The News Media

[Nintii]

News Media groups are the mouth pieces of their owners ... and whatever political, spiritual, financial or social outlook they pander to will be what they give voice to.

Therefore or because of that, the news isn't and never will be fair or accurate ... and if it ever was fair 'n accurate we wouldn't always like it anyway ... just like we don't

like it now in it's corrupt form anyways.

 

Like we will really want to do anything about it anyway ... Vagrant0's post a bit of the ways up on the various social syndromes is pretty accurate when it comes to taking the

temperature of society and it's desire to really "do" anything about things anyway ... "let the other guy do it", and then when he/she goes and puts their own twist on it, whatever

that may be, we simply don't care just as long as "someone's on it".

 

Truth ... only becomes meaningful when it's in our favour - even lies become truth when it's in our favour ... otherwise it's all just propaganda.

 

We all have our own philosophy on life, and we colour the events of it as per our standpoint.

 

However, when associating words like News Media and "fair" and "accurate" we're still pretty much ok in the West.

Rather you should sit up and take serious note when words like "FREE" and the word News Media are associated ... at least with fair and accurate in a Western-type society

you have the ability to cross reference a number of information points and can at least get a kind of "truth" to what happened or is happening.

But if it isn't FREE, then no matter what the source, it's going to be a load of rubbish and no amount of sources will ever get you to an iota of "truth".

 

Having said that, there is also a fine line in what should be told to the public from government and what should be classified as a State secret ... this is a sensitive point ...

let me explain ...

FACT: your enemy isn't playing fair, ok ! ... and so why should you ?

Now if your News Media manages to get a tip off as to "what's going down" where do you draw the line as to what is a State secret (remember not all warfare is fought with guns) and muzzle the press because lives may be in danger ... and or allow the Media to "spill the beans" ?

What or where is the line that you should draw in such an event ?

 

Do you really need to know if your government has set up a secret listening post deep within enemy territory just for the sake of you knowing such a fact or do you think it should

remain a secret ?

Press freedom in such a scenario when it comes to protecting the nation or gaining the upper hand over an enemy is no longer a "Press Freedom" but a traitorous

action by a civilian group against the nation ... Julian Assange and his co-conspirators should sit in prison ... not a State prison but a Military prison for their actions.

 

The News Media is increasingly encroaching on State activity that if done by an individual would be construed as traitorous ... but in the name of freedom the Press gets away with murder.

 

Yes, the government will always abuse this type of muzzle on the media in it's covert activities and sometimes it will be justified and other times not ... so it's just a case of hiding their activities as best as possible and hope that no one finds out ... all in the name of freedom.

 

Here is an article on TREASON ... well worth the read ....................... Treason

Edited June 30, 2012 by Nintii

[eodx9000]

I'd say the 'news' media has gotten a lot better today than it has in the last hundred years with the advent of alternative media sources.

 

For centuries, the "media" of the day has been controlled by the "elite" of their day and people have always needed to read between the lines to get any real information. It wasn't until recently, with the creation of the internet, that it actually became possible for individual sources to publish alternate information on the world around them. (By 'alternate', I don't mean the crap Fox/CNN/MSNBC throw out, but Infowars, Julian Assange, ACLU, various Youtube-using outlets, etc.)

 

What or where is the line that you should draw in such an event ?

 

The media itself should've never drawn the line. I know you're likely to argue that "war is based on deception, etc." which absolutely is true, but it is quintessentially the duty of a free press to get information out, to ensure people are able to learn the happenings of the external world. A media drawing the line, though, is a mouthpiece that only gets out the story that benefits their own side.

[mizdarby]

The 'News' has always been manipulated by those reporting it, since the first caveman announced that fire was the greatest step forward in human history, whilst his alternative friend was more prone to pointing out how fire would destroy centuries of tradition. It's always going to be the case that any 'News' story, is going to be presented by various outlets (BBC Fox Julian Assange), with a spin that favours their own particular point of view. In order to get at the truth, behind the headlines, an individual would have to source many outlets, and form an opinion based on the overall presentation, and even then the truth will be coloured by that individuals' own bias.

Personally, much of what is considered 'News', barely qualifies as news at all. But my friends may well disagree. For instance, the BBC may run a story on Katie Price being bisexual, I wouldn't consider that news, but some of my friends would be "OMG Katie Price is bisexual". Things like the Boxing Day Tsunami or the Haiti Earthquake would be news, and whatever spin the media put on it, the human tragedy would be crystal clear. The most obvious grey area, is the case of War, which the opposing sides, would clearly manipulate the news stories, to justify and favour their own actions.