You think the media should be forced to reveal all information about everything? First off, there would be no space. Second off, that would make the media incredibly boring. Third off, why should they have to? It's the media's right to choose what they reveal, just like it would be your right to choose what information you include in, say, a school presentation.
Your "First and Second off" are silly, guy.... that's called semantics. About the third part, though, it has to do with the old saying "give them an inch". You can easily find an unimportant case in which to justify it, but "give them an inch" and the liberties they'll take with it are astounding.... well, in this case I suspect they've already gotten their inch and run 99 yards with it. So, as with so many other popular questions in America, I recommend instead of wondering if we should allow something based on one isolated situation or even just a "current trend", we determine what we should allow based on where it's headed - what the next three steps taken will be if we act or don't - and weigh in the human (and especially American) capacity to abuse, misuse, and take things to the extreme.
Semantics is the investigation of the meaning of words. What do the first and second points have to do with semantics? You might say that they're irrelevant when it comes to the key issue here, but the media is a business and therefore has to operate in a way most conducive to its success in a capitalist society. Your attack on my third point is largely exaggerated. Give me an example of the collective media knowingly grossly distorting the fact or failing to report critical relevant information in a scenario and I'm sure I could give you 10 where they did their best to tell the full truth. The media in the U.S. is one source that generally does tell the truth, often to an extent that angers the federal government. The New York times revelation of the Bush Admistration's wiretapping programs is one example where the media truthfully brought an issue to light that wouldn't have been uncovered otherwise. The simple fact is that if the American public can't trust the media to tell the full truth, then the American public can't trust anyone. Generally, the media understands this role in our society and does tell the full truth - Perhaps for no other reason than it's good for business to tell the truth and there's little incentive to lie.
Use this definition of semantics - the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc. i.e. Let's not argue about semantics. Turning "The media should have to reveal everything to the public" into an argument of whether or not there's space enough in a newspaper instead of the ethical argument it really is is semantics. I hope you aren't arguing that people (and again, especially Americans) will take advantage of, abuse, or misuse every time when it's to their benefit. This very website we're talking on is the perfect example. We're cheating Neopets, for Christ's sake.... :lol: And abuse leads to more abuse. Everything is moving. Changing. Every action taken or inaction is a step towards or away from something. Nothing stays the same. Allowing Elvis to shake his pelvis paved the way for Christina Aguilera to make her "Dirrty" video. It works the other way, too. Having something outlawed/taken away by the government sets our people up to have more taken away the next time. Thus "give them an inch", because it's human nature to think "Okay, we got away with this - what else can we get away with?"
I think fundamentally I agree with you most of the time in that most of the time the media ought to present all the facts on something. The difference is that I think they shouldn't be forced by some outside agency and should have the right to withhold information at their discretion. If abuses do occur as you describe, the particular media organization that is abusing its power will suffer economically because people don't want to be lied to. The media is incented to tell the full story when it's called for. There's no need to force them to always reveal all the facts, therefore, and sometimes they have good reason for not revealing all the facts - For example, as someone pointed out earlier, we don't need to be hearly all the gruesome details of how a woman was raped. Plus, you can't force the media to reveal all the facts or really any source of information for that matter. Encyclopedias don't tell all the facts. They pick the ones that seem the most relevant and imporant and tell you them. That's what the media does too.
Just thought I'd point out: Encyclopedia = print = media And the media organization won't suffer particularly much economically because they only hide information to INCREASE their exposure. They usually hide some parts of a story in order to make it more important and/or more one-sided than it really is in order to make a clearer message.
As far as the economic point goes, I was referring to cases where the media abused their right to withhold info to distort the truth in a way contrary to fact that the previous poster had alluded to. In the case where the media is grossly distorting the truth contrary to fact, I believe they will suffer economically. As for the encyclopedia being media, yeah, you're right. For some reason I got the impression that the intent of the thread was referring to the press, and not the media as a whole. The fact is, you can't force any media to produce all the information about a topic. You just can't. An encyclopedia still serves as an example of this point - It isn't feasible to require a media to tell everything. Thankfully, the system that we have where the media is allowed to ignore certain irrelevant or unneccessary pieces of information works well enough at telling the truth because of economic incentives. Yay capitalism.
Well, I wouldn't dispute that every bit of minutiae can't be included in any work.... "The fourth blade of grass Mr. Howard stepped on upon exiting his house was 4.176 inches in length, .52mm in thickness, has a carbon dated age of around 4/07/2008....." :lol: ....but I didn't think that's what we were discussing. Pertinent information presented in an unbiased manner, that should make the press every time. I laughed when you said people don't like being lied to, Ephemeral ..... we have two very different views on that. Me, I think the majority of people LOVE being lied to (and I'm pretty sure Galileo Galilei would back me up on this ). I don't believe most people want to know what's really going on in the world - they just want to work 9 to 5, come home, veg in front of the TV and go to bed thinking everything's mostly alright - and they'll gratefully accept any lie that makes that possible. Sometimes they want the lie so bad they'll actively FIGHT the truth. Why else after worldwide conventions and Pentagon releases on the subject do the majority of Americans refuse to "believe" in global warming? It's too much for tired/lazy Joe Fattarse to contemplate - he doesn't want to think that much - and he sure doesn't want to have another responsibility. He owes his mortgage company, the IRS, a few credit card companies - you think he wants to owe something to the planet as well? Uh-uh. He straps on the blinders, baby.
