Protect The First! At All Costs?

a reply to: Vector99

Protect the first by infringing on the first? Now I've read everything.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: windword

The first story was not a falsehood; Hogan really did have sex with his friend's wife. It was invasion of privacy, not libel.

Still, "The Press" is not immune from prosecution and allowed to exist with impunity. "The Press" can be and is held accountable.

Absolutely; that is a necessary condition of freedom of expression. Everyone, including private individuals, is accountable for what they say and do.

a reply to: DJW001

Where am I claiming anything to be censored?

a reply to: JinMI

Well, If you're claiming that the MSM doesn't have the right to operate without government interference, which the 1st Amendment protects against, then you're going to have censorship, and only what the government wants you know will get published.

a reply to: windword

I didn't claim that, anywhere. I'm stating the press as it was coined is not the same press that operates today.

doesn't anybody remember in 2003 the florida appeals court ruling that the press can lie.

the case was what pretty much brought out the story about Monsanto's production bovine growth hormone (rBGH) and the use of by dairy farmers.

the lawyers for the fox affiliate argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation". and the court upheld that.

here is a quick wiki,

An appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes.[5] ... Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes,[5] Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[3] The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter ... Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute," but noted that the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.[3]
Jane Akre

the FCC even says they can do little about it.

The FCC receives a wide variety of comments and complaints from consumers about whether networks, stations, news reporters or commentators give inaccurate or one-sided news presentations, fail to cover certain events or cover them adequately, overemphasize or dramatize certain aspects of news events. Other complaints are received regarding the conduct of journalists in the gathering and reporting of news. The FCC's authority to respond to these complaints is narrow in scope and the Commission is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press.

Complaints About Broadcast Journalism

i literally couldnt have said it better myself, i wish i was a better speaker lol. but this is the exact truth. the people behind these protests are acting out based on beliefs that arent held by any rational ideas. their perception has been warped by the media. i have close friends that act completely brainwashed and get angry at me when i lay it out for them with cold hard facts. they will get angry and even fight to protect these beliefs. ive never been more disappointed in my people.

a reply to: Vector99

Very interesting OP.

In response, Id suggest you look behind the liberal media, (actually leftist media) to see who created and shaped these non-journalist propagandists........the Universities!

Therefore, Id say the MSM feeds the protesters, but the schools shaped them and molded them to be receptive to and accepting of the media message. How do we know its the schools? After years of indoctrination the leftists have picked up a speaking pattern that immediately gives them away. When asked a direct question, they always respond by saying the word.......So. You pick up on this and it will start to drive you nuts. But its a clear indication theyve been indoctrinated in the same leftist ideology.

I want nothing "blacklisted" .. in particular it shouldnt be done on ATS. What a person fills their eyes and mind with is important.. especially when youre trying to get the feel for an OP. People love to read garbage.. rags like the enquirer have been around forever. Its up to the thinking folks to weed out things for themselves, employ some critical thinking, and keep their own information about whatever subject current.


I know some subjects backward, forward, and inside out. I typically dont discuss things I know so thoroughly.. but come to ATS to throw out a dragnet on information about subjects I need more information on. This place is a wealth of information... IF you have any critical thinking skills at all ( and googlefu).

Stupid ( willfully ignorant or just stupid - truly incapable of understanding) people will gravitate to low brow BS. You will never convince them that something isnt true if they dont want to believe that. Those sorts will always be led by the nose by those who would oppose peace or do not want an educated informed public.

We are coming, the patriots, freedom fighters, veterans and everyday America citizens.
Beware to those who have gutted the Constitution, wrecked the economy, and have attempted to take away the very freedoms this nation was founded upon.

The Bravo Sierra stops now.



Buck

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: windword

I didn't claim that, anywhere. I'm stating the press as it was coined is not the same press that operates today.

That's right News and opinion is just a capitalistic endeavor to hang advertising on. Targeted demographics and all that's tied to it. Capitalism....let the people decide.

Government control the leftys sites and stations...

But lets keep Brietbart and fox ...right?

Why stop with a Minister of information....Let government control everything...That's where were heading!!

