It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Regulating News Networks (Eliminating Propaganda)

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

There should be no "solution".

Is there a bastardization, a corruption in today's media?

Yes.

It's a byproduct of a free society.

But any "solution" would require less freedoms.

Hafta be against that.




posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

A "free society" means multinational corporations (oligarch machinations) get the same Freedom of Speech as actual citizens? That they get to wield it as a key component of total control the entire System, and society, as well?


edit on 18-7-2018 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: FingerMan

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: FingerMan

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: FingerMan
a reply to: DBCowboy

Ah. Did I get you wrong.

Fact remains, nobody is watching the press in any meaningful manner. So your quote was applicable to what I am saying.

And to counter your argument, separating editorial from news is not censorship or the removing of any freedoms. It is simple organization.


Why aren't we smart enough to discern the information for ourselves?


Not sure if serious? Based on most of your posts, is this sarcasm?
Without going into too much detail, cause it deserves its own thread, the majority of the population are not smart enough to discern this. As is and has been obvious.

No censorship needed, just segregate the commentary from the news. As a regulation. Let the news organizations oversee it. Again,,, for the children. lol


You're describing a soft tyranny.

I'd have to be against that.


It is not tyranny in any sense of the word. It is simple organization. We have literally thousands of regulations that do this. If this is a soft tyranny, then we have had tyranny since 1775.


Apparently we'll have to agree to disagree.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

But any "solution" would require less freedoms.


False Dichotomy.




posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: DBCowboy

A "free society" means multinational corporations (oligarchs) get the same Freedom of Speech as actual citizens? That they get to wield it as a key component of total control the entire System, and society, as well?



I suppose we could envision a society with fewer freedoms and more government controls and regulations.


But I wouldn't want to.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

As long as multinational (globalist) corporations control us, that's better than a nationalist government doing it?




posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: DBCowboy

As long as multinational (globalist) corporations control us, that's better than a nationalist government doing it?




Government, multinational corporations. . . . to-may-to. . . to-mah-to.


If I'm going to hit you over the head with a hammer, does it matter what color the handle is?



posted on Jul, 19 2018 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: DBCowboy

A "free society" means multinational corporations (oligarchs) get the same Freedom of Speech as actual citizens? That they get to wield it as a key component of total control the entire System, and society, as well?



I suppose we could envision a society with fewer freedoms and more government controls and regulations.


But I wouldn't want to.


I'll bite on that argument!

Who maintains the right to label and prosecute Monopolies?
The answer: US Govt

I don't hear anyone claiming Tyranny there.

If you are against Govt regulation, what about:
- Equal Opportunity?
- Wage and Labor Laws?
- Antitrust Laws?
- Blindingly Heavy Mortgage Regulations?
- Copyright Infringement?

- Environmental Regulations? Aka, you can't just dump used oil in your yard or down the drain.
OH WAIT. People can figure that out for themselves right? Apparently they cannot, hence the law.
For those of us older than 40, remember the days when people chucked garbage out their car windows?
And so why in the cotton pick world would anyone with a semblance of intelligence ever think the layman could tell the difference between commentary and factual news?

If you won't define the above mentioned regulations as tyranny, then you can't define a regulation on the News Organizations as tyranny either. Why? Because it is not logical.

A regulation to separate editorial commentary from factual news would likely do for us the same as the Environmental Regulations. It would clean a lot of sht up.

(Takes a bow, drops the mic, moon walks out the door)



edit on 19-7-2018 by FingerMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2018 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: FingerMan

Got a link (will try and dig one out if not) not Trump's biggest fan but he raises good points domestically and he least he gets people talking about such issues.

Oh it doesn't go into full on censorship (apart from court trials and not hacking the gov to get stories) it's a self regulatory body with newspaper editors overseeing it.

Used to work as a journo and if anything they recieved criticism for being toothless and innefective - in the case of PCC the editor of the most biased and complained about paper - the Daily Mail - had it's editor as head of PCC and he always found the paper innocent in complaints.

For example phone hacking was standard in the UK by the Murdoch press, they hacked into thousands of phones ilegally from politicians, celebrities to murdered children - including the voicemail of a teenager who had been murdered which gave the parents false hope she was alive and interfered with the police investigation.

The new 'guarding the guards' framework over here uses Editor's from across platforms mainly in the proffesional press aimed at editors and journalists (RSF, Society Editors, NUJ etc..)

