- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Re: #NeverTrump
Issues related to the Press are not new. Such issues have existed as long as an institution existed to provide information to the public or people sought to do so. But the greater good provided from the Press’s capacity to disseminate information, even when considering those issues, far outweighs the problems such issues cause.
As for the King incident, the Media was reporting on what happened based on the information that was available to it at the time. The reality that mobs are emotionally-charged and can carry out destructive acts in reaction to events is a reality of human nature, specifically group dynamics. That reality is not sufficient basis to muzzle the Press. A free Press is vital to sustaining representative governance and free society. Muzzling the Press out of fear that some individuals or groups may react badly is a much smaller risk than that associated with the cessation of representative government or loss of a free society.
Others may disagree, but just as I believe, for example, the risk of allowing a guilty person to go free is preferable to the risk of an innocent person’s being convicted (presumption of innocence/burden of proof involved in criminal cases), the same holds true with the Media. A free Press, even with shortcomings, is vastly preferable to the alternative.
Finally, the same holds true for college campuses. Academic freedom in which students have access to multiple perspectives and an ability to express their views is preferable to a situation where access to perspectives is limited and speech is stifled. The former promotes learning. The latter stifles it.
I appreciate your high regard of the system as it was constructed to allow the press its proper function in a democracy. But that they were genuinely performing in a patriotic and admirable fashion.
Nobody says you have to curtail the telling of truth, or even what a news organization factually feels/determines to be the truth... or can even, with some identifiable rationale associated, use to speculate as to the truth. But if the press goes too far, as they did in the case that I mentioned, and in another post mentioned the Rodney King "beating", wherein the press was an accelerant to the quick hot tempers that flared then blazed into the LA riots. People died, 55 died as a result... surely you cannot countenance such manipulation of the news to this extent, that a press willing to go this far there that there can be no consequences, can you?
So I disagree with your giving a blanket protection for any and all the conscious acts of malfeasance. Again, its not just editorial or speculation, it is heavy handed manipulation. If that can be proven in a court of law, with all the safeguards still in place, then a news organization is no different than any other corporation for profit that premeditatedly commits a grievous error which results in serious arm. That would be a right that is blind to the facts, the truth, to justice.
I don't mind failure, you can learn from failure, its a part of the natural process. What I do mind is a conscious malicious effort. Say the photo manipulation on Time's cover of a much darker OJ Simpson, what was that all about? Why do that? What was the false message intended to be delivered? And the press continues to manipulate in this manner.
I am more concerned with the speech police, the restrictions of liberties on our university campuses nationwide. The press has many times overstepped the right, the universities are curtailing the right. Besides which, I have lost my confidence in the media to properly report actual corruption, performance, conduct of our elected officials, it often seems more one sided...and even then, not truly investigating deeply as they should.
Issues related to the Press are not new. Such issues have existed as long as an institution existed to provide information to the public or people sought to do so. But the greater good provided from the Press’s capacity to disseminate information, even when considering those issues, far outweighs the problems such issues cause.
As for the King incident, the Media was reporting on what happened based on the information that was available to it at the time. The reality that mobs are emotionally-charged and can carry out destructive acts in reaction to events is a reality of human nature, specifically group dynamics. That reality is not sufficient basis to muzzle the Press. A free Press is vital to sustaining representative governance and free society. Muzzling the Press out of fear that some individuals or groups may react badly is a much smaller risk than that associated with the cessation of representative government or loss of a free society.
Others may disagree, but just as I believe, for example, the risk of allowing a guilty person to go free is preferable to the risk of an innocent person’s being convicted (presumption of innocence/burden of proof involved in criminal cases), the same holds true with the Media. A free Press, even with shortcomings, is vastly preferable to the alternative.
Finally, the same holds true for college campuses. Academic freedom in which students have access to multiple perspectives and an ability to express their views is preferable to a situation where access to perspectives is limited and speech is stifled. The former promotes learning. The latter stifles it.
Last edited: