• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

US media

Is the US Media independent and neutral - also during wars?

  • Yes, generally they are neutral.

    Votes: 3 5.3%

  • No, they're always somewhat patriotic and therefore not neutral.

    Votes: 35 61.4%

  • I would say it is 50/50.

    Votes: 6 10.5%

  • I have no Idea about the Media on Planet X.

    Votes: 13 22.8%
  • Total voters
    57
Oliver said:
:D Watch out, the Canadians are my next target. You remember the environment scandal surrounding the oil in Alberta, don't you? :p
Click to expand...

Go ahead, but may I suggest the Iranian media be your next concern?

And what about the pre-war Iraqi media owned by Uday Hussein no less (the psycho one of the two brothers)? And tell me again how peaceful and stable Iraq was back then.
 
Last edited:
MelBrooksfan said:
It wouldn't matter if you built a completely impartial, neutral computer to do it. Trying to enforce neutrality in reporting is still a bad idea.
Click to expand...


How so? I mean my experience with our media is that we simply want to know the truth. Anyone who's trying to push lies will be punished by the reader/viewer because they will buy or watch a more reliable source.

I have no Idea why this doesn't work in America the same way.
What's your Idea to stop that?
 
Oliver said:
While the Two-Party-Mentality sounds nuts to me:
If you're right, then even the "right-winger" should see that the Media is behaving pretty strange concerning facts. So why are there no regulations?
Click to expand...

What sort of regulations are you suggesting? Because I can't imagine how you can regulate the media as a whole without essentially trampling on the first ammendment. And quite frankly, I'd much rather have an imperfect and even biased media where I can still find dissenting opinions freely aired than to have a beaurocratically approved "neutral", "balanced", or even "factual" media. Because the only way to regulate those things is to have government decide what is balanced and what the facts are, and I hope you can see where that's likely to head: the exact opposite direction you want it to.
 
ConspiRaider said:
No, I'd like the FCC to return to the concept of doing their duty and ensuring a level of fairness, and balance, in broadcast media. Especially when it comes to political reporting, coverage and commentary.
Click to expand...
Such a thing is not possible. The fairness doctrine could only guarantee mediocrity and stifle expression. The '50s are over. Special interests have learned how to game the system and use government to stifle speech. Broadcasters would best avoid controversial subjects rather than be forced to broadcast bland counter points.

I'll take the unregulated marketplace of ideas with its warts any day over the sterile world of the Fairness doctrine.
 
Ziggurat said:
What sort of regulations are you suggesting? Because I can't imagine how you can regulate the media as a whole without essentially trampling on the first ammendment. And quite frankly, I'd much rather have an imperfect and even biased media where I can still find dissenting opinions freely aired than to have a beaurocratically approved "neutral", "balanced", or even "factual" media. Because the only way to regulate those things is to have government decide what is balanced and what the facts are, and I hope you can see where that's likely to head: the exact opposite direction you want it to.
Click to expand...
Fine, beat me to the punch. ;)
 
Pardalis said:
Go ahead, but may I suggest the Iranian media be your next concern?

And what about the pre-war Iraqi media owned by Uday Hussein no less (the psycho one of the two brothers)? And tell me again how peaceful and stable Iraq was back then.
Click to expand...


Ironically: Al Jazeera has an English channel, too - but they have problems to establish their program in America because America is blocking them from telling the other side of the story:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/
 
Oliver said:
Oh, I didn't know that the FCC is also biased and not a representative of the different media-parties. I have to look it up to understand the FCC, their members and what their tasks are...
Click to expand...
The FCC does not regulate editorial content of media. Why would anyone want it to?
 
Ziggurat said:
What sort of regulations are you suggesting? Because I can't imagine how you can regulate the media as a whole without essentially trampling on the first ammendment. And quite frankly, I'd much rather have an imperfect and even biased media where I can still find dissenting opinions freely aired than to have a beaurocratically approved "neutral", "balanced", or even "factual" media. Because the only way to regulate those things is to have government decide what is balanced and what the facts are, and I hope you can see where that's likely to head: the exact opposite direction you want it to.
Click to expand...


You mean offhand? I'm still learning about it - so far I see the potential to reduce the influence of the big media cooperations via monopoly law like in case of Microsoft.

Another way would be to built up a balanced panel from all involved groups within the Media itself - which has the power to punish misuses. But right now I can't imagine how to set up something like that until I fully understand the issue and all parties involved.
 
Oliver said:
You mean offhand? I'm still learning about it - so far I see the potential to reduce the influence of the big media cooperations via monopoly law like in case of Microsoft.
Click to expand...

