Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7134918.stm
This is just completely beyond my comprehension skills. My personal reaction is along the lines of, what deranged lunatic could possibly be against freedom of the press? And yet it's quite a common opinion internationally. Is this terrifying or am I over reacting?
Those in power usually don't want the public to know the truth. For those in power usually have strong ties to the cooperations that funded their election. Doing political things to favor the people who elected you is bound to lead to corruption, if the press is free to write about it, they are bound to loose their power.
Yea Tom it's scary.
Although I am also a firm believer in freedom of the press, I believe that there should be some limits to that freedom. After all, freedom of speech doesn't give one the right to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater. The press must also have some limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
In the past those limits were pretty much dealt with through self control. The press conspired with FDR's people to minimize the impact of his disability. Without that there is little doubt he would have never been elected president. In the early 60's the press had an unwritten rule about ignoring Kennedy's romantic assignations. There are other examples.
I remember during the first Gulf War when General Schwartzkopf held press conferences, he repeatedly had to remind the press that he would not answer questions regarding troop deployments and tactics. Yet they constantly tried to get hold of that information and report it. This could have had devastating results for the troops there.
Sometimes you have to put limits on what you report. If the press doesn't do that themselves than the government will do it for them. I'd much prefer to see the former.
um...yeah. I don't think you're on target. These numbers aren't based on what major corporations or the government think, but people in the street. ie people "without" power.Quote:
Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg
Why would ordinary people ever be against freedom of the press? That's the issue here. And those who aren't against free press, who would they want to regulate it. I'm sure that, that one question cannot have popped up in the minds of those who answered against free press. Is it that people in general are extremely stupid or do know something I don't? These numbers aren't only in oppressed countries like Russia. It's in the west to. Even in "the land of the free".
The land of the free isn't so free anymore simply put.
I don't agree at all. I'd say all countries in the west are extremely free. There may be a few minor issues here and there but over the whole they're all very well functioning liberal democracies indeed. Above all their democratic systems are not being threatened. Which incursions in the freedom of the press would effectively kill. It's an extremely serious development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfscout
But with Internet it's arguable that a free press isn't crucial for the liberal democracy any more. But then again, I wouldn't bank on it.
China and Iran are good examples. Information sharing is out of control and it doesn't seem to have any impact.
And North America and Western Europe all strongly favored freedom of the press, if you read the whole article. I think that if you want to understand why people responded as they did, you just need to read the article carefully and look at who was asked and what they were asked. Most people almost everywhere found a free press more important than social stability but the countries where a large minority didn't are precisely those which suffer from great instability. While I wouldn't endorse their position, I can understand how someone in a chaotic, underdeveloped country might be willing to sacrifice some freedom for some more security. In some areas, Americans seemed and still seem to be willing to do the same thing after 9/11, although I dislike that as well.
Part of the problem is in what you consider "ordinary" people. This is strictly my opinion, based on my admittedly limited observations. Most "ordinary" people don't really want everyone to be free. They want freedom for themselves, yes, since they "know" that they can deal with it. But for all those other people out there? Hell, that might lead to strange thinking, like evolution and gay marriages and all that subversive stuff!Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
Then, too, "ordinary" people tend to follow a charismatic leader rather than think for themselves. And when that leader points to a free press as destroying decent society, the "ordinary" people will parrot his diatribes. In actuality, that leader is upset simply because the press actually prints what is real and not necessarily what he believes is real.
Yes, a free press is an absolute necessity in any democracy, no question about it. But it can also be a dangerous weapon against the leaders of that democracy. To us, that means it's doing its job. To those who are caught in their deceits and brought out into the light, that means it needs to be reined in before they lose their power. And if they can rile up enough of their followers, they just might get their way.
I don't know if that's true or not. Certainly it doesn't seem to have had a significant impact as yet, but in a repressive society that will take much longer than in a free society. As long as the information is out there, though, it will have an effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
You may recall several years ago when many people were angry about Google, or Yahoo perhaps, agreeing to censor their search engines for the Chinese government. Most people felt that caving in to censorship like that would do more harm than good. But my feeling was, and is, that once the search engines are in place, the students and intellectuals will find a way to get around the censorship. And that will open up a whole can of worms for the Chinese government. A free education system and a free exchange of information are the biggest enemy of a repressive government. Once people learn about the lies their leaders have been feeding them they will demand change.
Maybe because the masses don't understand that for them to have a free press everyone has to have a free press. Most don't want to see things they don't agree with. They think the press is too liberal in reporting 'dissident' views.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
In other words, their motto is "I have the right to say whatever I want... but you don't."
A very short-sighted perspective of freedom.
