolidation coupled with some sort of incentivization to encourage growth of independent media organizations to bring about greater (healthier) diversification of media ownership.

Freedom of mass manipulation through lies.

a reply to: Idreamofme


It's not lies or fake news when they can back up their news with recorded video! They certainly have proven the lack of the president's credibility and his hypocrisy when he's recorded saying one thing and then does the opposite. Calling everything the media says as lies is dangerous to a democracy. Communism leadership and dictatorship is the type of news that is controlled by government. A free press was created to expose government corruption and lies. It wasn't created to respect those lies just because they're coming from our leader or representatives!

Is there bias reporting? Sure there is! However you can't claim the media is lying when they've proven it time and time again with videos of lies spewing out of the horses mouth! How can you possibly call those lies? It's one thing to support a president on certain issues, but to ignore them when he's blatantly caught lying is putting faith in a leader who lacks credibility! A president has way too much power to allow them to lie to the American people. We already had one president (George W. Bush) who lied and sent many of our young men to die in Iraq. (I blame the media and our representatives for not questioning his actions). Not questioning a president's credibility claimed many innocent lives.

As far as newspaper sources go, part of being a journalist is protecting your sources. Some sources who have leaked information to the press about the president are people who are close to the president. Journalist's have a professional ethics obligation to protect sources who don't want to risk losing their jobs or put their lives in danger! Those sources have to be checked for credibility before they're made public. Eventually those individual sources will be released. (Remember "Deep Throat" in the Watergate scandal?)

There are always whistleblowers in government and without them, our government would be in worse shape than what it already is! Our representatives should have attacked Obama for prosecuting government whistleblowers.

More people have been prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act during the Obama-era than previous presidents combined.

Source

It not a coincidence that many news media outlets are reporting the same thing. If they were blatant lies, there are many professional journalists who have professional reporting standards who would quickly leak the dishonest reporting. Not all journalists who work for liberal or conservative news outlets are associated with the same party. How many of us would stand-by knowing our profession was lying or ripping-off the public? More people have moral standards than what you think.

a reply to: Noncents

I'm not nitpicking you, or at least that wasn't my intent and I apologize if I came across as rude. I've seen similar statements a lot recently and imo, it's a golden age fallacy and the popularity of it worries me because I can see it becoming a popular enough belief that it's used successfully to bring about government control of the media.

We don't need the government censoring the media. It's extremely dangerous. State control of the media is one of the first and most important steps in the rise of totalitarianism.

a reply to: Noncents

Rest assured friend, you aren't the only one who caught the irony there....

a reply to: theantediluvian
I agree, to a point, that the government shouldn't be involved in the media. But I also think there should be a clearly defined division between "news" and everything else. That doesn't seem to exist. But I can't say that the "news corporations" should get a free pass to manipulate people when they should just be providing facts. Something should be done to prevent that. And I don't have the answer as to what that is or how to do it. I've had that conversation before on here. It's a tough thing to wrangle in without stepping on toes and allowing an uglier beast to rise up.

I don't think it's impossible for those that provide actual news to be objective, unbiased and functioning under the guidelines of journalistic integrity. A story can be reported without the little jabs and views of the reporter peppered in. People would still read it. Sites would still get their ad space and page views.

Honestly, given the way the news is these days it would probably be an incredibly lucrative business venture since a lot of people seem to be getting sick of all the bias alone. A breath of fresh air in a world of stagnant, biased, easily predicted viewpoints. Of course Fox is going to slant one way, of course CNN will slant another... but if there was a genuine source that didn't...

Can you imagine a website or even a print newspaper with none of the fluff, just facts? Nothing that can't be easily or at least publicly confirmed, an entire "news source" that can be trustworthy because there's no manipulation. One that makes reporters report and editors edit the bias and personal views out.

There's gold in that idea.

Let the big corporations have their unnamed shadowsources. That will keep them fed and in business. Maybe they'll land another Deep Throat. But let something new provide the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

(Yeah, it's romanticized a bit, I know. But I think it would sell, well.)

a reply to: jholt5638

freedom of speech != spreading lies.
biiiiiig difference. See, I used several i to underline the huuuge difference.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: FyreByrd

I don't see the Fairness Doctorine coming back and honestly, given the volume of media and the size of the FCC and the availability of foreign news outlets thanks to the Internet, I don't think it would be practical.

That's really secondary though. The Fairness Doctorine is simply a bad idea and I say this knowing that its end facilitated the rise of right-wing broadcast media. FCC regulators shouldn't be judging how fair the news is. That's basically turning them into government censors.

What I would suggest is stronger antitrust laws focused on media organizations to reverse market consolidation coupled with some sort of incentivization to encourage growth of independent media organizations to bring about greater (healthier) diversification of media ownership.

All good points - reality based. Though I do think a legislated mechanism is needed where differing points of view on issues of the day are presented to the public by all media that use 'public spaces'. The echo chamber of one sided reporting and representation is really killing our (the publics) ability to make rational choices - to even know that alternatives are possible.

a reply to: jholt5638

A timely reminder.

a reply to: theantediluvian


Sue Me Sue You Blues