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: windword

I didn't claim that, anywhere. I'm stating the press as it was coined is not the same press that operates today.

True. You'd be hard pressed to find a publishing company that still uses a printing press, and we're heading toward a paperless society, where newspapers are becoming obsolete. But, I don't think the founding fathers meant to protect inanimate objects like printing presses and paper, I think they meant to protect the fundamental right of the people to be informed of their government's doings and to have a dedicated watch dog, operating outside of government interference, to alert the public to behavior that may be detrimental to the public's interests, when they proclaimed "Freedom of the Press".

The only solution is to not buy into it. Don't watch the news. All we really have control over are ourselves and it has to start somewhere.

If enough people stopped tuning in they'd have to make some kind of change to stay profitable. This is America, hurt them where it matters most. Their pockets.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: windword

I didn't claim that, anywhere. I'm stating the press as it was coined is not the same press that operates today.

It was much worse in the 18th Century. Journalistic objectivity is a relatively new concept. Newspapers and handbicolonial era were highly partisan and inflammatory.

The government has no place availing itself of matters of the press beyond what would be criminal and unprotected or anti-trust (hint/hint)

That is our job, as The People. You know, caveat emptor? One of our founding principles (that has been wholly forgotten in the search for a nanny state)?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vector99

Protect the first by infringing on the first? Now I've read everything.

A very well thought out reply from you as usual.

There are already laws in place regarding free speech. Maybe had you read the entire OP you would see I was looking for opinions regarding legal propaganda.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The government has no place availing itself of matters of the press beyond what would be criminal and unprotected or anti-trust (hint/hint)

That is our job, as The People. You know, caveat emptor? One of our founding principles (that has been wholly forgotten in the search for a nanny state)?

I agree, trust me. The thing is though, these riots occurring right now can be attributed to blatant media propaganda. Isn't that somewhat of an issue?

a reply to: windword

Sensationalism is what protest is all about.

Really? Did you really just say that? No, protest is SUPPOSED to be something done to accentuate a grievance or injustice.

Ask a protester. This thread isn't about listing Donald Trump's campaign promises, past words or behavior. It'a about the 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech and "Freedom of the Press".

Seeing as I kinda made the thread, I'm pretty sure I know what it's about. If I asked a protester, their reason would fall in line with purposeful media falsifications. That's exactly what this thread is about.

a reply to: Vector99

ME: Sensationalism is what protest is all about.

YOU: Really? Did you really just say that? No, protest is SUPPOSED to be something done to accentuate a grievance or injustice.

Yes really, and I mean it. Protest is the "next level" of redress. The people have the right to redress the government for their grievances to the point of taking up arms to overthrow the government, (2nd Amendment).
I'M NOT ADVOCATING THAT, OR VIOLENCE, OR DEFENDING THE RIOTERS

Politicians aren't expected to tell the truth. Politicians sensationalize. They rattle the cages of the fearful and gullible people to get them to vote for them, because only they can fix their problems. People put their trust in them.

The fundamental nature of an "alert" is sensational, like a siren. So, if one of the fundamental objectives of "The Press" is to be a watch dog and to alert the public to questionable behavior, then they have to sound a siren to get the people's attention. A siren louder, maybe, than the politicians' sirens stirring up fear.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: onthedownlow

There should be a discussion about dangerous speech,

It'a already illegal to incite, or yell "FIRE" in a theater.

and libel laws should challenge the press' attempt to pass off opinion as news.

Slippery slope. How can "The Press" be a watch dog and alert the public to questionable activities without having an opinion, I.E. thinking something will have adverse consequences if continued?

What's wrong with our Libel/Slander/Defamation Laws that you would challenge or change, "innocent until proven guilty"? Do you think a person or media outlet should be sued for sharing their opinions?

Wow, pretty big jump there! News is information, and to suggest that you can't share information without formulating an opinion is rediculous. Are you suggesting that you might not recognize the consequences or implications of news without being hand fed an opinion? As previously stated, I believe that journalists are protected by free press and free speech. At the same time, misrepresenting the news to push a political agenda is not a fair representation of the "news".

Wouldn't you agree that MSM should be held accountable for purposefully misrepresenting the news?