I think you'll need to explain this to me? Why would anybody risk losing their rights over some stability? Why would anybody in the west want to curb press freedom? Why is there even a single percentile in that column?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatrice
I think it depends how far you extend 'freedom'. Should they be allowed to print, say, my medical records or bank statements, if they somehow fell into some reporter's hands? Should they be allowed to bug my phone or break into my e-mail account on the off-chance of finding some juicy scoop? I don't think so - but I seem to recall at least two of those four examples have taken place in the UK in recent years. I think those should be illegal - so if you consider banning that to be a restriction on the press, then yes, I do support *some* limitations on press freedom. That certainly doesn't mean I want the press muzzled or media censored, limited to parroting the government line - indeed, I dislike and oppose the BBFC, BBC and the UK's new anti-pornography law for those reasons - but I don't think the freedom should be absolute. The question, at least as reported, seems a little too vague to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
That said, at least a majority preferred freedom - and it's worth noting that the countries disagreeing there, like Russia, India and Singapore, have rather different historical experiences with government control! (Odd and sad that Russia seems accepting of a 'strong' government, rather than rebelling against the bad old days, but this seems to be a reaction to bad experiences immediately after the USSR's breakup.)
js207
your examples are areas that have already happened and the answer is yes. If your a public figure or a powerful figure and that bank account shows wrong doing then damn right it should be. A bigger issure is that right now the USA under the bushites are doing all of that on just anyone they want. Do You have no problem with the govnerment going after those who disagree with them?
The press needs to be held accountable and the internet isn't so not really the press. Let me give a short version of why I stopped being an active part of politics for my area.
I was fairly well known real estate person and was asked by a citizen group to help the city develop a parcel of land next to a beach park into a walk of stores and shops to add to our city and bring in outside money into our city.
We talk with several designers of these kind of theme shopping centers including the gentleman that design for Disney World their famous area. He ended up being very interested and his preliminary drawings made him our man. The city had given its blessing for this project and agreed to allow the project to use it land on a rental bases and that no city funds would be used.
We proceeded found private funding and amassed a large group of anchor stores that are well known and respected. This would allow smaller shops to have many of their customers to come into their shops too since there was to be no cars inside the mall area. We had energy effiecent trams and trolleys to take the shopper around from parking lot to the store of their dreams.
The last piece of this puzzle to make this happen was a vote by the public allowing the rental of the land and small amount of rent for the unused land for the first 5 years while this mall got itself established. We felt that it was a win win win situation very almost no risk.
Less then 2 week before the vote a popular country western station drive time DJ started a rant on how the city was financing this deal at a very risking position, and offering a no interest no cost loans to build the stores and mall. All of this was untrue.
Since it was only his opinion based on no facts but it went out to many many listeners. It was about 4 days before the election vote when a friend asked me how the hell I could be involved in such an out right scam or the city. We played 20 question and I found out why he felt this way went back to this DJ.
A group of us including a city attorney went to the station to confront DJ and management to demand a retraction and the actual facts be put on the air. The station basically said their ratings went way up because of this and they refused to to do anything about stating the facts.
I almost laid out the station manager after I got over the shock, I actually had to be restrained, I threatened suit but as a friend explained it was too late.
The vote came and it wasn't even close. I learned a valuable lesson that is used over and over in politics that day. "Tell a lie often enough to enough people and it becomes a truth, unquestioned by the majority."
Think of the way campaigns have been run and you will see this as very true.
Free press needs watch dogs to be sure that no one can subvert their reports for gains of any sort. Till then the idea of free press is mearly a pipe dream, a great idea that really doesn't exist. The press of today owned and controlled by mega corps mearly proves my point.
The republicans have used now for 2 decades the lie of a liberal media being biased against them. What horseshit, we are feed reports slanted to the best interest of their owners and other large money power brokers.
The internet is more likely to give you facts if you could just filter out the personal opinions but that is probably an impossible task.
I agree, Tom, that it is frightening that people believe that they can have stability or harmony without freedom of information. A free press is the best way to get news out so that people can make informed decisions. Frankly, I'm not sure if justice is possible without the full truth. As MLK said: "Without justice, there can be no peace."
I do think that the information needs to be true to the best of verification, however. I feel for you, Sir Russell, that there was a disregard for the truth in the search for ratings but that is just an illustration of the callous disregard that those in power have for facts they don't like. From the Bush administration feeding falsehoods to the media to corporations fudging number on their annual reports, we all suffer when the truth is lost.
And a press beholden to corporate sponsors is as much a danger as a government restricting them. We need to be able to trust that they are reporting the news without undue bias and not failing to report things that reflect badly on their owners or their owner's profit margin.
This is a problem with democracy, not free press. It's a radio DJ!!! He's employed to be entertaining. If people take what he says seriously, it says more about them than the DJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_Russell
I think the freedom to be an idiot is one of the inalienable rights we should have by law. I can have opinions about whether or not idiots should speak up, (on air!!!) but that's just my little private opinion. I wouldn't want it to be enforced. It's the same thing with the "biased liberal media" bollocks. If people are dumb enough to fall for that shit... then... yeah. It sucks... but I wouldn't want to change it. I think that putting up with the rule of dumb asses is better than having a system open to abuse and potentially open to autocratic take-overs. Which is the alternative.