Pertinent information presented in an unbiased manner, that should make the press every time. I wouldn't dispute that. And you have a point about people not wanting to hear the facts, often. (My point about people wanting to be told the truth was more aimed at the potential abuses of a lying media, and not the fact that the media is simply catering to Americans' taste) But do we force people to hear the facts? If we force the media to report to people the scary truth, and people don't want to hear it, won't they just tune the media out or stop paying attention to it entirely? I don't think you can force people to care, regardless of what you do the media. I guess you could argue that by forcing the media to report what people don't want to hear, that's a step in the right direction. But I think the problem you point out is far more fundamental and far reaching than just a problem with the media.
To me that media should hold back some information for peoples protection I go to one of my fave quotes "you want the truth you cant handle the truth" sometimes its just better not to know
Too right, brother. A large and large and tangled web it is. I used to think about pitching a TV show to HBO called "Wake the F--- Up, America" and screaming sense into a camera for a solid hour five nights a week - kind of like Bill Maher on steroids minus the guests. Think something like that would help?
Media shouldve to tell the truth. But no need to tell people that "a man was raped" kinda stuff. Why shouldnt have the media told the whole truth about VA Tech Shooting? Wouldnt you have liked to known if you have a family member there
I live in Virgina. You don't have to learn that your child was dead over television. Not everyone needs to know about all the hate. Because it was so widely displayed there were copycats. :nope:
Complete transparency might not be a good thing either. The government should however allow people to access information they deserve.
Were currently studying truth in english.. Its really interesting how it gets manipulated.. I personally think that governments have too much power over information in many cases, it is a concept created to SERVE, not to feed off the people. Also, I think people should be faced with the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be, its apart of living and breathing, one must face the responsibilities of the society that we live in.
@ Twlx "Complete transparency might not be a good thing either. The government should however allow people to access information they deserve." But who defines what falls in the category of what people "deserve" If it falls upon the government, then they dictate what it is we are able to access. No matter what group you elect to decide what we should have access to view, it will never be completely unbiased and fair. @ DotDenz. But then you approach upon breaking societies bubble of ignorance. The fact is, we can sit here and spew rhetorical questions and insightful comments all we want, but the sad truth is that society as a whole enjoys living in our ignorance. Who wants to actually be aware, I mean physically aware (be it through our own adventure or through a media report) of a women in Burma being raped, and then her children having their hands cut off? Who wants to see up close and personal a Japanese fishing vessel spearing a mother whale and see its cub alone in the water, knowing that without a shadow of a doubt that the cub will swim around for its own on a while and then eventually die to a predator because it didn't learn how to survive from its mother. Yes we want to know WHAT is going on around us, and we want to know to a degree what is going on. But we also want to go on and continue in our lives without constantly, 24/7 seeing in our own mind; children being raped, animals being skinned alive, rainforests being illegally cleared. We like to think we want to know exactly whats happening, but the truth is we also want a spoon of sugar with the truth, so we can walk away and not be effected by it. And now for my long wall of text on the actual question which started this thread: I don't think ANYONE should dictate what the media should report. As soon as we start influencing what the media can and can't do, the sooner the truth becomes no longer the truth. Alas, that does not happen. In todays day and age, the media is no longer unbiased and impartial. TV ratings, contracts, exclusives and fat dollar hand shakes dictate just what we see portrayed as the truth, and the biggest factor deciding what we see is our own cultural values. In case I've lost you, consider this: Today, 4 years on from the 2004 boxing day Tsunami which left hundreds of thousands of people dead and millions homeless, there are STILL people dieing. There are still people learning that their loved ones have only just been identified as dead. There are still people living without homes and medicine or food. Yet when was the last time you actually saw something about the 2004 Tsunami? You haven't seen anything in a while, simply because all the sympathy and teary eyed exclusives have been done to death. A 6:00 O'clock news show simply won't cover this anymore because it won't get any ratings. If you actually want to see the news, and I mean the real truth. Then watch a TV programme hosted on a network which is not driven by money or ratings. For you Americans, DON'T watch your CNN or Fox news or whatever else you have. Go to one of the no name networks which has a reputation for reporting the truth. Here in Australia the network channels which always cover the real news, Ie. The wars and disputes in Lebanon, the advancements in stem cell research etc. are the ABC and the SBS. Both are subsidised by the government, thus they do not need to rely on ratings or sponsors to ensure they survive, therefore they can report what they want without fear of lossing their time slot. More to the point. Pick up a NEWSPAPER or a National Geographic magazine. Don't rely on digg.com or some dickheads blog to tell you whats going on in the world. In conclusion, the media only report what we both want to see, and that which will make them money. Both of which we control. If we want to only see a partial truth, then our actions will reflect in that which we get to see coming from the media. If in time we, as a society, change enough so that it becomes apparent to the media networks that YES, we want to see the 100% black and white, animals being skinned whilst alive at 6:00 in the afternoon, then THEY WILL SHOW IT. We ultimately decide what we end up seeing as a society. Not the media networks. LOL, I actually had a shitload more to say. I just can't be bothered to type anymore.
Media does hide suicide becuse some believe that it may encourage others to do the same thing. I remember the subway I was riding on was blocked for 2 hrs because someone jumped onto the tracks but you never hear of these types of things on newspapers, TV, etc.
they are able to do as they please. thanks first admendment. i really hate alot of the news because they will say a women was raped, then discribe it, then have the girl cry, then intreview 8 year olds asking them if rape is ok.... esentailly the news tends to profit at the expense of others misfortunes, and i don't like that at all