• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNN Host Calls for Crackdown on 'Bloggers' in Wake of Sherrod Incident:

Jetboogieman said:
Free Speech is one thing, but when its used to, essentially destroy someones life, wrongfully, then something has to be done, but I believe there are already options for recourse in these cases. Something needs to be done legally, but between the individuals involved in this matter.

Having said that, the damage people can do to each other over the internet is becoming immeasurable, and sometimes once that damage is done, its hard to reverse.
Click to expand...

There is libel for those that face defamation. If websites want to censor their own site that is fine. I see many problems with the government doing it.
 
Aunt Spiker, although I share your opinion and distrust of "blogging", I hold reservation that a blogger cannot be a jounalist. They are held to a stricter standard than the media in some respects, since libel, and defamation never seem to be brought to the mat in court cases, less the most egregious ones. Yet, here we are 230+ years into the nations life, and how many libel/defamation cases have you ever heard of? Not many.. Conversely, bloggers do not have the same "protections". Are they all journalists? No, not in a million years, but some of them are, and some of them hold themselves accountable to the same intergrity that the MSM used to hold themselves too.


Tim-
 
jujuman13 said:
Continuation of thread Title.
'Something’s Going to Have to be Done Legally'

Link
http://www.debatepolitics.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=130

Quote(Should there be a "gatekeeper" regulating internet bloggers? In the aftermath of the Shirley Sherrod incident, that's what CNN promoted on July 23.

Anchors Kyra Phillips and John Roberts discussed the "mixed blessing of the internet," and agreed that there should be a crackdown on anonymous bloggers who disparage others on the internet.)

I can think of a couple of reasons why people especially in the 'News' industry might suppose this to be a good idea and one that the administration might think of instituting.
1) It would remove at a stroke one of the Constitutions main points.
Right to FREE speech.
2) It would remove any news item being disseminated except by those who are in the 'News' industry, thus perpetuating their jobs and freeing them from any competition.
3) It would muzzle any criticism of CNN and others of similar ilk.
I am certain there are many other reasons why these two 'clowns' would think it a good idea.
There are already sufficient laws in this country to protect anyone who might feel they are being abused online.
I wonder how other bloggers feel about these proposals,, are they in favor or against?
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that some bloggers are dumbasses, but I am against any kind of a crackdown on them. Yes, dumbasses are protected by the first amendment, even complete dumbasses like Brietbart. :mrgreen:
 
ludahai said:
Don't see that happening. It isn't really a secret the contempt many "professional" journalists regard many bloggers...
Click to expand...

YEah ...that is true. Still ... these so called "professional" journalists are openly seeking to regulate the 1st Amendment to suit their own purposes. I take issue with this action and I believe it says a great deal about their lack of respect for document they frequently hide behind when it suits them to do so.
 
Hatuey said:
You're free to be a lying sack of **** right/left winger. I'm free to get my lawyer and sue the living **** out of your lying right/left winger ass.
Click to expand...

To what are you referring?
 
They aren't seeking to regulate it. They need the new media, apparently. They are just expressing their grief over the new media when it blows up in their faces. Face the Nation had another segment today that made me laugh. Our esteemed host blamed the entire debacle on the new media's lack of journalistic integrity. He even went so far as to ask that the new media do its job and check for its authenticity to save "us" (old media) a lot of trouble.

Basically, I found it hilarious that so far a lot of old media types are yelling at the new media (which never even had journalistic credentials to begin with, and many do not want to follow journalism standards in the first place-because they don't see themselves that way) for doing exactly what new media does, while it was old media who fouled the whole thing up.

Old media's job is to have journalistic integrity. It's job isn't to merely pass on what the internet has to say: it's to check facts before talking. New media can do all it wants, because there is nothing there to say they need to do otherwise.

Old media needs to quit blaming new media for its own laziness.
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
Aunt Spiker, although I share your opinion and distrust of "blogging", I hold reservation that a blogger cannot be a jounalist. They are held to a stricter standard than the media in some respects, since libel, and defamation never seem to be brought to the mat in court cases, less the most egregious ones. Yet, here we are 230+ years into the nations life, and how many libel/defamation cases have you ever heard of? Not many.. Conversely, bloggers do not have the same "protections". Are they all journalists? No, not in a million years, but some of them are, and some of them hold themselves accountable to the same intergrity that the MSM used to hold themselves too.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Sure - a few might take a real serious approach to blogging.
But is that journalism? No - that's akin to the opinion section of the news paper. Well written, researched - but opinion and unofficial none the less.
There are many steps to take towards becoming a journalist that a blogger has to make before they officially are one - and are to be taken as seriously as such.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Sure - a few might take a real serious approach to blogging.
But is that journalism? No - that's akin to the opinion section of the news paper. Well written, researched - but opinion and unofficial none the less.
There are many steps to take towards becoming a journalist that a blogger has to make before they officially are one - and are to be taken as seriously as such.
Click to expand...

These days I'd trust the bloggers more than the left stream media. They are still out there lying about the timeline of the Sherrod story. Blaming Fox when Fox is innocent, but they keep repeating the same lie over and over. They are stll out there lying about the Congressman Lewis being spat on and called the N word. If anyone should be fired or forced to resign it's Maddow for starters. MSNBC always runs things out of context, ignores news that hurts their cause,(or hurts Obama) and outright lies. Jounalism is dead, so bloggers are just as believable as anyone else.Maybe Maddow isn't a journalist but then neither is Beck, O'Reilly or Hannity. Also, neither are the 400 some (jounalists, bloggers,proffesors) who were members of Journolist.
 
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Sure - a few might take a real serious approach to blogging.
But is that journalism? No - that's akin to the opinion section of the news paper. Well written, researched - but opinion and unofficial none the less.
There are many steps to take towards becoming a journalist that a blogger has to make before they officially are one - and are to be taken as seriously as such.
Click to expand...
Although you do have to admit that journalist today have become very sloppy and lazy in their research.
 
deltabtry said:
Although you do have to admit that journalist today have become very sloppy and lazy in their research.
Click to expand...

Actually, compared to 100 years ago, they are doing a bang up job.
 
Umm... what are these proposals exactly? It looks like your link is broken.
 
apdst said:
Actually, compared to 100 years ago, they are doing a bang up job.
Click to expand...

This is true. On the other hand, over the past few years, they have come to rely far too much on the internet for their sources. I considered it mostly ironic because of the negative press wikipedia was getting to have the same groups of people grab on to any recent internet rumor or story and run with it. Then within a day or a few days, "oops....it wasn't true..or was exaggerated."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom