NationStates Jolt Archive

the Rogue State of Resistancia is submitting this proposal on the basis that, while we do support free press, those press organisations need to realise that they have responsablities too. they should be factual and unbiased, because many times we have seen media organisations slanting articles towards their own political beliefs, thus not giving a broad view on the articles. while the public need to know information, the media agencies should not give a biased view, and always give factual accounts. many a time has there been false stories cooked up, just to sell newspapers, magazines etc. another point is privacy. journalists and photographers should respect the private lives of people, no matter how public a figure they are. the media's perchant for invading people's privacu and creating so-called scandalus stories is becoming rediculus(sp?). all peoples private lives should be just that, private

the Rogue State of Resistancia is submitting this proposal on the basis that, while we do support free press, those press organisations need to realise that they have responsablities too. they should be factual and unbiased, because many times we have seen media organisations slanting articles towards their own political beliefs, thus not giving a broad view on the articles. while the public need to know information, the media agencies should not give a biased view, and always give factual accounts. many a time has there been false stories cooked up, just to sell newspapers, magazines etc. another point is privacy. journalists and photographers should respect the private lives of people, no matter how public a figure they are. the media's perchant for invading people's privacu and creating so-called scandalus stories is becoming rediculus(sp?). all peoples private lives should be just that, private

Firstly - you could do to post an actual copy of the proposal so we can read what you are saying.

Secdonly - there are laws against lying in TilEnca, and there should be laws against lying in most nations. The free press is free to say what it wants, but it has to be able to prove what it is saying.

Third - I kind of agree on the right to privacy, but not in certain circumstances. If one of my government ministers is going to tell people they should lead upstanding and moral lives, then I don't think it is beyond the remit of the press to publish stories showing he cheats on his taxes, on his wife and on his expenses (for example). If someone is in a position of power, and uses it to tell people the way they should behave, then that person should behave that way and should be exposed if they do not.

That said the press should respect privacy elsewhere when there is no obvious evidence of a story (if my husband and I are having a disagreement about the colour of the walls in the lounge, that is not national news. If we kill babies in our spare time, that probably should be!)

Responsabilities of the Press
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Resistancia

Description: This resolution is to augment resolution #63 Freedom of the Press to acknowledge that while the press may be free to report, they must aknowledge:

the responsablility to report the facts. Some media agencies leave out certain parts to 'sensationallise' a story, or add their own opinions, or 'buy' ficticous stories, claiming to be fact. this can be misleading to the recipients of this information

the responsablility to give balenced stories. media agencies, state and private, can sometimes give a biased in reporting issues towards a political slant or a particular corporation. the press should report balanced articles in order to give the recipients all the information to decide for themselves.

the resposability to respect an individual's privacy. the press has been known to intrude upon the privacy of people. this should not be allowed, no matter how public the figure is. this can also be backed up in part by resolution #10.

here is the full proposal
i do agree with some of your points, TilEnca. if the leader and his family is murdering babies, then yes that is a public, not private issue. same with tax cheats etc. but then again, there are some issues with who is sleeping with who, semi-naked shots taken on private vacation, etc that should remain private, instead of for the world to see. criminal matters, no matter how private they are, are public issues. i know recognise that there is a law forbidding lying in TilEnca, but this isnt the case in all nations.

here is the full proposal
i do agree with some of your points, TilEnca. if the leader and his family is murdering babies, then yes that is a public, not private issue. same with tax cheats etc. but then again, there are some issues with who is sleeping with who, semi-naked shots taken on private vacation, etc that should remain private, instead of for the world to see. criminal matters, no matter how private they are, are public issues. i know recognise that there is a law forbidding lying in TilEnca, but this isnt the case in all nations.

Technically the law forbids lying iin the press of the media - not lying in general :}

And for the private stuff - I mostly agree. But your proposal does not discriminate between the two, and it woudl make it impossible to publish anything because almost everything is private to somebody.

Respect for privacy and truthful reporting - yes.

That newspapers MUST be politically neutral - emphatically NO!

Freedom of speech means freedom to present a political point of view without having to fear persecution. Do you want to limit this? Because that's what you're suggesting.

Also, if newspapers are not allowed to 'bias' their articles, then you're essentially destroying a very important role of the media - to carry on political debate. Obviously people need to make up their own mind, but I think you will recognise that any good argument requires the presentation of different opinions. After all, how will you know what your own opinion is if you have nothing to disagree with?

This proposal undermines freedom of speech and makes public debate very difficult.. need I say more?

Respect for privacy and truthful reporting - yes.

That newspapers MUST be politically neutral - emphatically NO!

Freedom of speech means freedom to present a political point of view without having to fear persecution. Do you want to limit this? Because that's what you're suggesting.

Also, if newspapers are not allowed to 'bias' their articles, then you're essentially destroying a very important role of the media - to carry on political debate. Obviously people need to make up their own mind, but I think you will recognise that any good argument requires the presentation of different opinions. After all, how will you know what your own opinion is if you have nothing to disagree with?

This proposal undermines freedom of speech and makes public debate very difficult.. need I say more?
this is not trying to take away the freedom of speech, as there is nothing in there that states that the press is not entitled to their opinions, just that they should also desplay things from the other point of view. many a time a debate has been waged with only half the facts known, because agencies leave them out for the conveneancy of their agenda. this is just a guildline stating that, while the press is free to their opinion, they should also show a balenced view in order for people to weigh up the pros and cons, in order have a more informed debate. most people form their opinion through half-half facts, and not knowing both sides of the equation.

in response to TilEnca: the forbidding of lying is your own political agenda. while i agree with you that lying is wrong, we are not about to bring legislation in preventing it, because it is to complex to police and determine guilt or innocence across the board

Firstly - you could do to post an actual copy of the proposal so we can read what you are saying.

Secdonly - there are laws against lying in TilEnca, and there should be laws against lying in most nations. The free press is free to say what it wants, but it has to be able to prove what it is saying.

Third - I kind of agree on the right to privacy, but not in certain circumstances. If one of my government ministers is going to tell people they should lead upstanding and moral lives, then I don't think it is beyond the remit of the press to publish stories showing he cheats on his taxes, on his wife and on his expenses (for example). If someone is in a position of power, and uses it to tell people the way they should behave, then that person should behave that way and should be exposed if they do not.

That said the press should respect privacy elsewhere when there is no obvious evidence of a story (if my husband and I are having a disagreement about the colour of the walls in the lounge, that is not national news. If we kill babies in our spare time, that probably should be!)

Do you consider 'no comment' to be lying, TilEnca?

And, how do you reconcile a no lying policy and the right to privacy? If you want me to elaborate I will.

A couple preliminary grammar/spelling notes because I'm anal like that:
Please capitalize sentence beginnings and run your proposal through a spell check program of some sort! Capitalization is likely something you can take care of yourself, but I'll point out obvious spelling errors along the way as they detract from the point of a given proposal ...

Spelling errors to note -
responsibilities (not responsabilities)
acknowledge (not aknowledge)
sensationalize (not sensationallise - although perhaps sensationalise is permissable in the UK? still only one L though ...)
balanced (not balenced)
responsibility (not resposability)

the responsablility to report the facts. Some media agencies leave out certain parts to 'sensationallise' a story, or add their own opinions, or 'buy' ficticous stories, claiming to be fact. this can be misleading to the recipients of this information
I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I find that the tabloids of Mousebumples are a great source of entertainment. And, of course, the people of my nation are educated enough to realize the distinction between fact and fiction. Tabloids are archived within our libraries, but are held in the "fiction" section, rather than with the other periodicals.

the responsablility to give balenced stories. media agencies, state and private, can sometimes give a biased in reporting issues towards a political slant or a particular corporation. the press should report balanced articles in order to give the recipients all the information to decide for themselves.
Why is this of UN concern? If people want to waste their time and money producing and publishing stories that are biased, that's their decision. I'd like to say that such organizations will never succeed, but (OOC warning) FoxNews is proof enough that I'm wrong on that count. Besides, giving *all* the information would often only serve to increase the length of newscasts/articles, increasing costs and taking up more of the valuable time of my people.

the resposability to respect an individual's privacy. the press has been known to intrude upon the privacy of people. this should not be allowed, no matter how public the figure is. this can also be backed up in part by resolution #10.
Depends on what you mean by "respecting privacy." No paparazzi? I'm behind you 100%. I don't need those pesky photographers interrupting my intimate personal life. As mentioned before, however, reseaching details about lies that public leaders have told the public is a completely different matter.

Stick the references to previous UN resolutions all at the top of the resolution, or all at the bottom. Don't split them up - just makes things more complicated and confusing.

sensationalize (not sensationallise - although perhaps sensationalise is permissable in the UK? still only one L though ...)

OOC: after admiting that i spelt it wong, sensationalise is the universally accepted english spelling of it. only america spells words like that with a z instead of a s

IC: as for the references to other resolutions, there is only one reference, and i chose to put that with the relevent section

I would actually like to see a resolution on this issue being passed, but I'm not entirely sure it is this one as it currently stands..

It's very well that you say that this resolution doesn't preclude the newspapers from having different opinions.. but that's not what the resolution says. The operative clauses of your resolution appear to be

1. Responsibility to report ALL facts (without personal bias or sensationalism)
2. Responsibility to give BALANCED stories (so readers get the 'full monty' to make up their own minds)
3. Responsibility to respect privacy (no matter how public a figure is).

Am I right?

Now, reporting ALL the facts of a case would make an individual article VERY VERY long - writers and editors need to be able to freely choose what facts are most relevant; discretion needs to be allowed. Also, the standard of no personal bias is impossible to enforce - bias is often subconsciously introduced. Limiting sensationalism is something I agree with where it dumbs down political debate or makes cheap points - but we also have to recognise that newspapers need some degree of sensationalism to sell in the first place.

The responsibility to give balanced accounts of newsworthy events would also create impossible standards. The implication is that ALL viewpoints must be considered.. given that there may be hundreds of different viewpoints on an individual event this makes article-writing impossible. Again, editors and writers must be able to exercise discretion. Also, balance implies neutrality, which in turn means that any opinion must be offset by an opposing viewpoint, essentially reducing the value of having the opinion in the first place.

Respect of privacy is important, but I don't think I agree with ALL privacy being affected. Private matters often have repercussions in public life (ie the case of David Blunkett), which are important for the public to be made aware of, and furthermore, we must be able to expect some sort of standard of behaviour from the people we choose to be our leaders - the line needs to be drawn somewhere, but drawing it at 'no reporting of private affairs at all' is a scary prospect.

in response to Mickey Blueeyes:

part 1: there is no where in there that it states that they have to report all the facts, but media agencies sometimes leave out relevent facts. this is more aimed at those stories that are misleading or claim to be fully truthful.

part 2: i realise that there could be hundreds of viewpoints.... well there is as many viewpoints as there are people. the thing is this part is aimed at showing a balenced view, as opposed to only showing one side of the story, for political or corporate reasons. generally you can define most opinions on subjects down to small groups out of all the viewpoints.

part 3: this is more aimed at respecting peoples privacy. if any actions happen in 'private' that are deemed to be criminal in nature, they are actually deemed public. but then again, it is the role of the police to detect and deal with crime, not that of the press

in finishing, this proposal is more aimed at getting press organisations to recognise the responsabilities that they have to the general public and not to set in concrete 'you must do this, you must not do that,' otherwise that would be in violation of the freedom of press resolution.

I actually agree with you in principle.. but not with the dangerous implications this resolution can have with its current wording, which I hinted at in my last post.

Given that this resolution does not apparently seek to lay out a general libel law, I am not entirely sure what the purpose of this clause is as you present it, if there is no way to punish untruthful reporting (which in many cases will be punished under national laws). Also, what is relevant is subjective - you may find some aspect of a news item much more relevant than I do.. this suggests that there should be an objective standard of relevance against which articles are to be judged, which is impossible.

Also, I fundamentally disagree that a newspaper should not be allowed to pursue a political agenda. A good paper will acknowledge the existence of an opposing viewpoints, but shouldn't have to. One of the reasons people buy papers is to associate themselves with the political point of view the paper presents. Is it really in the general interest to prevent this? There should be no duty to present a balanced point of view, in fact there shouldn't even be a responsibility to pay attention to this goal. What makes political debate interesting is its diversity, even how certain people's viewpoints offend us.

As for privacy and the point you made about crime.. an important role of newspapers is to report crime in order to deter it. I am not necessarily supporting 'naming and shaming' but if we do not know what people around us are getting punished for doing, how are we to know what not to do ourselves?

in response to TilEnca: the forbidding of lying is your own political agenda. while i agree with you that lying is wrong, we are not about to bring legislation in preventing it, because it is to complex to police and determine guilt or innocence across the board

Sorry for the confusion - I meant lying in the press or the media, not lying in general.

So that a newspaper is free to print a story that says "TORIELLA THITEN PREGNENT BY GOLDEN DRAGON" if they want, but should I chose to question it, they would be required to show the story was true, and the evidence to support it.

However people are allowed to wander round on the street and say "Toriella is pregnant by a gold dragon you know" without punishment.

Do you consider 'no comment' to be lying, TilEnca?


Erm - no?


And, how do you reconcile a no lying policy and the right to privacy? If you want me to elaborate I will.

Oh for the love of the Lords. I have already indicated I meant lying in the press. Since this whole discussion is about the press I thought everyone could have figured this out, but apparently it does require spelling out in the tiniest detail.

Lying by people on the street - not banned.

Lying in the press - banned.
Lying in the media - banned.

Lying by the government - not really banned but not a good idea.

Using the media to lie - gray area. (Eg if I go on the record and say "The leader of GeminiLand is a black magic user" with no proof, then I would be guilty of using the media to spread my lies. But the media would not be guilty, because they didn't lie. But if the local paper printed a column saying "The leader of GeminiLand is a black magic user" with no evidence, just because they wanted to, they would clearly be guilty.

As for privacy and the point you made about crime.. an important role of newspapers is to report crime in order to deter it. I am not necessarily supporting 'naming and shaming' but if we do not know what people around us are getting punished for doing, how are we to know what not to do ourselves?
what i meant was that the press shouldnt go and dig up dirt on people and actively seek out crime. that is the role of the police. however, once someone is caught, yes the crime can be reported.

now looking in retrospect, i could have worded this one a bit better, but the proposed resolution is aimed at press agencies aknowledging their responsabilities, rather than nations imposing laws, restricting the freedoms of the press, hence being an augmentation of resolution #63.

OOC: after admiting that i spelt it wong, sensationalise is the universally accepted english spelling of it. only america spells words like that with a z instead of a s
"Universally accepted" how? Universally accepted where you're from? Sure. However, "sensationalise" is not even found at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/). And some British forms (such as travellers) are listed there. I'd hardly call it universally accepted, but that's just semantics.

IC: as for the references to other resolutions, there is only one reference, and i chose to put that with the relevent section
You also referenced Resolution #63, where you stated that the proposal is meant to augment that one. I just prefer to see them together, personally.

"Universally accepted" how? Universally accepted where you're from? Sure. However, "sensationalise" is not even found at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/). And some British forms (such as travellers) are listed there. I'd hardly call it universally accepted, but that's just semantics.


You also referenced Resolution #63, where you stated that the proposal is meant to augment that one. I just prefer to see them together, personally.
OOC: i am from australia. we, and most english speaking countries follow the british, as you put it, form of english spelling. the american way of spelling is pretty much just used there, in america.