The FCC has some power in that regards, but it's only applicable in regards to broadcasts (since the airwaves are considered public property). Internet and cable are becoming much more important, and the FCC can't step in there without violating the first ammendment. But while there's this worry about "big media cooperations", the fact is we've got a more diverse media than we've ever had before.

Oh, and nothing about antitrust law (which is what it's called) prohibits comapanies from becoming monopolies. All it does (and all it should do) is restrict it's ability to create barriers to entry for any new competitors which might emerge.

Another way would be to built up a balanced panel from all involved groups within the Media itself - which has the power to punish misuses. But right now I can't imagine how to set up something like that until I fully understand the issue and all parties involved.
Click to expand...

That's a nightmare. What constitutes a "misuse"? Who gets to decide what is a misuse, and what powers will they have to punish such misuses? Why would any media organization with contrarian viewpoints ever allow itself to be punished by such a panel? And how the hell do you prevent the panel from devolving into enforcement of whatever ideological party line manages to gain control of the panel? I actually know the answer to the last question: you can't keep it from happening, you can only hope it doesn't. Which isn't good enough.
 
ConspiRaider said:
The "Two-Party-Mentality" is a misnomer, not nearly as nuts as you might think.

We have a big filtering process in this country, concerning candidates. Did you see the Democratic candidate debate for President? We're 18 months away from that election, and 9 were in that debate. For the Republicans, 10 in their debates.

If Americans choose to pay attention, our political system works rather well. It's only when a huge portion of Americans becomes complacent - and not vigilant - that things political begin to skew at dangerous angles.

That's what you've seen over the last 6 years - the result of extremism in American politics. We're now engaged in getting some balance back, but it takes time. We Americans are getting very rudely reminded of what happens when we assume our political system "runs by itself".
Click to expand...


Misnomer isn't the right word. I guess there wouldn't be such a argle-bargle about Dem's and Rep's in the Media if there were actually 3, 4 or more Political Parties in the parliament - in which case all these "Dem's are bad!" - "Rep's are bad!" arguments wouldn't work anymore. But that's a different issue - well, maybe not if I think about it.

The Situation I see over there is that the Media has the Power to push or destroy potential, good candidates. And that's pretty bad from my definition of democracy.

So what about the Federal Trade Commission and the United States Department of Justice (Antitrust Division). Don't they have to regulate the monopolies power if they're getting too mighty?
 
WildCat said:
Can you show the law that America passed that blocks al Jazeera from broadcasting here?
Click to expand...


I can't - because there is no law that prevent the suppression of smaller companies, broadcaster and so on. But you may take a look into the posted documentary, of course if you accept PBS as a somewhat worthy source.
 
What lightweight answers. Where is, "The media (mainstream in the USA) is a commodity and makes no attempt to be accurate"?
 
Oliver said:
You mean offhand? I'm still learning about it - so far I see the potential to reduce the influence of the big media cooperations via monopoly law like in case of Microsoft.
Click to expand...
If there is a monopoly then break up the monopoly. I think this is a fair concern but I think regulation the worst solution possible.

Another way would be to built up a balanced panel from all involved groups within the Media itself - which has the power to punish misuses.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Cause god knows that committees are the best at solving problems. At the risk of possibly venturing into hyperbole, but not much, I can't think of a worse idea as it relates to fostering the open exchange of ideas. I realize that is rhetorical and simply my opinion, but there it is.
 
Oliver said:
I can't - because there is no law that prevent the suppression of smaller companies, broadcaster and so on. But you may take a look into the posted documentary, of course if you accept PBS as a somewhat worthy source.
Click to expand...
So you admit that when you said "America is blocking them from telling the other side of the story" you were lying?
 
Oliver said:
The Situation I see over there is that the Media has the Power to push or destroy potential, good candidates. And that's pretty bad from my definition of democracy.
Click to expand...

Oliver said:
Why is the UK state-broadcaster BBC able to make a critical coverage about the war - even if they're also in it?
Why is it and why does Americas Media fail to be neutral?
Patriotism, wrong?
Click to expand...

So which is it Oliver? Do you want the media to be neutral, or to be an advocate?
 
brodski said:
Can someone please give me a working definition of neutrality in the news media.
Click to expand...
Sure, you report everything that is happening in as complete a detail as is possible with no commentary, no emphasis on any of the specific details, no guesses or assumptions and, if quotes are necessary giving them in complete detail with no commentary on them except specific indications of the background and expertise of the person(s) quoted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom