In the wake of the scuffle in Colorado today, all kinds of reports throughout the event said it was centered around the Planned Parenthood clinic. Speculations galore from right wing Christians with a beef about Planned Parenthood to just a guy who ducked into the clinic resounded. When the police came on just prior to the end of it they had NO information. When the guy was caught, they had NO information, yet the press ran free and went with whatever speculations they wanted to report without any reguard for the facts. Mere opinion, mere speculation without a bit of evidence or proof of their statements. Again and again we have read and heard downright lies in the recent past from the media and yet no one does anything about it. The 1st amendment guarantees freedom of the press and speech but the caveat is that if someone yells fire in a crowded theater and there isn't one then it is a felony for obvious reasons. Should not our press be held to the same criteria as someone speaking to the FBI or a false alarmist? Certainly, the press is responsible for hundreds of incidents that should never have happened but did because our media is bent upon sensationalism rather than the truth. Everyone who thinks about it can cite at least one time in the past year or two when the media has been shown to be less than honest in their reports. Should not the journalists and the agency they work for be at least fined or someone lose their jobs? The 1st amendment comes with a vast amount of responsibility and it seems that our media has forgotten that.
They haven't forgotten it - in fact, media is such a juggernaut that it cannot be held responsible for violating any amendments or rights. Too many powerful people involved ...
There is indeed some truth to your statement Phil in that I do agree that there is a lot of power behind some of the reporting. However, what I do not agree with is that they CAN be held responsible for their abuse of the 1st amendment. Note first that I am not advocating for federal control and censorship of the media, but that being said, the FCC can have a ruling on the type of communication coming across the airways. As an example, if a program is listed as being that of an opinion program such as Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and Juan Williams then it is just that. An opinion, which should be taken with a grain of salt mind you, but still a viable form of communication coming across the airways. Now, if the program is listed with a rating, then that program has certain parameters in which it has to abide by. The News on the other hand, while there are guidelines, the proverbial feet are not being held in the fire and do whatever they want. For instance, the incident at the Trump campaign ralley in Birmingham recently was totally mis-reported across the board. When interviewed, the gentleman who was thrown out said he was knocked to the floor, kicked, punched, spit on, called the N thing and a monkey. He said his cell phone was knocked out of his hand and he was drug out with people still kicking him. The interview was aired and published without any journalistic investigation taking place to verify what he said. The truth, by looking at the videos and hearing what other people close to the incident had to say, was in no way anything like the gentleman said. What I am getting at is simple: The report should have been complete. Good, bad or indifferent it should have shown the video's and testimonies of onlookers PLUS the interview with the complaintant. Allow the truth to be the truth no matter the consequences. The biased reporting about the Charlotte and St. Louis incident including the Brown and Martin cases were totally mishandled by reporting and have cause major irrepairable damage and needless deaths because of it. The FCC can prosecute! If a major restaurant sells bad food it gets closed down by FDA and USDA not excluding city and state agencies. If a reporter or an agency sells bad journalism it can be equally harmful to the public and should be prosecuted.
It is wise of you to agree with me. If you believe certain conspiracy theories as I do, the government also has a hand in the media, and the government has a long record of ignoring amendments when it suits them. So in fact you ARE in favor of federal control - you can't have it both ways. Agreed. Do you mean some new FCC rating? How would that work? Two things come immediately to mind ... 1. News media works under crippling deadlines. They often don't have the time to interview every witness, chase down every lead, etc. - they have to get their content out NOW. 2. News media also knows that if it bleeds, it leads. I'm sure they get far more viewers by presenting an emotionally-charged but not-quite-fully-truthful account of an incident than they would would fair, balanced reporting. It's show business. The realm of public health falls I think more implicitly under the powers granted to the government. Bad /tainted food can actually kill people. I don't see how a slanted news report will kill anyone. All they have to do is turn off the news. At some point there has to be SOME personal responsibility, even though at this point I believe most people don't even understand the term.
I had to do some FAQ checking about the FCC. It seems that they are a completely separate part of the fed consisting of 5 board members picked out by the president of the U.S. and verified by the Senate. So, in essence, the president has some control. Think whatever you will on that one, because I see way too many possibilites on that particular front. Uh, I believe that cops getting killed all over the U.S. directly after the Fergusen ordeal is pretty deadly and certainly a quicker and more certain death than food poisoning. The media, until it was shown that Brown was the guilty party, was pretty much biased against the cop. MSNBC was totally canted in it's reporting and as a second runner CNN played it's part. FOX held it's breath for a while but still had some mystical reporting going on. (no, I didn't want to write mythical even though it might fit as well) By the bye.....nice conversation!
That's interesting - I didn't know that. I was just taking a shot in the dark! I see your point about cops, but cops are in a trade that is constantly filled with threats of harm or death every day. If it were possible I would be interested in seeing firm stats about how many were harmed/killed directly due to biased reporting. I'm not sure the protesters were all watching the news as they threw rocks and burned stores. Aye - same here. Thank you!
@Bobby Cole, @Sifu Phil Bonifonte , both of you are right. The statement, "It's show business folks", is the key. Many of us have known for sometime now that we are being spoon fed what our government wants us to hear. I'm not just talking about the false or true conspiracies. I'm speaking of the things we haven't been told, and that can be found out about through the internet in other countries. I haven't believed in the 'news' since Viet Nam, and we didn't have the net then. I don't have the answers either, but I know not to watch the news unless it's for the weather, and that's wrong half the time. Maybe the trick is to get people to understand that it really is just show business, and the operative word is "business".