NationStates Jolt Archive

This draft has been revised. Please see the new draft on page 2.

NOTING a free press is necessary in any country that is successful in pursuing the happiness of its people,

FURTHER NOTING it is not always in the interest of the ruling government to have a free press

FURTHER NOTING it is not always in the interest of the press itself to be truthful and unbalanced

DEFINING "balanced" to mean without any preference given to a political, religious, or social idea in any story

IT IS RESOLVED that initiatives be created to guarantee a free press by doing the following:
1) Create a yearly award to be given to the individual, media company, and nation found to be the most instrumental in insuring a truthful and unbalanced free press.
2) Bring attention to nations that are harmful to the free press and punish them accordingly.
3) Help smaller media companies to insure no information monopolies appear with monetary support and UN information.

HOWEVER there are limits to the free press such as
1) Libel
2) Unwanted personal information about private citizens (defined below)Media companies that break these limits will be brought to attention and punished accordingly.

DEFINING "unwanted personal information" as:
1)Information of actions that are not illegal but still harmful to the image of the person
2)Information about actions of people associated with the person that are illegal
3)Information such as Social Security, credit card number, etc.
4)Any information that is presented in an unbalanced light

Category: Education and Creativity Area of Effect: Free Press

NOTING a free press is necessary in any country that is successful in pursuing the happiness of its people,
You lost me right there. I immediately stop reading when someone posts opinion as unassailable fact.



I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, it's just that phrasing is entirely off-putting. Rethink why you would make such a statement, and come up with a better way of stating what you want.

NOTING a free press is necessary in any country that is successful in pursuing the happiness of its people,
FURTHER NOTING it is not always in the interest of the ruling government to have a free pressTell that to some of the leadership of certain governments who only what their people working for them thus tell them only what they need to do or know to do it.. Also many nations may feel it's citizens don't need to read as long as they can learn by example and doing something.

FURTHER NOTING it is not always in the interest of the press itself to be truthful and unbalanced
DEFINING "balanced" to mean without any preference given to a political, religious, or social idea in any storyThe statement at first gets me confused... 'not always in the interest of the press itself to be truthful... I would think they need to always be truthful or why do you later mention libel? Now it's this unbalanced then you degine balance. I would think that is I said it over to the side of some religious group that would be unbalanced. Balanced is telling the religious group side and those no in it's side.. Riding the middle of the fence and not on either side of it.

IT IS RESOLVED that initiatives be created to guarantee a free press by doing the following:
1) Create a yearly award to be given to the individual, media company, and nation found to be the most instrumental in insuring a truthful and unbalanced free press.
2) Bring attention to nations that are harmful to the free press and punish them accordingly.
3) Help smaller media companies to insure no information monopolies appear with monetary support and UN information.How and who will present this award same goes for policing this all?

HOWEVER there are limits to the free press such as
1) LibelGoes back to the truthful above if you tell lies about somebody in the press then.... Here come lawyers and you are in court.

2) Unwanted personal information about private citizens (defined below)Media companies that break these limits will be brought to attention and punished accordingly.I agree the press has at times gone to far as sitting down to watch the rat races and first thing hear is Micky and Minnie have gone gay now that is not sports it's something else.

DEFINING "unwanted personal information" as:
1)Information of actions that are not illegal but still harmful to the image of the person
2)Information about actions of people associated with the person that are illegal
3)Information such as Social Security, credit card number, etc.These read okay to me..

4)Any information that is presented in an unbalanced lightIf you mean the lady I went out with the other night is only one has a say in the paper about what we did them could not agree more. AS can say a lot of things about her myself.. Then again since this could go to court then neither party needs to say anything to press and you need to stay away from us until it comes out in court.. However knowing the press they want all the dirt before it falls on a courtroom floor.

No. This has nothing to do with free press. This is just putting limits on the press. If someone, even a public figure, does something stupid, this prevents media companies from telling us about it. We also don't want to "help" smaller media companies. How and why would we do it? They are subject to our normal rules on monopolies and we will deal with problems.

Additionally, not all media is neutral, nor should it be. What about a quarterly newspaper for a political party? Or a person's personal blog?

Ceorana is a strong supporter of a free press. Therefore, we strongly oppose this.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

NOTING a free press is necessary in any country that is successful in pursuing the happiness of its people,

False. You can keep telling people blatant lies that make the country look like it's doing better than it really is. So long as the people are well fed and have a fair number of freedoms, they will be happy.

FURTHER NOTING it is not always in the interest of the ruling government to have a free press

Of course

FURTHER NOTING it is not always in the interest of the press itself to be truthful and unbalanced

UNbalanced? Hmm.....something's off in the relationship between those two words

DEFINING "balanced" to mean without any preference given to a political, religious, or social idea in any story

Something seems off in that definition, but close enough.

IT IS RESOLVED that initiatives be created to guarantee a free press by doing the following:

Guarantee? Encourage....maybe. Guarantee?

1) Create a yearly award to be given to the individual, media company, and nation found to be the most instrumental in insuring a truthful and unbalanced free press.

Again, you want to create an unbalanced free press?

2) Bring attention to nations that are harmful to the free press and punish them accordingly.

How?

to the -> to.

3) Help smaller media companies to insure no information monopolies appear with monetary support and UN information.

Who helps them? The nation? The UN? The larger companies? Michael Moore?

HOWEVER there are limits to the free press such as

Fine

1) Libel

One wonders how "balanced" that is.

2) Unwanted personal information about private citizens (defined below)Media companies that break these limits will be brought to attention and punished accordingly.

Fine

DEFINING "unwanted personal information" as:
1)Information of actions that are not illegal but still harmful to the image of the person

And that is seperate from libel.....how?

2)Information about actions of people associated with the person that are illegal
3)Information such as Social Security, credit card number, etc.

Try private?

4)Any information that is presented in an unbalanced light

Gee, one would've thought we'd already covered that.

Category: Education and Creativity Area of Effect: Free Press

Yeah.........Ceo's right, the more effective lines are things that strap limits on free press.

And that is seperate from libel.....how?
Libel is false information. He's talking about true information. And I don't see why that should be banned.

NOTING a free press is necessary in any country that is successful in pursuing the happiness of its people,

I'm sure that all persons present, with the exception of those honourable delegates representing autocratic states <tips hat in their direction> would be able to agree with that particular statement. Of course, freedom of press is only one element in the creation and sustaining of a free and open society, yet it is an important one.

FURTHER NOTING it is not always in the interest of the press itself to be truthful and unbalanced

As noted before, "balanced" is probably (I hope) the word intended.

DEFINING "balanced" to mean without any preference given to a political, religious, or social idea in any story

Minor quibble: What about economic? Business interests can be represented unfairly too.

IT IS RESOLVED that initiatives be created to guarantee a free press by doing the following:
1) Create a yearly award to be given to the individual, media company, and nation found to be the most instrumental in insuring a truthful and unbalanced free press.

Hmmm, what do you mean by instrumental?

2) Bring attention to nations that are harmful to the free press and punish them accordingly.

Punish how?

3) Help smaller media companies to insure no information monopolies appear with monetary support and UN information.

Well, I can support this, although some might be suspicious of the U.N.'s information being completely impartial.

HOWEVER there are limits to the free press such as
1) Libel
2) Unwanted personal information about private citizens (defined below)Media companies that break these limits will be brought to attention and punished accordingly.

What about times of national emergencies when it might be necessary to restrict reporting? Not that we agree with this concept, but it seems important to bring it up.

DEFINING "unwanted personal information" as:
1)Information of actions that are not illegal but still harmful to the image of the person

Too restrictive, unpleasant actions deserve to be reported on as much as anything.

2)Information about actions of people associated with the person that are illegal

I don't understand what you quite mean here.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Libel is false information. He's talking about true information. And I don't see why that should be banned.The thing is news folks get something and before justice system has had a chance to do it's part to prove of disprove a charge they run stories on all involved. Even if things are true the press don't need to tell a victums story or the accused story until after then trail.. This interfers with due process and can cause for juries to be hard to select that are not biased by what the news presents good or bad on either party in a court procedure. Also they chase ambulances looking for news stories and most of time get in way of people trying to do something to help individuals not find out what time they had sex last and with who or what they had for diner. Also news reporters who are suppose to be reporting on a horse race don't need to be talking about what the riders did at the playboy club or pink pansies club. They go outside their realm of reporting often creating problems for all conserned and just on the edge of being libel for what they say.

Biggest thing I see with a press or news is they will play an edited tape of somebody talking then call inexperts to diseact it. Who blow it all to heck and back.. As press/news don't often print/show what all a person may say only what they feel is important.

1) Create a yearly award to be given to the individual, media company, and nation found to be the most instrumental in insuring a truthful and unbalanced free press. Given all the accolades the media confer upon themselves, I hardly see the point to the United Nations adding one more. Also, "unbalanced free press"?!

2) Bring attention to nations that are harmful to the free press and punish them accordingly. Illegal. MetaGaming.

HOWEVER there are limits to the free press such as
1) Libel
2) Unwanted personal information about private citizens (defined below)Media companies that break these limits will be brought to attention and punished accordingly.And, er, what about national security secrets?

Finally, after perusing Freedom of Conscience (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9385208&postcount=116) and The Universal Bill of Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27), we find this proposal entirely unnecessary:

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

And I doubt that a free press would make citizens happy. In fact, I'm fairly certain that the stories I've heard from free and truthful press were more upsetting than stories I've heard from puppet press.

Will it make the citizens happy? No. Will it make them better informed? Yes.

Ignorance and bliss, etc.

Kenny may also be right about the Freedom of Conscience and the Universal Bill of Rights, but if you can make a Proposal that deals specifically with free and truthful press with objective stories and subjective editorials that doesn't make any claims about what it does for people, you may have something there.

The people of Airatum do not share the authors desire for individually 'balanced' media companies. It has been our experience that attempts to be balanced almost always meet with failure.

The people of Airatum enjoy freedom of the press in that there are many different media outlets with their own biases. Overall, our press is 'balanced' because all of the competing, 'unbalanced' voices have an equal right to make their point if they can find an audience interested in listening.

It has been our experience that media outlets and individual reporters who spend much time claiming to be 'fair and balanced' are usually deluding themselves or their audience. If every media source says up front what their bias is, readers can way that against anything produced by that media source.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

I did mean "balanced".
I don't see how punishing nations that restrict a free press is MetaGaming. What's the point of creating resolutions if they cannot be enforced?
It's true that the Universal Bill of Rights allows for a free press. However, I believe that the reason a free press is difficult to keep is not that it is outlawed, but the press itself finds it is in its interests to be unbalanced. Perhaps a better title would be "Balanced Press Initiative".
I would also like to change the definition of balanced that I give. I think a better definition is "equality between the totals of the two sides of an account". This is from the Merriam-Webster but I think it is better than the previous one.
Having multiple unbalanced media does not mean that globally there is a balanced media. It means people will turn to the media source they enjoy the most, not the one that is true.
The thing about national security secrets is true, but if that is put in there should be a definition of what constitutes a secret that is a matter of national security and what constitutes a secret the government doesn't want people to know.

The thing about national security secrets is true, but if that is put in there should be a definition of what constitutes a secret that is a matter of national security and what constitutes a secret the government doesn't want people to know.I would like to see this as my government has many national security issues we don't want people to know because they are that. NSI items that if the people knew then the government could not do it duty and protect them from certian elements. This is why the news often needs to be restricted from some things as they tend to print anything they might get without concern for what it might do to endanger others lives. Many times greed or green blinds those who print the news and they go for the bucks not caring what it might cause if they expose certain things.

I did mean "balanced".

Good

I don't see how punishing nations that restrict a free press is MetaGaming. What's the point of creating resolutions if they cannot be enforced?

Because no mechanism exists to do so. We have no court, we have no system of taxes, dues or levies, we have no fining system, hell, the executive's only job is the monitor the proposal queue and make sure no national leader has two nations in the UN at once. You either go with Gnomes which means we won't need the clause at all or you go with nothing.

All reports, all issues regarding this are done using invisible RP - in effect, they are events that are happening behind the scenes and never explicitly stated. As such, they can't be in your proposal.

It's true that the Universal Bill of Rights allows for a free press. However, I believe that the reason a free press is difficult to keep is not that it is outlawed, but the press itself finds it is in its interests to be balanced. Perhaps a better title would be "Balanced Press Initiative".

I'd use the term "moderated". The Universal Bill of Rights allows for free press, and free press is easy to keep, but dangerous and stupid. A moderated press, just like a moderated free speech, is a slightly more pragmatic way to address an issue. This is what you addressed.

And actually, your paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. Please think your thoughts on the matter through and proofread your statements a bit more.

I would also like to change the definition of balanced that I give. I think a better definition is "equality between the totals of the two sides of an account". This is from the Merriam-Webster but I think it is better than the previous one.

Oh god. That definition is even worse!

Having multiple unbalanced media does not mean that globally there is a balanced media. It means people will turn to the media source they enjoy the most, not the one that is true.

Agreed. In fact, the media often plays to the advertisers and if they are always looking at the bottom line.....well fuck. Actually, there's an interesting story a few years back from Bolivia. My dad, who'd been an oil consultant down there for a while, was sitting next to a media guy in Bolivia. Bolivia had, at the time, just privatized the media, but because the government controlled 90% of the industry of Bolivia, if you were too critical of the government, you could see your advertising pulled and all of a sudden lose out.

Hmm.....still a bit under the control of the government, messa thinks

The thing about national security secrets is true, but if that is put in there should be a definition of what constitutes a secret that is a matter of national security and what constitutes a secret the government doesn't want people to know.

Yes, and an incomplete document of what should be restricted is still better than no document, especially when it misses the controversial issues that would be better handled on their own.

