GameBanshee Forums

Are you Yay or Nay for it?

The Toronto Star had an interesting article today. I was in fact two different articles, one against free press, and then a response that was all for free press.

Here is the article against free press.

And here is the response article for free press.

Don't know about the rest of you, but the nay-sayer has some good points, and seems to be the more clear-headed of the two. I agree much more with the dude against it. Not completely though. As a civilian, I'd like to know whats going on in the world. So, free press is good for that, IMO.

For it in anyway shape and form. It should be my choice what I know and dont.

A free press is absolutely essential to democracy and freedom. Period.

If the press is not free to report anything, then the government can control what the public knows and it can surpress what it doesn't like, which includes not only matters of national security but dissent. Unfortunately for us, dissent gets a bad rap; we think of it as subversive, but in fact it is liberating. Dissent fosters critical thinking, new ideas and questions the authority of those who lead us. Without dissent, we would be living in the type of totalitarian state we despise. Don't forget that dissent and freedom of the press were instrumental in our nation's formation, which I remind everyone was founded in the ultimate expression of dissent: an armed insurrection.

At the same time, the press must be responsible, a quality which is sorely lacking in many media outlets. The press should not print things which endanger Americans, such as matters of national security or specific instructions on how to build a dirty bomb. However, anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence and fair research skills can dig up that information via print media and the internet. Similarly, foreign nations and large groups with dedicated intelligence and information branches can generate the same sorts of reports you would see on CNN, so I don't think that the press telling us that airlines are vulnerable to hijacking is particularly harmful to our collective safety.

Any argument against a free press much be squelched immediately, no matter how sound its reasoning appears. The press is the outlet for the people to learn things the government (and by extension, its sponsors; ie-corporations, campaign contributors, etc.) don't want you to know. Without an open mechanism for information and news, freedom is compromised.

IMO, as long as investigative reporting is governed by advertising (in newspapers and television), dictatorial publishers and the sesationalist "wow" factor, free press will always be a euphemism for whatever sells best and reflects the opinions of the owner. Anyone who doubts this need only look at the career of media magnates like Silvio Berlusconi (who fired reporters on hits newspapers that delved into his own funding sources during his various runs for office in Italy) and Rupert Murdoch (who simply fires editors on newspapers he buys that disagree with his extremely conservative views).

Originally posted by fable
IMO, as long as investigative reporting is governed by advertising (in newspapers and television), dictatorial publishers and the sesationalist "wow" factor, free press will always be a euphemism for whatever sells best and reflects the opinions of the owner.

But does that mean that we should restrict the press because most of it is motivated by profit? No. The press must be unconditionally free, but should also be held responsible for disseminating correct information and providing as neutral a bias as possible. Tabloid "journalism" is not a new phenomena, nor should we think that what passes for a "news magazine" is the product of television or the internet; sensationalism has always been around and we will never be rid of it.

I think we should draw a line between the censorship of the government and the views of publishers. There are very few matters about which the government should ethically and legally be able to censor. However, publishers and media moguls do it all the time, as our friend fable rightly points out. However, if an editor is sacked because his or her boss doesn't like what they have to say, they are free to start their own paper/TV show/webpage and disseminate their own brand of "truth"; that's what the freedom of the press is all about.

Originally posted by HighLordDave


But does that mean that we should restrict the press because most of it is motivated by profit? No. The press must be unconditionally free, but should also be held responsible for disseminating correct information and providing as neutral a bias as possible.

That's the problem, though: the press gives itself a quasi-regulatory air of authority to bolster its sales, and (probably) because people naturally want to feel like they're on the side of good. But then when this same press shows a lack of even handedness (so pronounced, that even Evans and Novak chuckle over how much crap Bush gets away with compared to Clinton) or disregard for the facts, there is no system around to hold them accountable--as there would be if they were part of a regulatory body. What do you suggest to remedy this?

The key issue is control.

If the government sponsors and pays for a news outlet, it is propaganda. If a private individual or corporation sponsors a news outlet, it is journalism.

The main problem for journalists trying to do the right thing is that their business is exactly that: a business. Unless magazines are shipped, newspapers sold and TV ad time paid for, what that outlet has to say is meaningless; we're seeing some of this here at GameBanshee. Buck needs to pay his bills (because can't support the site himself), so he's either got to go out of business, get corporate sponsorship or start a subscription service. He's chosen the latter.

Similarly, a news agency isn't free; it costs money not only to print/broadcast the news, but to pay reporters, editors, file clerks, HR reps, IT techs and everything else that goes into running a major corporation. Very few people/entities can afford to pay those fees.

As long as journalism is in the private sector, the press is free. It's not necessarily accurate, but it's out of the government's control, which is necessary for our brand of democracy. Unfortunately, that also means that those who sponsor the news agencies have a say in the content of the news, so some events and information can be surpressed or be presented in a misleading way. However, I am much more comfortable with the private sector reporting the news than I am with the government doing it.

In theory, what keeps each agency in line are the other agencies. In an age of instant access to information, satellite feeds and webcasts, the breaking story is the most important. I remember on 11 September, watching the events in NYC play out in my office. That kind of access would have been unheard of even twenty years ago. Fortunately for the public, there are enough outlets trying to broadcast the same information, that they must get it right or someone else will call them on it.

Each network/outlet wants you to watch it to the exclusion of all others. However, if people feel that one source is or has become unreliable or slanderous, they will abandon that source. For instance, even though it's still on the air, how many people do you know that still consider Dateline reliable after they sabotaged those Chevy trucks to blow up? I don't, and I'm a little harder on NBC's other news programs as a result. The other networks were quick to pounce on NBC for falsifying their reports in much the same way a scholar who does faulty research is ostracised from his/her colleagues.

Self-regulation is not reliable, especially when there are only a handful of players. However, to me that is far preferable to government regulation.

My main problem with the media is the way they convey information. In my experience (limited when compared to yours), the media always has an anti-governement bias. The media is far from unbiased. Anything the gouvernement does is usually critiscized in one way or another. This generates an anti-governement thought in the public, which is usually not good, as the governement might have to do the critisized thing. And if the critisized thing is not done by the governement, then the media always critisizes them for not doing it.

However, I'm completely against censorship. I like having all the facts. Its just the way the media conveys the information that I hate.

Good duality, by first thought I think imediatly that I was for Free Press. But in second thought I can point some problems.

First, what is a Free press?
The media must work under the determination of the Law, like all other citzens. Fact, that put obviously the Media under the State(s), subordinate to the State. What is a Correct "position" in my opinion; and put its Freedom in a restrict sense. But under the State do not mean under the Government, what is also good.


But, actually is rare too see the Media under the coercion of the Law. For example: I never see a Media enterprise under Legal process by Monopolio(<-- Don't know if this word exist, I mean one Enterprise controling all kinds of things related to its area, like Microsoft). Also in the Media there are a great incidence of juridical-locks(<--This term probably don't exist too, I mean when something ilegal is good for the infractor, for example: One Paper say that Mr Simon is homosexual, what is a lie, then Mr Simon in the Justice gain a money restitution from the Paper, But the money the Paper own by selling such lies is far bigger than the restitution, so the crime compenses and the Paper keep its ilegal policy). By these fact and considering the power of Media, including over the Government, I think the law related to media should be more agravated. In other words, I'm against Free press in a expanded compreention of freedom.


Also, the restriction and control over the Press today is less important than before, Considering the globalization of the info/data net. It's of less utility for a Government to control its press if the Internet give access to all News from the media of all countries. I know that Internet is not common in some parts of the world, and not everybody have access to it; I'm just saying that the control over the Press today is of less importance than it was in the Dictatorship times.

I'm for Free Press in a strict sense, in lato sense I'm against it.

Understanding, that a Free(lato sense) Press can be the end of the Democracy exactly the same way that a Controled Press.