When it comes to covering elections and similar the BBC and CH4, who recieve some funding via TV liscence, have to provide accurate, reliable jouranlism based on a mathematical matrix that allocates the ammount of time each Party recieves in coverage to keep it equal and representative.

Indeed it's a very fine line between censorship and a toothless organisation. US wise I'd be looking to News Wires like AP and Reuter's which are about as unbiased as you can get and various media editors, lawyers and ethics experts.

ETA: Think it was Tony Harcup who wrote 'The Ethical Journalist' and Jaap van Ginneken who wrote 'Journalism in Advanced Democracies' which covers the role - it's a very interesting discussion with no easy answers.
edit on 19-7-2018 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2018 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Great post - we have polar opposite political views but you're spot on here.

Pew are the best there is for media standards assesments. Also commend you for teaching your kids how to read the news, as you say adjectives and adverbs and general fluffy language reveals the underlying bias (similar to Colonel Gaddafi and General Pinochet invokes war imagery, yet the US President and UK Monarch have the same role but are reffered to in polite democracy based terms). That form of covert bias is the worst in my opinion - far too easy to fall victim to without noticing (I certainly had before journo training)

News storires should be blunt, dry, factual and to the point - completely devoid of sensationalist language or anything that displays the writer's bias. Had an excellent tutorou out th and mentor who was an incredibly violent Scottish alcoholic but amazing journalist/editor who would stand over your shoulder the entire time you were writing up stories and pick you up by the ears and kick you out the door for making any mistakes - 95% class hated it and never became journos, the rest of us had great careers.



posted on Jul, 19 2018 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: Boadicea

Great post - we have polar opposite political views but you're spot on here.


I often wonder how many of us would have more similar views... or at least more compatible... if not for the many diverse opinions which are passed off as "news"...


Pew are the best there is for media standards assesments. Also commend you for teaching your kids how to read the news, as you say adjectives and adverbs and general fluffy language reveals the underlying bias (similar to Colonel Gaddafi and General Pinochet invokes war imagery, yet the US President and UK Monarch have the same role but are reffered to in polite democracy based terms). That form of covert bias is the worst in my opinion - far too easy to fall victim to without noticing (I certainly had before journo training).

News storires should be blunt, dry, factual and to the point - completely devoid of sensationalist language or anything that displays the writer's bias. Had an excellent tutorou out th and mentor who was an incredibly violent Scottish alcoholic but amazing journalist/editor who would stand over your shoulder the entire time you were writing up stories and pick you up by the ears and kick you out the door for making any mistakes - 95% class hated it and never became journos, the rest of us had great careers.


You make an excellent point with the difference between "President" or "Queen" and "General" or "Colonel." It's not just the adverbs and adjectives, although those are also quite problematic. Even describing a scene or the weather can invoke positive or negative responses -- it was a bright and cheerful day outside... or it was a dark and gloomy sky about to burst...

I have to laugh at your professor though! I took a couple journalism classes in high school and our journalism teacher was also the French teacher, so we heard a lot of "Mon Dieu!" and "Egads!" But he was really good at getting us to examine our adverbs and adjectives. Was so-and-so really "determined" or was he just "bull-headed" and "stubborn" and "ornery"? Was he really "clever" or was he just manipulative and sneaky? He really drilled it into our heads that we had no idea what was REALLY going on in anyone else's head. And, of course, we weren't allowed to say it "appeared" to be anything, because that was suggestive and not factual...



posted on Jul, 19 2018 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

No, I think we would still have people of differing views, sometimes radically so.

People have differing capacities to really think things through and imagine potential long-term consequences and causal relationships.

Thomas Sowell puts it this way: most everyone can reason from point A to point B, but not nearly as many can or bother to reason from B to C, C to D, and so on and so forth. What happens for the most part, is that every cause really creates ripples, not just one effect.

For example, you create a welfare program that hands out a stipend. The A to B is really easy to see, but the ripple consequences on all sides are not. What many policy makers rely on is that when the inevitable consequences of those ripples crop up, very, very few have thought through the ripples and are capable of understanding why the increased smoking tax used to create the revenue for the stipend might be bringing in less because the tax is driving a new black market in smokes. So there are now two entirely new problems to solve: that thriving, illegal black market (like the one that indirectly caused the death by cop of that poor man in New York), and a sudden revenue vacuum which will obviously need a new tax someone or increased tax because no one can cut a social program those poor, poor people depend on!

So now, policy makers have two brand new issues to campaign on with only the very wise in society able to see how they were all related back to poor implementation of policy in the first place.