Forgottenlands was right, I should do a better job proofreading. I think I fixed most of the problems in the edit; maybe it will make more sense now.
I see why it is MetaGaming now. However, I now realize that the proposal says nations that do not follow it will be punished, and this is slightly recursive. Because it is impossible for nations to not follow UN resolutions, this is wholly unnecessary. Am I correct in this thinking?
What I meant about the paragraph that made no sense was that a free press is hard to keep not always because of the government. Sometimes, the press itself wishes to depict things in a biased light. For example, if the CEO of a major advertiser for the news corporation is found to be embezzling, the news might not want that company to be harmed in any way, and so they might be biased.
The reason I have the non-libel limits is because I personally think it is distressing when a press has a story that is not necessary, except for selling papers. That being said, maybe other repliers are right is saying that does not belong in a proposal. It is influenced more by opinion than other part, and it is not vital.

No replies?

I see why it is MetaGaming now. However, I now realize that the proposal says nations that do not follow it will be punished, and this is slightly recursive. Because it is impossible for nations to not follow UN resolutions, this is wholly unnecessary. Am I correct in this thinking?
Yes.

What I meant about the paragraph that made no sense was that a free press is hard to keep not always because of the government. Sometimes, the press itself wishes to depict things in a biased light. For example, if the CEO of a major advertiser for the news corporation is found to be embezzling, the news might not want that company to be harmed in any way, and so they might be biased.
I think that journalistic integrity would be a big asset here. Since there are so many different media organizations, the truth will get out, and the public will definitely react negatively to the ones that didn't report it. Having the government enforce this is cutting off your nose to spite your face: government control over the press rings huge warning bells, as the chance for corruption is too high.
The reason I have the non-libel limits is because I personally think it is distressing when a press has a story that is not necessary, except for selling papers. That being said, maybe other repliers are right is saying that does not belong in a proposal. It is influenced more by opinion than other part, and it is not vital.
I agree that this shouldn't be in the proposal, or in any legislation. If the public doesn't want to read those stories, they shouldn't buy the papers because of them.

NOTING a free press is necessary in any country that is successful in pursuing the happiness of its people,
*Finishes reassembling the TT-33, inserts a fresh 8 round magazine, empties it into the ceiling*

Enough of this! This is a very dangerous concept and one which must be suppressed in the name of public safety.

FURTHER NOTING it is not always in the interest of the press itself to be truthful and unbalanced

There is a workable solution to this. Locate the close relatives of the untruthful journalists, line them up in the road and have tanks drive over them. This will have the effect of encouraging truthful journalism.

*Finishes reassembling the TT-33, inserts a fresh 8 round magazine, empties it into the ceiling*

Enough of this! This is a very dangerous concept and one which must be suppressed in the name of public safety.

There is a workable solution to this. Locate the close relatives of the untruthful journalists, line them up in the road and have tanks drive over them. This will have the effect of encouraging truthful journalism.

Ignore him, he's not dumb enough to fire it here right? If he shoots you later, well, we'll all know who did it :)

Free Press good. This resolution, not good. Needs editing.

Needs editing.
Yes, but how?

NOTING a free press is necessary in any country that is successful in pursuing the happiness of its people,

A highly questionable assertion. I must concur fully with the views (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11250739&postcount=10) of the honourable representative from Norderia on this point. Also, the delegate from Naturalog seems to be labouring under the impression that all societies, whatever their cultural norms and particular situations, should be democratic and encourage freedom of speech. We beg to differ.

Finally, a "free press" is hardly "necessary" to a people with a predominantly oral culture, for example.


DEFINING "balanced" to mean without any preference given to a political, religious, or social idea in any story


And bang go editorials, opinion columns and any article trying to argue a point in favour of a particular idea. One of the fundamental purposes of journalism is debate. This proposal would kill that concept.


2) Bring attention to nations that are harmful to the free press and punish them accordingly.

Wholly unwarranted. This would be an unjustifiable intrusion into the daily affairs of sovereign nations.

Just because we are a democracy and have freedom of the press doesn't mean we condone forcing those values upon other countries.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Yes, but how?

Sorry I'm the wrong person to ask. I don't want to give anyone the impression I support a good initiative.

Unnecessary, really. As was stated, Freedom of Conscience and UNDHR already does most of this.

Sorry I'm the wrong person to ask. I don't want to give anyone the impression I support a good initiative.

No worries. I doubt anyone would ever get that impression.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

No worries. I doubt anyone would ever get that impression.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Respectful as always Sheik. Are you suggesting I don't support it, or it's not good?

Here's the revised draft. From now on, please keep all comments relevant to this one.

BELIEVING a free press is necessary in any country that is successful in pursuing the happiness of its people,

NOTING it is not always in the interest of the ruling government to have a free press

FURTHER NOTING it is not always in the interest of the press itself to be truthful and balanced

DEFINING "balanced" to mean treating all sides of a story in an equal light

IT IS RESOLVED that all nations do their best to encourage a free press by doing the following:
1) Having at least three media companies run without government interference
2) Not punish media outlets that disagree with the government or reveal unwanted information

HOWEVER there are limits to the free press such as
1) Libel
2) Information that, in being revealed, infringes on present laws or national security


Category: Education and Creativity Area of Effect: Free Press

1) Having at least three media companies run without government interference
Ideological ban on communism.

Even if the draft is revised, I still cannot support it. In Ice Hockey Players, newspapers are not free to publish statements it knows to be false. Under this proposal, newspapers can inflate or deflate stock prices and such to their heart's content, potentially mucking up the economy, and there's nothing we can do to stop them. If a politician pays off a newspaper to publish false poll numbers in order to pass or block an agenda, the politician could certainly be punished, but the newspaper would get off scot-free. We need accountability here, and libel suits are very hard to prove and are pretty limiting.

Even if the draft is revised, I still cannot support it. In Ice Hockey Players, newspapers are not free to publish statements it knows to be false. Under this proposal, newspapers can inflate or deflate stock prices and such to their heart's content, potentially mucking up the economy, and there's nothing we can do to stop them. If a politician pays off a newspaper to publish false poll numbers in order to pass or block an agenda, the politician could certainly be punished, but the newspaper would get off scot-free. We need accountability here, and libel suits are very hard to prove and are pretty limiting.

Good point. I like everyone that publishes lies to be accountable.

In a free market reputation tends to be a valuable enough currency that it's not in the best interest of newspapers to mislead. If they get caught, their reputation suffers, and then their circulation suffers.

I took the part about limits out in the revision, because some of them were too vague and others could be used to hurt, not help, a free press. But there should be some there, for example:

HOWEVER there are restrictions on a free press including:
1) Libel
2) Intentionally misleading or false information.

As for the phrase "media companies" not working in communist states, what about just saying "media outlets" (which I do later anyway)?

You can't start making exceptions for communist states. Well I guess you can, but it wallpapers whatever clause you put the exception on. Many states are willing to add the words "Socialist" to a document if it gets them out of fulfilling UN duties.

Having at least three media companies run without government interferenceTry “Having at least three press agencies free of outside editorial influence”.

Remember, in capitalist economies media concentration can produce news reports that are every bit as skewed as any state-run press. Look at the movie “America”, and the way in which the fictional media mogul Robert Murdoch manipulates opinion through his FOX News Network. Admittedly farfetched (fiction always is), but what's the old expression about the truth being stranger still?

Here's the revised draft. From now on, please keep all comments relevant to this one.

BELIEVING a free press is necessary in any country that is successful in pursuing the happiness of its people,

NOTING it is not always in the interest of the ruling government to have a free press

FURTHER NOTING it is not always in the interest of the press itself to be truthful and balanced

DEFINING "balanced" to mean treating all sides of a story in an equal light

IT IS RESOLVED that all nations do their best to encourage a free press by doing the following:
1) Having at least three media companies run without government interference
2) Not punish media outlets that disagree with the government or reveal unwanted information

HOWEVER there are limits to the free press such as
1) Libel
2) Information that, in being revealed, infringes on present laws or national security


Category: Education and Creativity Area of Effect: Free Press

I can't help notice a few holes in this:

What is balanced? Must an equal amount of time be devoted to each side? An equal amount of money? What if the evidence is genuinely one sided?
Define a media company - is a weekly church newsletter a media outlet? a local newspaper? National? Access to World news channels?
Does there have to be three companies between radio, tv and papers, or three that cover each one?
What if the country cannot economically support 3 media companies?
What if the media outlets reveal information that, while true, puts people in danger (the location of someone in a witness protection program, for example

I can't help notice a few holes in this:

What is balanced? Must an equal amount of time be devoted to each side? An equal amount of money? What if the evidence is genuinely one sided?
Define a media company - is a weekly church newsletter a media outlet? a local newspaper? National? Access to World news channels?
Does there have to be three companies between radio, tv and papers, or three that cover each one?
What if the country cannot economically support 3 media companies?
What if the media outlets reveal information that, while true, puts people in danger (the location of someone in a witness protection program, for example


Attempted NPOV is a better defined term to strive for then balanced.

I don't think this legislation should define a company, or media. That a level of detail only cumbersome to UN legislation. Let each nation, and the gnomes, decide what a media company is.

You have to allow a free press to expose dangerous truths, if they come about them legally. Every idea is dangerous, in the wrong hands.

If a free press outlet choses to put a protected witness in danger, I should hope it's reputation would and userbase would plummet accordingly. News is typically part of a reputation based economy.

If a free press outlet choses to put a protected witness in danger, I should hope it's reputation would and userbase would plummet accordingly.

