• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Media Responsibility?

b33fj3rky

Thinker
B
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
129
Location
In an ivory tower.
Do you believe that huge media corporations' only responsibility should be to make money for their shareholders?

Here in America, The First Amendment gives the press special freedom not bestowed on other industries. Why? The Founders wanted a free press because they understood that a free press can help keep citizens informed about government; a free press is a vital part of the democratic process. So should the major media corps therefore be required to fulfill a special mandate to provide citizens with news and information, both local and national (even if providing local news/info isn't very profitable)?
 
The media should have to conform to the same ethics that the analogous fast-food industry increasingly is being forced to in major cities. Just like trans-fats are being regulated now entertainment news and celebrity news stories should only be allowed in their respective shows and magazines.

They're guilty of giving consumers too much of what they want and the consumers are too uninformed to know what affect it's having on the country. The media could've stopped the Iraq war before it started if it didn't fail to inform the country that Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, which 70% of the country did believe.
 
Last edited:
latent aaaack said:
The media should have to conform to the same ethics that the analogous fast-food industry increasingly is being forced to in major cities. Just like trans-fats are being regulated now entertainment news and celebrity news stories should only be allowed in their respective shows and magazines.

They're guilty of giving consumers too much of what they want and the consumers are too uninformed to know what affect it's having on the country. The media could've stopped the Iraq war before it started if it didn't fail to inform the country that Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, which 70% of the country did believe.
Click to expand...
This is sarcasm, right?
 
latent aaaack said:
The media should have to conform to the same ethics that the analogous fast-food industry increasingly is being forced to in major cities. Just like trans-fats are being regulated now entertainment news and celebrity news stories should only be allowed in their respective shows and magazines.

They're guilty of giving consumers too much of what they want and the consumers are too uninformed to know what affect it's having on the country. The media could've stopped the Iraq war before it started if it didn't fail to inform the country that Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, which 70% of the country did believe.
Click to expand...

While I would have prefered to see a united press stand up to The Bush & Co
concerning our entry into Iraq, why blame them. There was plenty of accurate, intellignet info available for us to make the decision to stop our country from this horrible policy. Why should the press by the scapegoat for the American lemmings?
 
b33fj3rky said:
Here in America, The First Amendment gives the press special freedom not bestowed on other industries.
Click to expand...

Not so. The "press", as an industry, deals with issues which are specially protected more than most industries do, but the actual protections involved cover everyone in every industry. From a constitutional perspective, anyone publishing anything counts as press.

So should the major media corps therefore be required to fulfill a special mandate to provide citizens with news and information, both local and national (even if providing local news/info isn't very profitable)?
Click to expand...

No. They should have no such obligation for the same reason that they should have no rights not available to me, because I should (and do) enjoy the full protections of the first ammendment. Furthermore, any such government-enforced requirements would themselves be a violation of the first ammendment.
 
b33fj3rky said:
Here in America, The First Amendment gives the press special freedom not bestowed on other industries.
Click to expand...


What special freedoms does the First Amendment give the press that are not bestowed on other industries?

I can't think of a single one.
 
latent aaaack said:
The media could've stopped the Iraq war before it started if it didn't fail to inform the country that Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, which 70% of the country did believe.
Click to expand...

I've seen this referenced before. Most people who reference it are unaware, however, that this number started out higher immediately after 9/11 (before anyone in the government assigned public blame anywhere) and decreased over time leading up to the Iraq war. And there's really no way to know why it still remained high, or what effect the press could or did have, nor is it at all clear that any change in belief on that one issue would have made any real difference in the President's and Congress's decision to go to war.
 
Loss Leader said:
What special freedoms does the First Amendment give the press that are not bestowed on other industries?

I can't think of a single one.
Click to expand...

The product of their industry, speech, is not and cannot be regulated. The product of, say, the auto industry, cars, is.
 