IC: i realised after looking back over it, that i did refer to resolution #63. i chose to put them in those places because that is where they are most relevant to the proposal. it is usless putting them together, because they sevre differnt purposes. R #63 had relevance to the entire proposal, where as R #10 had relevance to only one part.

I have noticed that people are very sensitive and overly defensive when it comes to their proposals, so I ask all to remain calm when I ask this very innocent question, please. There is no ill will intended.

Is the core of this proposal suggesting that the press have too many freedoms?

If it is, I would suggest that it is not the freedoms that need to be rolled back. It is not how much freedom the press have, but what they do with that freedom. It would be better, though not ideal, to have some very bad journalism alongside some excellent journalism in society, rather than reducing the freedoms of all journalists and news media organisations.

This is a comment rather than a reply but,

In TilEnca, freedom of the press is held as the right for a paper to be free of government interference. That it can print stories that portray The Council in a negative light, or that portay me in a negative light, without reprisal from the government or from me.

It is not held to be that they can print what they want without having to prove it if asked to do so. So if they were to print a story about me killing babies, there would be no reprisal from me as The President, but I would be free to sue them and get an apology from them as a private citizen, since I don't kill babies.

The press is allowed to have political bias as long as they don't go so far as lying in their bias (eg the press can hate me and try to get me out of office, but if they tell lies in the process of doing that, they will be held accountable).

Further more every member of the press has to abide by the laws of the country. They are not permitted to tresspass (even if they are getting a really good story) or hack in to computer systems and so on and so on. If they do, they are punished in accordance with the law that they broke.

Freedom of the press is paramount, but that does not put them above the law, nor should it do so.

I just have to say that because this is such a loaded topic for a resolution there needs to be some clarity with any future proposal.

When you start throwing words like 'bias' around it gets very messy, because there are so many variables. The influences on the press and the questions that arise from that alone are difficult enough to deal with. In the case of commercial stations news organisations have to accommodate the sensibilities of advertisers, and government can call any news organisation bias, and probably will, if govt feels it is being attacked. It doesn't mean they are bias, of course - it's political.

Yes, civil proceedings can be enacted if someone feels they have been slandered etc., but if this becomes the norm you end up with a rising culture of suppression due to powerful defamation laws.

Furthermore, as TelEnca has pointed out, having a no lying policy is great. However, because truth can be lost, omitted or subverted I would rather take the 'no lying' policy further and just maintain and reinforce an open society where there is the possibility for open debate. An environment where anyone can come forward with an opinion. If you start limiting the arenas and origins of this kind of debate, then truth and lies can be hidden and lost. If everything is on the table, and vigorous debate ensues there is a greater likelihood that something resembling the truth will emerge.

Well, in my opinion, anyway.

[QUOTE=Mousebumples]"Universally accepted" how? Universally accepted where you're from? Sure. However, "sensationalise" is not even found at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/). And some British forms (such as travellers) are listed there. I'd hardly call it universally accepted, but that's just semantics.
QUOTE]



Sensationalise is not correct spelling, the OED only has ize, not ise, as a suffix.

[QUOTE=Mousebumples]"Universally accepted" how? Universally accepted where you're from? Sure. However, "sensationalise" is not even found at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/). And some British forms (such as travellers) are listed there. I'd hardly call it universally accepted, but that's just semantics.
QUOTE]



Sensationalise is not correct spelling, the OED only has ize, not ise, as a suffix.
sensationalise <- that is taken from the oxford dictionary, link http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sensational?view=uk. it also mentions Sensationalize, but that is generally accepted as the american spelling of it

[QUOTE=Cup and Fork]
sensationalise <- that is taken from the oxford dictionary, link http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sensational?view=uk. it also mentions Sensationalize, but that is generally accepted as the american spelling of it


I think, though not exactly sure, that sensational may even be american in origin.