You want us to legalise publishing information which the author and publisher know will probably lead to putting a person's life in danger? Hell, no!


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

You want us to legalise publishing information which the author and publisher know will probably lead to putting a person's life in danger? Hell, no!


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Did I suggest that? I thought I was against illegalizing it in a UN proposal. Let individual nations write such a law.

Attempted NPOV is a better defined term to strive for then balanced.

I don't think this legislation should define a company, or media. That a level of detail only cumbersome to UN legislation. Let each nation, and the gnomes, decide what a media company is.

You have to allow a free press to expose dangerous truths, if they come about them legally. Every idea is dangerous, in the wrong hands.

If a free press outlet choses to put a protected witness in danger, I should hope it's reputation would and userbase would plummet accordingly. News is typically part of a reputation based economy.

The problem is that by not making definitions, a fairly gaping loophole is left in the legislation.

I wish I could be as optimistic as you about the morals of both the press and public, but it is certainly not unprecedented for mainstream journalists to expose people to danger, even if not deliberately - and if there's an exciting story, at the end of the day, the public will want to read about it.

Under this bill, if an independant media company released information that is likely to lead to death, whether true or false, there wouldn't be a thing that anyone could do to stop it. The best you could is let the victims family sue for damages afterward.

Also, if the bill covers TV and radio, then serious issues are raised with licencing - This is a connection to the government, and could be seen as a possible source of interference - particularly if licences could be withheld. In effect, this bill could force countries to allow pirate radio and tv stations

The problem is that by not making definitions, a fairly gaping loophole is left in the legislation.

I wish I could be as optimistic as you about the morals of both the press and public, but it is certainly not unprecedented for mainstream journalists to expose people to danger, even if not deliberately - and if there's an exciting story, at the end of the day, the public will want to read about it.

Under this bill, if an independant media company released information that is likely to lead to death, whether true or false, there wouldn't be a thing that anyone could do to stop it. The best you could is let the victims family sue for damages afterward.

Also, if the bill covers TV and radio, then serious issues are raised with licencing - This is a connection to the government, and could be seen as a possible source of interference - particularly if licences could be withheld. In effect, this bill could force countries to allow pirate radio and tv stations


That sounds like an extreme interpretation. This bit protects against that doesn't it? "HOWEVER there are limits to the free press such as
1) Libel
2) Information that, in being revealed, infringes on present laws or national security"

If a nation has criminal negligence laws then reporters who's criminal negligance resulted in someone's death would still be liable. If the government monitors a scarce public resource, like air waves, with existing legislation, then the can continue.

I can't see how one could oppose this resolution for being too strong.

Good point. I like everyone that publishes lies to be accountable.

In a free market reputation tends to be a valuable enough currency that it's not in the best interest of newspapers to mislead. If they get caught, their reputation suffers, and then their circulation suffers.

That's a fine theory and all, but I don't think that really happens. Did the New York Times' reputation suffer for the Jayson Blair incident? Did William Randolph Hearst suffer for making up stories to get us into the Spanish-American war? If media companies didn't think they could get ahead by lying or manipulating facts, no one would do it.

Granted, the vast majority of media sources follow a code of ethics. But the ones who don't ruin it for the rest of us.

I share the concerns of the honourable delegate for Ice Hockey Players. The sad fact of the matter is that the corporate media can be as distortionary as any state run one. Propaganda holds attractions for both examples, but with different motives; in the case of state-run media it is in favour of the authorities; in the case of privately owned media, it is to boost viewer figures and consequently likely profits.

I doubt any democratically-minded nation would welcome the notion of media regulation beyond what is strictly necessary (i.e. libel laws), yet it has to be said that blind faith in the market rests on the assumption that all consumers are adaquately informed. This is rarely the case for anything, in practical terms, so at best it is misplaced optimism, at worst it is naivete.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

That's a fine theory and all, but I don't think that really happens. Did the New York Times' reputation suffer for the Jayson Blair incident? Did William Randolph Hearst suffer for making up stories to get us into the Spanish-American war? If media companies didn't think they could get ahead by lying or manipulating facts, no one would do it.

Granted, the vast majority of media sources follow a code of ethics. But the ones who don't ruin it for the rest of us.

The Free Market is not perfect. A reputation based economy only works when there are alternatives, and the lies get caught.

Sadly, another problem is people have to care. If they want lies, distortions etc. that will make them feel better, then that is what they will be given. The public has to demand a high standard of journalism, if they are going to get it.

OOC: IIRC Hearst had a stranglehold on the news media.

I'm not sure if the NYT's did not suffer enough for the Blair incident. They admitted it was "a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper" and they created a Public Editor position just to watchdog and critique the paper.

Good idea free press!

