Lol what she says sure does threatens the free world !Quote:
Megan Kelly
|
Lol what she says sure does threatens the free world !Quote:
Megan Kelly
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Freedom does have some downsides. But, it's better than the government deciding who can say what. At least WE think so.
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi again Tom,
Yes, but I was interested in your position in relation to the media and freedom of speech.
Tut
I think FOX has an abolute right to their editorial positions . That is what this really is all about .
Sure but it ain't news reporting.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Prove they lie during their news content .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
It IS what this is about... But they call themselves Fox NEWS, and much of what they deliver is NOT news, but, as you say, it's editorial OPINION... That's fine. But, the problem is they DON'T distinguish their NEWS shows from their OPINION shows. Consequently, people can't tell the difference... In fact, Glenn Becks public thinks that what he says is actual REAL NEWS, and NOT his opinion. Even if they wrote a teeny tiny disclosure that sped across the bottom of the screen informing the viewer that the speaker is speaking his OPINION... But they don't.
That's a LIE by ommission.
excon
It's a pretty popular case:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The Media Can Legally Lie
Quote:
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That's a good question... If I could tell who was delivering what, then I could answer... Actually, FOX has some pretty good journalists... Greta, Major Garrett (who's gone now), and Shepard Smith. I KNOW that I'm getting news when I'm watching their shows...
But, here's were it gets funky... Is Megan Kelly and opinion show or a news show? How can you tell?
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
I take this to mean that Fox can say whatever they like whenever the like.
No one should have to prove that Fox or any other network is lying. A code of conduct puts the responsibility on the Networks. In other words, the networks need to demonstrate they are telling the truth.
Doesn't having to prove the networks are lying (a very difficult task) result in the right and left competing to see who can come up with the biggest misleading statements?
I know this statement is also tiresome, but "All freedom and no responsibility?"
Tut
What ? So where is the basis of the charge that would deny them access to competing in the Canadian market place? What you have here is the equivalent of a bureaucracy in government being the arbiters of the truth . It's no better than Torquemada's inquisition,or the Soviet politboro .Quote:
No one should have to prove that Fox or any other network is lying
The fact is that the overwhelming reporting of the news is slanted towards an editorial point of view... and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that . In the true free market of ideas ,the consumer is the arbiter of truth ,not some government agency. It is not a free press otherwise. Canada does not have a free press ,and the Canadian here applauds that .
To the Americans here I leave you with the words of Jefferson
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
And the words of the biggest defender of the Constitution James Madison .
"The security of the freedom of the press requires that it should be exempt, not only from previous restraint of the executive, as in Great Britain; but from legislative restraint also; and this exemption, not only from the previous inspection of licensers, but from the subsequent penalty of laws."
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
The free market of ideas doesn't work for Wikipedia so why would it work for anything else?
I don't think you are a fan of Wikipedia, yet it makes use of the free market of ideas. There are some interesting things in Wikipedia, but there are some things which are very inaccurate as well. What chance these inaccuracies will eventually right themselves via the invisible hand?
The economic idea of the ,'invisible hand' claims that the consumer pursuing their own self interest will provide general benefit. You seem to expressing a similar idea when it comes to free market ideas. The free market of ideas will produce veracity through a process of competition?
As you know Wikipedia doesn't have a editor as such. It makes use, and has made use of millions of people contributing to the publication. The process may have tightened up recently but basically anyone and edit and re edit any entry. And continue to do so if they wish.
Contributors who largely take on an editorial role are anonymous therefore don't need to take responsibility for what they produce. The hope is that the consumers pursuing their own self interest will come up with a accurate and factual encyclopedia.
Do you think there is such a thing as an accurate crowd decision when it comes to the media? If both sides of the media continue to post inaccuracies will we eventually get to the truth? If you think this is possible then I would like to know how.
Regards
Tut
Knowing that I don't use Wiki as a primary source.Quote:
I don't think you are a fan of Wikipedia, yet it makes use of the free market of ideas. There are some interesting things in Wikipedia, but there are some things which are very inaccurate as well. What chance these inaccuracies will eventually right themselves via the invisible hand?