Beerina said:
The product of their industry, speech, is not and cannot be regulated. The product of, say, the auto industry, cars, is.
Click to expand...
And in addition, there is the accidental privilege akin to the fox guarding the hen house. If there is dissent among the public which 'owns' the airwaves, it cannot be heard if the broadcasters choose not to air it.

I believe we should give up on broadcast and print media and just make darn sure the same thing doesn't happen to the Internet. People who think Internet Neutrality is not important are making a huge mistake. (But don't sidetrack the thread, I believe there are others on Net neutrality already.)

I believe accurate information is critical to maintaining a democracy. But unless the consumers figure that out, regardless of what I think the media is responsible for, it ain't gonna happen.

We should, however, push government for stricter false advertising laws and enforcement.
 
Zig, you are pushing a side track issue there. Why does it matter? The bottom line is there are rules about free speech that impact the media. Why does it matter whether or not those rules impact other industries as well?
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
And in addition, there is the accidental privilege akin to the fox guarding the hen house. If there is dissent among the public which 'owns' the airwaves, it cannot be heard if the broadcasters choose not to air it.

I believe we should give up on broadcast and print media and just make darn sure the same thing doesn't happen to the Internet. People who think Internet Neutrality is not important are making a huge mistake. (But don't sidetrack the thread, I believe there are others on Net neutrality already.)

I believe accurate information is critical to maintaining a democracy. But unless the consumers figure that out, regardless of what I think the media is responsible for, it ain't gonna happen.

We should, however, push government for stricter false advertising laws and enforcement.
Click to expand...

SOmeone does not like the idea of the media being privately owned, I see.
 
skeptigirl said:
The bottom line is there are rules about free speech that impact the media. Why does it matter whether or not those rules impact other industries as well?
Click to expand...

It's not industries per se that matter. My point was that there IS no such thing as "the media" when it comes to the first ammendment's protections. Everyone gets full protection, and that includes you and me. If protections are only extended in return for some code of conduct which must be adhered to, then those protections are no longer rights, but merely govnerment-granted privileges. I am not willing to let my right to free speech become merely a privilege which can be withdrawn, so I cannot allow that to happen to anyone else either.
 
PAC said:
While I would have prefered to see a united press stand up to The Bush & Co
concerning our entry into Iraq, why blame them. There was plenty of accurate, intellignet info available for us to make the decision to stop our country from this horrible policy. Why should the press by the scapegoat for the American lemmings?
Click to expand...

Because the press has more responsibility than the people. Most people don't think for themselves in every country and innately trust authority figures. The sole authority figure for what's true and false for most people is the news. The news outlets that have the most share of viewers have behaved as ineptly or more so than the Bush administration at their duty, at giving people information rather than doping them.
 
Last edited:
latent aaaack said:
Because the press has more responsibility than the people.
Click to expand...

Not legally, they don't. Nor can they without violating the 1st ammendment. Constitutionally, "the press" is not a separate class of citizens, it is an activity that any citizen can engage in. And that's the way it should be.
 
Beerina said:
The product of their industry, speech, is not and cannot be regulated. The product of, say, the auto industry, cars, is.
Click to expand...


Oh, no. You're quite wrong.

The media makes money generally only one way - advertising. The media sells advertising. The consumer of media products is not the public but advertisers. The product that the media sells is readers. The media delivers readers to advertisers for a price. All the words written by the media are nothing but bait to get consumers to look at advertisements.

All industries are regulated including the media.

All individuals have the same First Amendment rights, including the media. News organizations have no more rights than anyone else. This is why journalists have been jailed for not revealing their sources. They have no special privileges that anyone else does not.


ETA: Also, speech is and can be regulated.
 
Last edited:
latent aaaack said:
Because the press has more responsibility than the people. Most people don't think for themselves in every country and innately trust authority figures. The sole authority figure for what's true and false for most people is the news. The news outlets that have the most share of viewers have behaved as ineptly or more so than the Bush administration at their duty, at giving people information rather than doping them.
Click to expand...

I think you meant that as a criticism of the press, but it is also a pretty pessimistic characterization of the public.

Wake up you nitwits. Pay attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom