Can/should media be held to the same "Hate speech" standards as citizens ?

After a nice long discussion with my brother-in-law about the current social issues in the US and worldwide, we both agreed and I've really started to ponder if there is a way that media outlets can and should be held accountable and in what way.

For normal citizens today, the right to free speech ends at the point of inciting violence against others. So why should it be any different for the media?? I mean this whole "corporations are people" thing should swing both ways no? In just the last 4 years we have seen many situations that were clearly inflamed by the media to the point of actual violence among the public in many protests.

I honestly believe, more than any government effort to 'divide&conquer', that the real root of many [perceived]social issues, is the for-profit nature of US news agencies. Their need to sensationalize and attract viewers to create revenue is simply a conflict of interest.

I feel like the BBC do a good job, while not perfect, they seem pretty unbiased, and often report from both sides of an issue.

So who should be held accountable, and how? My knowledge in this area of law and how it applies is limited, so I'm hoping to spark a discussion with input from individuals here with law/political experience and education. Could/should a corporation lose it's license if they're found to be guilty of inciting violence ? Obviously we don't want to discourage accurate reporting also, just for PC sake.

Opinions and suggestions?


.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

I agree, but who will enforce this? Also, it is not a crime to lie or manufacturer information and spread it via mass media. I have a feeling the media outlets know where the legal grey line is and have highly trained attorneys in their ranks to defend them from such issues.

The problem of our society unfortunately goes much deeper than just media coverage/spin.

I whole heatedly believe that the root of these problems stem from the social stratification caused by monetary economics and the abhorrent behaviors that manifests from such stratification.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

I think it is wise to make a clear distinction between the Media, which includes movie makers, script writers, musicians, and a whole lot more, and the News Media, which is, as far as I can tell, what you are actually referring to.

The news media should certainly be expected to adhere to the same basic rules as everyone else, when it comes to issues surrounding hate speech. There are many figures in the US news media for one, whose sole purpose is to attract viewers by way of playing to their ignorance, intolerance, and hatred. This needs to stop. Punditry is all very well, but there is a difference between punditry and propagandism, and while there is a place for the former, the latter is unacceptable, and is not the responsibility of the news media to produce, or broadcast. That is what they do at the moment, but it is not in their official remit.

Access to the news, access to information about what is happening globally, and at home in ones own back yard is necessary in order to prioritise properly, set ones self up for future events, prepare for what is to come, and to assist a person in coming to terms with their own lives, and the meaning of and importance of events therein in my opinion. However, reporting the news is a very different thing, than telling people what they should think about it at the same time.

As for the rest of the media? The movie industry, the music industry? No. These are artistic realms, and great license should, and is given to persons in those fields to cover controversial topics, because the aim of such things is to inspire emotion. A news report should inspire emotion because of the facts, not because of the opinion of the person who reads it out to you. A movie should inspire emotions, because that is how they are supposed to work, and one may be lead on a journey in film or music, which is necessary to their function, and which is derived from the genius of its creators, performers, and/or producers.

News media however should be delivered without emotional, political, racial, or religious bias. I wholeheartedly support the right of journalists and news companies to aggressively chase down data, to be strident in their demand for truth, but they must not select their targets based on the desires or political affiliations of the news team, the ownership of the company, or any other damn thing. They must chase truth from all sources equally, and do not have a remit to reinforce the sort of toxic nonsense spewed from both the pro republican, or the pro democrat political angles, in the minds of the viewers.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

Individuals can hold media accountable by boycotting commercial interests.
If it's egregious, and they are chronic evildoers just don't watch, listen or read their stuff. Rush Limbaugh comes to mind.

If you think you've really got constitution, watch the evildoers and whatever they say, do some independent research on the opposite.

For instance, Dick Cheney classified Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. I will make it a point to read NM's writing. The FBI classified MLK as a terrorist. I will read his writing. Faux News, says there is a war on Christians, I will research the ways that Christians are seeking to indoctrinate or eliminate non-believers. The state and state controlled media is actively slandering black leaders in the US. I will take the time to read what they are writing and listen to what they are saying so I can judge for myself.

a reply to: Sparkymedic

Erm ! Not a crime to make up information and spread it via mass media ? Are you for real ? So you are saying that The UK and US spreading fear about Iraq firing missiles that could hit our countries in 15 mins for instance is not criminal ?

I'm mystified

Governments would have to change tactics .. all media is state run and accordingly manipulated for propaganda and control of the masses ..

No government in the world would give up any of its methods of manipulation and control .. theyd lose far more than they gain ..

a reply to: 8675309jenny

The media is A number 1 the agency tasked to foment division amongst the populace along racial lines. Not only race but class, wealth, status, education, sex, religion, whatever.

The more divided we are against one another the less likely we will unite against the corrupt government .

a reply to: sayzaar

If it is illegal, show me the law.

Clearly it is not illegal, as it is done daily. Or the law is just ignored. But based on what I learned in my journalism lectures, it is not illegal to fabricate news. Governments lying on the other hand...that may be (or at the very least should be) illegal, but again....likely isn't.

Remember, the freedom of the press lies in those who own the press itself.

Thank goodness for the internet!

If somebody tells you the sky is green, and the grass is blue, and you're stupid enough to believe them, it's on you, not them.

The reason the media succeeds is because the people who are influenced by the media willfully ignorant. They enjoy hearing the "media" parrot back to them the view of the world they already have.

They don't care about what's real. They care about feeling justified in their views and being spoon fed villains they can blame for why their life isn't the way they want it to be.

Think through all the bitching about allowing unlimited donations to campaigns. The money is used to pay for advertising. What we're really saying is, "Hey... don't let them spend too much money on ads because we know we're too gullible and will be easily brainwashed by their 30 second commercials because we're too lazy and don't care enough too look into anything beyond the superficial that makes us feel good."

a reply to: 8675309jenny

They should but they would just argue the first amendment in the states.

In Canada hate speech is against the law. And you never/rarely hear hate speech out here in the media unless it comes from the states.

They should report the news and citizens are still responsible for their own actions. Yeah the anchor man made me do it is a great defense.
The news media didn't do anything to make people riot. People with little self control saw the news and made the decision to riot.
Let's hold citizens accountable for their own actions instead of pointing fingers and saying it's his fault he made me.

For the record I've never heard any hate speech from any news anchor so if you have an example of this inflammatory speech please provide it. Otherwise like I said. It's interpretation and decisions by the listeners.

A to: intrptr
Give me a break.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

I work as an independent stringer for news organizations and I would like to comment but could you provide some
examples please.

That's conspiracy theory koolaid .Media is NOT STATE RUN. It's private ownership. Don't believe everything the lone gunmen try to force feed you. That story telling goes both ways but people tend to forget that. Everyone could be a sheep being led into lies. eply to: Expat888

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: 8675309jenny

I work as an independent stringer for news organizations and I would like to comment but could you provide some
examples please.

I already asked that. Apparently it will take some time to compile. We can get up a game of cards in the meantime if you like. I have some vanilla rum we can drink while we wait too.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
That's conspiracy theory koolaid .Media is NOT STATE RUN. It's private ownership. Don't believe everything the lone gunmen try to force feed you. That story telling goes both ways but people tend to forget that. Everyone could be a sheep being led into lies. eply to: Expat888

Thanks, we all know that something stated in capital letters CARRIES MORE WEIGHT!

6 corporatons own 90 % of the media

Well good then I don't have to review that with you as well. Six corporations still isn't state run. So what's your point?a reply to: intrptr

What is the actual definition of "hate Speech" and who ultimately decides on what is considered to fit the definition?

It's another of those ridiculous fabrications, meant to lull us all into this increasingly politically correct trance state, where we are afraid to speak our minds and criticize anything for fear of being labeled this or that and thus standing out from the herd.
The way things are right now, if we are even overheard saying something that someone within earshot thinks is offensive to them, we can be arrested and charged, such is the silliness of these crazy laws.

Whatever happened to thick skins, changing the channel, walking away or ignoring things and people we didn't agree with?
Sure, it's great for the lawyers as it has created a whole new avenue of prosecutions for them to exploit, but what is it ultimately doing to society? I'm sorry, but I refuse to become a good little drone and will always speak my mind and it that offends some people, then so be it, get over it and move on.

We either have free speech or we don't, it's as simple as that. Having laws that prosecute people for saying something that some may find unsavoury is the complete opposite and can also be used to stifle free speech. One of the primary examples of this is the "anti-semite" tag, the use of which is meant to stifle any and all debate and stigmatize the offender in the eyes of the programmed drones.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Well good then I don't have to review that with you as well. Six corporations still isn't state run. So what's your point?a reply to: intrptr

I didn't say that. Whats my point, lol…

The 'state' is run by the corporations. Hiding behind euphemism, the mega corporations control the state through "lobbying" to influence "representatives" to pass "legislation" that benefit the corporations, not the people.

The media doesn't cover that I don't think. They cover it up.