We had a similar thing happen in Stockholm. They where planning to rebuild a part around where I live in central Stockholm. I was all for it. I thought it was a great initiative. Everybody I spoke to thought it was great. But as usual it's only the whiny ludite idiots who can be bothered petitioning the politicians so to every bodies great surprise it was blocked in the city hall. I mean, what the fuck. I vote for a politician to represent me because I don't have time or interest to do it. My only thought on this is, Then Fucking Do Your Job, and don't listen to these fuck-ups who I didn't vote for. That was a nice monday morning rant.
It's more a problem with people in general, all over the world, and a press which caters to fame and notoriety rather than intelligence and integrity. Why report the truth when a small exaggeration will sell more advertising and isn't likely to be questioned. There are far too many people who are far too interested in the muddled goings-on of people who can barely remember how to fall out of bed in the morning. The deranged capers of a drugged out pop singer seem to be far more important to some people than what's happening in the real world. No wonder the world seems to run on fads and phony "reality."Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
Even DJ's can slander ... in fact, because they have (presumably) a larger audience than news programmes, and the listeners are (again presumably) listening less critically, they are in a position to do much greater damage. Also, they have no professional standards to adhere to, such as obtaining independent verification of items they intend to publish.
I think it's a shame the radio station wasn't sued and forced to pay substantial damages, but the sad thing is, the station would probably manage to turn it into a publicity event for itself.
Freedom of the press is vitally important to a free society, but that doesn't mean it should be completely uncontrolled and answerable to no-one. So I think the press should be allowed to do and say exactly what it thinks it must say, but it should have to answer to a responsible supervisory body for any complaints against it, and if it is found to have abused its privileges, to pay a very heavy penalty, including, in the worst cases, closure of the newwspaper/radio station/tv station concerned. Compensation payments would also seem appropriate in many cases too.
As for the tripe that you find in the gutter press, I think they can be safely ignored: they don't matter, and the people they write about don't matter, either. They feed off each other in order to make each other rich at the expense of readers and fans eager for the latest gossip and scandal. It's a source of wonder to me that there is so much money involved in what they do.
TYWD
I agree with you 100% about the importance of a free press, and about the responsibility of the press to insure that it is reporting accurately and factually. The problem I have is with the idea of a supervisory body which would have the power to close down the media. This would be an awesome amount of power in any country, as this kind of body could become a puppet of the government. How do you insure that doesn't happen? Perhaps the most reliable way to control these things is through the power of money: if advertisers refuse to deal with those who distort or outright lie, they will soon be out of business. Of course, then you run the risk of big business controlling the media, which might be worse than any government.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
There's so much money involved because there are so many people who thrive on this trash. And the worst thing you could do would be to ignore them. They DO matter, precisely because so many people devour every word they print (though there are all too many who don't actually print any real words.) I would venture to guess that the large majority of those people who do follow the "gutter press" don't spend much time with the real media, but they are still voters! This makes that portion of the press far more influential than they have any right to be.Quote:
As for the tripe that you find in the gutter press, I think they can be safely ignored: they don't matter, and the people they write about don't matter, either. They feed off each other in order to make each other rich at the expense of readers and fans eager for the latest gossip and scandal. It's a source of wonder to me that there is so much money involved in what they do.
Journalism is entertainment. They write the news they do because it sells. They'll sell news catering to and fitting our preconceptions. The obvious reason is because that is what we want to read.
The only time our preconceptions are challenged is in articles with that specific aim, and then it is clearly stated. People who like having their preconceptions challenged read those. It is called philosophy. It is a vanishingly small market.
I understand why that style of writing wouldn't be helpful in the news room, because it takes a lot of effort from the readers side to digest, and is the opposite of the goal of news. To give us information easily digestible.
The difference between high and low, is just what preconceptions are being catered to. Usually correlating with level of education.
It's very hard to judge somebody getting their news from evening press, if they don't have the prior interest and education to understand what's happening around the world. To somebody with no prior knowledge, national policies, wars and events in the world, will just appear to happen at random. At least that's how I saw it as a kid, and still do when it's issues I'm not well read on. What's the point in reading in-depth analysis of that? What's the point in reading about something which seems to just be a repeat and just as random as things last week?
That doesn't prevent me from being annoyed when people with no idea what they're talking about still voice an opinion, and even vote. But that's just the reality we live in. This is the age of information. And there's more of it than is humanly possible to digest.
we don't want the press involved in our private lives but seems we have a taste for other peoples affairs. That isn't really the news though more gossip.
I want a free press so that when they discover evildoers lol they actually tell us about it.