[Aptorian]

Shinrei, on 09 November 2010 - 08:50 AM, said:

Apt speaks of the government stepping in with laws, but why should we believe that the government always tells the truth? And political "truth" is not objective anyways.

The law would be the "Stop making up what ever comes into your head, you assholes" law.

The point is not that government should control what is the truth, but rather what is NOT the truth. There should be a panel, preferably made up of former or currently employed Journalists I guess, that calls out the networks on their bullshit. If the TV-station can not shove evidence for their baseless and stupid claims, then they get a fine, a big one. What more, the goal of this panel should be to promote neutral and objective Journalism. If somebody like FOX news keeps spinning political propaganda they should have the right to call themselves "news journalism" stripped. It should not be legal to call yourself "fair and balanced" while being no such thing.

There should be some kind of sticker like "Political Advisory Warning" just like the ones on CDs, that was slapped on the screen when Glenn Beck comes on.

This post has been edited by Aptorian: 09 November 2010 - 09:19 AM

[Shinrei]

Aptorian, on 09 November 2010 - 09:15 AM, said:

The point is not that government should control what is the truth, but rather what is NOT the truth.

That's every bit as scary...



I wouldn't object to the existence of a neutral debunking group.


@Morgy, you're right, that is my main point.

[Cause]

I have never been able to understand why Journalism does not follow the same guidelines as science. Say anything and you have to reference your source.How journalists get away with saying 'a high up insider in the white house, who asked that his identity remain a secret, has diclosed that Obama is smuggling muslims into the country' is beyond me. I understand protecting your sources and that people fear for the jobs and so forth but anonymous can also mean imaginary. I think journalists need to be more transparent with the source of their information.

[Use Of Weapons]

[Aptorian]

Shinrei, on 09 November 2010 - 09:26 AM, said:

Aptorian, on 09 November 2010 - 09:15 AM, said:

The point is not that government should control what is the truth, but rather what is NOT the truth.

That's every bit as scary...

I wouldn't object to the existence of a neutral debunking group.

@Morgy, you're right, that is my main point.

Yeah, I see how the way phrased that can be taken as a negative. I should probably have said the state, instead of the Government. The government comes and goes but the offices of the state are (mostly) permanent. Think of it like the office of the Ombudsman (I think that is the same translated into English). The Ombudsman is a part of the government, but not bound by it to conform to the current politics. He simply makes sure things are fair and lawful... and stuff...

In the same way such a "Media panel" would make sure that Journalism remained objective and didn't pick a side. If the panel wasn't connected with the state, then it would have no power. Without the state it could not force any fines or regulations upon a privately owned media corporation.

[Shinrei]

Cause, on 09 November 2010 - 09:55 AM, said:

I have never been able to understand why Journalism does not follow the same guidelines as science. Say anything and you have to reference your source.How journalists get away with saying 'a high up insider in the white house, who asked that his identity remain a secret, has diclosed that Obama is smuggling muslims into the country' is beyond me. I understand protecting your sources and that people fear for the jobs and so forth but anonymous can also mean imaginary. I think journalists need to be more transparent with the source of their information.

Well, there are many officials who would stop informing the press of anything if they knew their name would be released regardless of their wishes.

[D'rek]

Cause, on 09 November 2010 - 09:55 AM, said:

I have never been able to understand why Journalism does not follow the same guidelines as science. Say anything and you have to reference your source.How journalists get away with saying 'a high up insider in the white house, who asked that his identity remain a secret, has diclosed that Obama is smuggling muslims into the country' is beyond me. I understand protecting your sources and that people fear for the jobs and so forth but anonymous can also mean imaginary. I think journalists need to be more transparent with the source of their information.

That's called whistleblowing and few insiders will do it if the media has to disclose thier identity to the world because of government laws of revealing sources. Maybe the privilege is abused sometimes, but it also really does happen that people inside an organization want to expose corruption or abuse within the organization, without losing their job or being prosecuted for violating their non-disclosure contracts.

I'd rather have silly news stories and exposure of corrupt companies and governments then neither.

[Urb]

For those of you who are confused and interested in better understanding the current political right-wing (read: morally conservative republican) mentality in the US, I recommend this documentary: http://www.moviesfou..._nightmares.php

It has its flaws and omissions, so be sure to Google/Wiki up some of the criticism it received afterwards. Anyway, it puts them in a light I haven't seen anywhere else. Fascinating stuff.

[Vengeance]

There used to be a time when journalists wanted to have more then one source to back up the claims. But that has gone out the window since Watergate. Now journalists only need to have one disgruntled moron to type out any bullshit. Or in several cases they don't even need a source just a good imagination. Which is why I get most of my news from the onion...oh right..