But you know "free press" means too that everybody who press can decide too how much his news cost. So it should be a good idea to put a condition which permits a nation to decide a limit where the newspapers should stay in. Free press is a good thing but just if everybody can buy it!

Good idea free press!

But you know "free press" means too that everybody who press can decide too how much his news cost. So it should be a good idea to put a condition which permits a nation to decide a limit where the newspapers should stay in. Free press is a good thing but just if everybody can buy it!

Wow...

This draft has been revised. Please see the new draft on page 2.

NOTING a free press is necessary in any country that is successful in pursuing the happiness of its people,

FURTHER NOTING it is not always in the interest of the ruling government to have a free press

FURTHER NOTING it is not always in the interest of the press itself to be truthful and unbalanced

DEFINING "balanced" to mean without any preference given to a political, religious, or social idea in any story

IT IS RESOLVED that initiatives be created to guarantee a free press by doing the following:
1) Create a yearly award to be given to the individual, media company, and nation found to be the most instrumental in insuring a truthful and unbalanced free press.
2) Bring attention to nations that are harmful to the free press and punish them accordingly.
3) Help smaller media companies to insure no information monopolies appear with monetary support and UN information.

HOWEVER there are limits to the free press such as
1) Libel
2) Unwanted personal information about private citizens (defined below)Media companies that break these limits will be brought to attention and punished accordingly.

DEFINING "unwanted personal information" as:
1)Information of actions that are not illegal but still harmful to the image of the person
2)Information about actions of people associated with the person that are illegal
3)Information such as Social Security, credit card number, etc.
4)Any information that is presented in an unbalanced light

Category: Education and Creativity Area of Effect: Free Press

I find this to be an egregious attempt to interfere with national insitutions, both public and private, and will strongly oppose any measure similar to it. Please stick to addressing international issues in the halls of this international legislative body.

Hellar Gray

I find this to be an egregious attempt to interfere with national insitutions, both public and private, and will strongly oppose any measure similar to it. Please stick to addressing international issues in the halls of this international legislative body.
Firstly, the draft quoted is out of date. At the top of it, it says This draft has been revised. Please see the new draft on page 2.
Secondly, there are many UN Resolutions which "interfere with national institutions". For example, Resolution #6, End slavery, gives guidelines that all employers must follow. Resolution #14, CHILD LABOR, puts more restrictions on industry. Yet both these resolutions stay because to repeal them would hurt human rights.
The second draft is much less restictive. If that is read, I think it will be found to be better and will perhaps address the qualms you have with the first one.

Firstly, the draft quoted is out of date. At the top of it, it says

Thank you for advising me of this. I have now reviewed the second draft, and while it is somewhat less opposed to my perspective on the scope of the UN's authority than before, my primary objection remains.

Secondly, there are many UN Resolutions which "interfere with national institutions". For example, Resolution #6, End slavery, gives guidelines that all employers must follow. Resolution #14, CHILD LABOR, puts more restrictions on industry. Yet both these resolutions stay because to repeal them would hurt human rights.


Appealing to earlier resolutions that I would also find objectionable for the same reasons I find your draft objectionable is hardly an effective tactic to use in winning me over.

The second draft is much less restictive. If that is read, I think it will be found to be better and will perhaps address the qualms you have with the first one.

Sadly, it does not. More's the pity. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Hellar Gray

This proposal has promise. However, there is some work that needs to be done before we could support it. One such change is with the statement:

"DEFINING "balanced" to mean treating all sides of a story in an equal light"

The problem I have with this statement is "all side of the story in an equal light", reason being is what do you mean exactly? Are papers and tabliods no longer to take "sides" or voice there opinion? In Neu Preussen we have tabliods that favor certain parties. In such, have a tendency to focus on one point or even one side. Why? The readers want that information. I feel the different parts of media should have different rules, but the same common goal. Media companies do different things and affect the people differently.

I know what you mean, but I wish not for the words to be misconstrued. I believe the defining should not be so easy as one statement.

Thank you.

I think the poll is over. In one day, I will make this a proposal. I say this to advertise my proposal, but also in case anyone has any last minute suggestions. The proposal is getting posted no matter what, and it will probably be very similar to the second draft, with some changes. Please do not leave a reply saying why the proposal is bad, but give changes that should be made (I ask this only because the poll indicated most people like it the way it is now). Thank you to everyone who helped in bringing this to its final version.

I dig it.

I resigned from the UN, so it will not be proposed as soon as I thought. But as soon as I am allowed to join again, I will submit it.

