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.

 

Dan Rather Asks President To Create Public Media Commisson!

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather called on President Barack Obama to form a White House commission to help save the press Tuesday night in an impassioned speech at the Aspen Institute.

“I personally encourage the president to establish a White House commission on public media,” the legendary newsman said.

Such a commission on media reform, Rather said, ought to make recommendations on saving journalism jobs and creating new business models to keep news organizations alive.


Read the rest of that article here.

Well as if the media and the goverment aren't cozy enough, let's let one of American's most influencial achors suggest government intervention. That's a great idea.

Just when I thought independant journalism might be making a comeback. Is there no end to the veil of lies and manipulation.

What say you ATS?

Edit To Add: As stated below my problem is having this particular government step in to "help" the media establish standards or business models for journalism.

The idea proposed in the article with Dan Rathers speaking of solid, well researched and true journalism is most definetly what is needed.

~Keeper




[edit on 8/2/2009 by tothetenthpower]




posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Did you take the time to actually read the entire article?


Corporate and political influence on newsrooms, along with the conflation of news and entertainment, has created what Rather called “the dumbing down and sleazing up of what we see on the news.”

It has also thinned the amount of investigative and international journalism. The latter loss of correspondents covering America’s two foreign wars, Rather opined, is both a critical detriment to the nation and a disservice to our troops.


Also...


The free press, as established by the First Amendment to the Constitution, ought to operate as a public trust, not solely as a money-making endeavor, Rather argued, and it’s time the government make an effort to ensure the survival of the free press. If not the government, he suggested, then an organization like the Carnegie Foundation should take it on. Without action, he predicted, America will lose its independent media.


What Rather is calling for is a truly free press. One not beholden to corporate influences or political manipulation. Personally, I think it is an ideal worth striving towards.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 


No I totally get what HE is trying to say.

But if we allow the government to get any sort of "visible" foot hold in the the industry it will only deteriorate.

We can't depend on the government to bail out of help every industry, especially not the corrupt one we see today.

~Keeper



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust


The free press, as established by the First Amendment to the Constitution, ought to operate as a public trust, not solely as a money-making endeavor, Rather argued, and it’s time the government make an effort to ensure the survival of the free press. If not the government, he suggested, then an organization like the Carnegie Foundation should take it on. Without action, he predicted, America will lose its independent media.


What Rather is calling for is a truly free press. One not beholden to corporate influences or political manipulation. Personally, I think it is an ideal worth striving towards.


I agree it is an ideal worth striving for but this is just not a logical approach to it. I agree with tothetenthpower. Why would you ever want the government to have MORE influence over media?


Rather argued, and it’s time the government make an effort to ensure the survival of the free press.


Sounds like he's asking the wolf to guard the chickens.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
The problem is not the integrity of the journalists themselves, it stems from the very top of the industry, the owners, the publishers... People like Rupert Murdoch who has created an unbelievable stronghold within the U.S. media, not to mention his other holdings worldwide, are to blame for the downfall of the industry. He has the power to influence his publications and networks to suit his political views, and he pushes it.

The fact that one individual can have such undue influence over the media is astounding and disturbing. If anything, what the media needs to remain free from outside influences and manipulations, is public oversight. Something that's not happening at the moment.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 


Public oversight would be a good thing for the media, but then who gets to establish such a thing?

It becomes a slippery slope when we begin talking about oversight of multi billion dollar corporate News agencies and the information they are supplying to the masses.

Let's all be reminded that the media is their biggest asset of control.

~Keeper



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
The problem is not the integrity of the journalists themselves, it stems from the very top of the industry, the owners, the publishers... People like Rupert Murdoch who has created an unbelievable stronghold within the U.S. media, not to mention his other holdings worldwide, are to blame for the downfall of the industry. He has the power to influence his publications and networks to suit his political views, and he pushes it

The fact that one individual can have such undue influence over the media is astounding and disturbing. If anything, what the media needs to remain free from outside influences and manipulations, is public oversight. Something that's not happening at the moment.


I agree with you but who exactly would you give that oversight role to? His buddies in the government? It would make it even worse by regulating out the competition. Seriously.

Ever heard the words - government controlled media?



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by maria_stardust
 


No I totally get what HE is trying to say.

But if we allow the government to get any sort of "visible" foot hold in the the industry it will only deteriorate.

We can't depend on the government to bail out of help every industry, especially not the corrupt one we see today.

~Keeper


Why is having ~6 of so major corporations and powerful individuals control the media BETTER than having the government step in and fund some news outlets?

Honestly, I think we'd have a more informative media if the government subsidized smaller independent journalists, like Amy Goodman


Or better yet, PEOPLE should support the smaller independent news outlets. Vote with your dollars.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


Yup, I'd have no problem with publicly funded independant journalism, but not for the established media, that would just be more of the same.

~Keeper



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I'm sorry but I just can't believe we are even having this discussion.

United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


dictionary.reference.com...

a⋅bridge
  /əˈbrɪdʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-brij] Show IPA
Use abridging in a Sentence
–verb (used with object), a⋅bridged, a⋅bridg⋅ing.
1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.


What you are proposing is that the United States government "get involved" in making sure media is "overseen" or funding other news outlets so they can be more competitive. As a taxpayer, do you want your tax dollars to go to organizations with no strings attached? I don't. So, in order to be "publically funded", meaning government funded with strings attached. What would those "strings" be? An abridgement of free speech maybe?

This is so blatantly ill-conceived, I'm having a hard time with even discussing it. I feel like even discussing is bringing it closer to happening. Makes me want to cry.






[edit on 2/8/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 
You have to presume at least that Dan Rather was very disturbed by the events of 9/11 and what he was given to say on the day. He is no longer with CBS and has spoken critically since about the way 9/11 was reported on the day, and afterwards.Perhaps this is where he is coming from, an appeal to a new president to attempt to set some kind of reporting standard,maybe, apolitical, technological and unbiased. You can see from his point of view as an ex-anchorman, and who had to mouth reports from a autocue, which he may not particularly agree with.
Where is Phillip Hayden and Jane Shandley today? they were the BBC anchormen on 9/11 who had to report on a fallen building that actually hadn't fallen,(WTC7) like Dan Rather, they're gone now.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Ofcourse, as I said, I completely understand Dan Rather in what needs to be done for Journalism in general.

But getting the government involved is not the way to do so. Public funding and oversight would be a great help, but you can't do that with any of the "established" big media's cause they have owners who like to control what you see and what you hear.

It's a matter of balance between propaganda and real journalism, both are always going to exist, but people need a good, reliable and funded source for real journalism.

We don't have that right now.

~Keeper



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
To me, there should be no such thing as real Journalism and propaganda in some sort of a balance.Real Journalism should be truthful, no matter where it hurts.Propaganda on the other hand is devious and is only meant to detract from the truth, no matter where it hurts.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join