Assuming I see something blatantly false or misleading ;according to their alleged model ,I could edit the content .Quote:
The economic idea of the ,'invisible hand' claims that the consumer pursuing their own self interest will provide general benefit. You seem to expressing a similar idea when it comes to free market ideas. The free market of ideas will produce veracity through a process of competition?
The economic idea of the ,'invisible hand' claims that the consumer pursuing their own self interest will provide general benefit. You seem to expressing a similar idea when it comes to free market ideas. The free market of ideas will produce veracity through a process of competition?
As you know Wikipedia doesn't have a editor as such. It makes use, and has made use of millions of people contributing to the publication. The process may have tightened up recently but basically anyone and edit and re edit any entry. And continue to do so if they wish.
Contributors who largely take on an editorial role are anonymous therefore don't need to take responsibility for what they produce. The hope is that the consumers pursuing their own self interest will come up with a accurate and factual encyclopedia.
Do you think there is such a thing as an accurate crowd decision when it comes to the media? If both sides of the media continue to post inaccuracies will we eventually get to the truth? If you think this is possible then I would like to know how.
I don't even mind anonymous editorial . That model served the US founders well ,as does the flow of information and opinion in the ether .The revolution in Egypt was largely mobilized by an anon.posting on Facebook.
But that is not the FOX model . It is very easy to find both the backround and editorial position that each Fox contributor has .
This whole posting is hilarious .Back in the infancy of broadcast media ,the public placed tremendous trust in the absurdity that the word of anchor of the major broadcasts networks was unimpeachable truth. When Walter Cronkite told America that the Vietnam war was lost ,suddenly the public opinion shifted. Only later in his life did we learn that even Uncle Walt filtered content through a lefty prism.
The heir to his anchor desk tried to use blatantly false information on GW Bush in an attempt to influence the 2004 Presidential elections.
I understand that this is the reality of the press and I am quite content with that as long as there is no exclusion from the market place because of slant.Dan Rather's deceit was easily exposed by the blogsphere. There is room on broadcast television for right slant like Fox ;left slant like MSNBC ,and all positions in between . If al Jazeera can make a go of it in the American market then they should go for it . I make no distinction. Let the market decide.
The problem in Canada and here is that Fox is dominating the cable market . That rubs the leftys the wrong way so they go to their fall back position... use the government to control content . BAD IDEA!!
Justin Bieber dominates the popularity charts too I bet you think he's great! Fox does what sells: package the fears of the old conservatives and sell it back to them. You can keep your precious Beck, I personally think he's either unhinged or he's whored himself out for the money, either way Fox decides to give him a large platform and promotes him.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm OK with our government denying a license to a broadcaster that wants to define themselves as a news channel but wants to make sure they don't have to tell the truth. In the same way that, as you would have it, I don't my child to die of tainted meat to discover that I shouldn't buy from that unregulated butcher. Often the "free market" is not the answer.
There is a physical harm in tainted meat. There is no harm in hearing a different point of view.
But hey ;no problem !Keep the blinders on .
Hello, again:
I have a different question... In the US, there has ALWAYS been people on the extreme right. They've just never had a platform before FOX. Does the popularity of FOX indicate that their views are accepted, or does it indicate their power to persuade?
excon
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Do you think the state radio of Kim Jong mentally Ill offers a different point of view? Could it be that propaganda is simply "a different point of view"?
excon
The deregulation of the banks by the republicans caused no physical harm either but look what it caused.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The title of your thread is "Cool: Fox News Will Not Be Moving Into Canada After All." They're already there, so now it's about a 'Fox-style "news" show?'Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
What is a " Fox-style " Fox-style " show" anyway? One that more often than not welcomes more than one point of view?
This is how the NORKS are getting the truth. The SKs are floating baloons over the DMZ with "supplies " Included in the supplies are pictures of what is going on in the Levant and Mahgreb . Rumor is that there have been clashes between the people and the Kim goons .
But you won't hear that from the media in North Korea... you barely hear it from the press from the free world .
The Chosun Ilbo (English Edition): Daily News from Korea - N.Korean Forces Crack Down on Protesters in Border Town
South Korea Prods North by Dropping Leaflets Telling of Mideast Protests - Bloomberg
If there was a free press in North Korea the regime would fall. Seems to me that the entrenched in Canada may have the same motive.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:55 PM. |