And this is all a roundabout way of saying that we all think a reason differently and will therefore look at things and think we can fix them in different ways. Obviously, some aren't very good at it and we can see the results of chaos in their lives.



posted on Jul, 19 2018 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


But any "solution" would require less freedoms.

Not necessarily.

I am all against any form of government regulation whatsoever. The potential consequences of that make the propaganda machine we deal with today pale in comparison. However, the government is not the only regulator we have available.

We have the people.

All we need from government is one simple law that makes it a civil offense to report untrue stories knowingly as news, or to report in such a biased manner as to misrepresent the facts surrounding the story reported on. We can also limit the ability of an elected official to file any claim concerning policies they or other elected officials deal with. That removes any ability of the government to interfere with the press, but it also means the press will have to be able to voice their actions and sources in a court of law if challenged. Potential damages should be compensation of actual damages to the plaintiff, a forced retraction/correction of the story misreported/misrepresented on primetime TV at least three times, and a nice little fine that would go directly to the government.

I like editorial, so why not allow it too... without the above restrictions... as long as the show has the words "EDITORIAL OPINION" watermarked on the screen. Sean and Joe can still go at it and popcorn sales will not suffer.

Failure to comply with a court settlement would result in complete suspension of all press credentials.

I guarantee you, do this and the propaganda will cease... but the news will be there. This time, with human sources. And the divisiveness we see in our society will decrease substantially, with no governmental control of the media.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 19 2018 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: FingerMan

I'd say the regulations that restrict government would be a good thing and the regulations that restrict freedoms are a bad thing.


We either live in a society that promotes freedoms or we don't.



posted on Jul, 19 2018 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck


All we need from government is one simple law that makes it a civil offense to report untrue stories knowingly as news, or to report in such a biased manner as to misrepresent the facts surrounding the story reported on.



Then we're qualifying free speech, negating free speech. Gone are the days of unbiased reporting, but we shouldn't criminalize it.



posted on Jul, 19 2018 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

But you are assuming that all parties are working from the same set of facts. Some will have all the facts, some will have some of the facts but not all, some will have facts and fictions mixed together. The ones who instituted the tax to begin with should know it will create a black market, but might not think that far, or might want the black market to create more crime to increase revenue to the city coffers. The cops on the street just know it's illegal to sell onesies -- they don't care why. The guy selling on the street doesn't care (or may not even know) about the taxes and just wants to make a buck. Or maybe the guy selling knows he already paid the damn taxes on those cigs and doesn't see the problem. The witness doesn't know why the guy on the street is getting attacked by cops or even that the guy was selling cigs or that the selling cigs is illegal... they just see cops exercising brute force on a fellow citizen...

Very few are going to trace this back to the root of the problem: Government interference and overreach. And, in the case of Eric Garner specifically, we now know that the feds were using this case to blackmail the NYPD. So we can add that into the mix.

But if we all started on the same page, looking at the same facts, we could at least ALL be addressing the same problems. The city council can take a good hard look at their irresponsible and heavy handed policies and the many negative consequences. Including the use of lethal force for someone who wasn't hurting anyone -- wasn't even a threat to anyone except the government coffers. The police can take a good look at how they police, and perhaps start asking themselves at what point do they refuse to follow harmful and unnecessary orders? When selling a single cigarette becomes a death sentence -- and the cops on the street are the judge, jury AND executioner -- something is obviously wrong. And people can take a good hard look at themselves. How many people have demanded these "sin" taxes and other laws, using the color of law and the point of a gun to force their will on others?

We will still have to find common ground for solutions, but at least everyone will see the same facts to be dealt with.



posted on Jul, 19 2018 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

We already qualify free speech. Want proof? Yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

What I am suggesting is no more than making news organizations responsible for reporting news.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 19 2018 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Many people may not understand that some or most of the "facts" are not known when some event happens.

A ban on discussion of the event until the "fact verification group" determines the facts should please those people.

Should the president be required to tell only truth and fact? What about Congress.



posted on Jul, 19 2018 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel


Should the president be required to tell only truth and fact? What about Congress.

From your lips to God's ears...

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 19 2018 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Let the market place decide what is news and what is propaganda. Keep government and lawyers out of broadcast content.

If you think it's propaganda, don't watch it. Some people may want to watch propaganda...it's none of your business what people do in the privacy of their own home.

All we need are warnings..."This content my be offensive to some viewers"

Even though the taxpayers pay Sarah H. Sanders salary, I find it propaganda. I still watch her when I'm alone...sometimes.
edit on 19-7-2018 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join