BELIEVING a free press is necessary in any country that is successful in pursuing the happiness of its people,

NOTING it is not always in the interest of the ruling government to have a free press

FURTHER NOTING it is not always in the interest of the press itself to be truthful and balanced

DEFINING "balanced" to mean treating all sides of a story in an equal light

IT IS RESOLVED that all nations do their best to encourage a free press by doing the following:
1) Having at least three media companies run without government interference
2) Not punish media outlets that disagree with the government or reveal unwanted information

HOWEVER there are limits to the free press such as
1) Libel
2) Information that, in being revealed, infringes on present laws or national security

I like the idea of this proposal, but it needs alot of work to make it more effective and more likely to pass. I've reworked the first bit and added some definitions here:

BELIEVING That media institutions and news outlets have the right to report events in an unbiased, fair, and accurate manner without government interference or censorship.

NOTING, However that many reporters and media institutions may abuse their power and mis-report events to influence public opinion.

DECLARING Therefore that a balance be found between freedom of press and rights of governments to insure the fair and unbiased reportation of events and that certain events are not report for privacy, national,or personal security reasons.

Hereby the United Nations:

DEFINES A media institution as a corporation or group that publishes and/or broadcasts information or entertainement via any communications medium.

DEFINES A news outlet as any organization, group, or indevidual as well as their broadcasts, publications or other reportage) that reports the news. Including newspapers, radio or television broadcasts.

EXCLUDES From the above definition any publication or broadcast which is declared publicly to be fiction or opinion. as

DEFINES Unbiased (for this resolution) as news reportage that is conducted and published in a fair manner, with events represented directly, with limited or no influnce by the news outlet/reporter to alter the perception of the event or to alter public opinion.

[and the rest]

Ask someone more knowledgeable then me about the rest.

Thank you, Dancing Bananland. I'm actually happy I accidently resigned from the UN, I think most of the changes you made are better.

My nation cannot support this draft.

Over the years the media as a whole has destroyed the little trust I had in them.

The media is the cause of many problems including the division within Nations.

signed,
Prince Bodacious

Since Naturalog resigned, hes asking me to finish and submit thia resolution. This is the latest draft, have at er.

BELIEVING That media institutions and news outlets have the right to report events in an unbiased, fair, and accurate manner without government interference or censorship.

NOTING, However that many reporters and media institutions may abuse their power and mis-report events to influence public opinion.

DECLARING Therefore that a balance be found between freedom of press and rights of governments to insure the fair and unbiased reportation of events and that certain events are not report for privacy, national,or personal security reasons.

Hereby the United Nations:

(1)
DEFINES A media institution as a corporation or group that publishes and/or broadcasts information or entertainement via any communications medium.

(2)
DEFINES A news outlet as any organization or group, licensed by their national government, which publishes or broadcasts the news; including newspapers, radio or television broadcasts.

(3)
EXCLUDES From the above definition any publication or broadcast which is declared publicly to be fiction or opinion, or is unlicensed by their national government.

(4)
DEFINES Unbiased (for this resolution) as news reportage that is conducted and published in a fair manner, with events represented directly, with limited or no influnce by the news outlet/reporter to alter the perception of the event or to alter public opinion.

(5)
DEFINES Libel as the intentionl misreportation, misrepresentation, distortion of fact.

(6)
DEFINES Slander as Libel directed at wrecking the life and/or reputation of an indevidual or organization.

(7)
MANDATES That no government may, or may through lack of action, allow news outlets or media organizations to be censored, moderated, fined, or punished for unbiasedly and fairly reporting news.

(8)
MANDATES That all news outlets and media institutions report the news fairly and unbiasedly.

(9)
MANDATES That no news outlet or media institution participate in or allow libel or slander.

(10)
MANDATES That all cases of libel, slander, or news mis-reportation be investiaged and dealt with fairly, and that news outlets and organizations be punished apporpriatley, with fines or broadcasting/publishing limitations only in the most severe situations.

(11)
MANDATES As well that in the case of indevidual responsibility, that entire organizations/groups not be held accountable for the acts of indeviduals, should it be confirmed that the organization could not prevent the acts of the indevidual.

Co-Authoured by Naturalog


[UPDATE] Removed ownership percentage clause (a remnent from Naturalog's draft) and added a small bit about licensing.

i'm a libertarian, so i think there should be NO limits for free speech/free press (even if this means they can lie and so on. they'll be sued after.)
since your resolution puts this kind of limits (even if few), i have to vote against.

This can be handled on a national level. There's no need to involve the UN.

I think free press is very important, and I can limit the restrictions by including something about opinion peices.

Besides, I promised Naturalog.

Anyway, I've added something about opinion pieces.

BELIEVING That media institutions and news outlets have the right to report events in an unbiased, fair, and accurate manner without government interference or censorship.

NOTING, However that many reporters and media institutions may abuse their power and mis-report events to influence public opinion.

DECLARING Therefore that a balance be found between freedom of press and rights of governments to insure the fair and unbiased reportation of events and that certain events are not report for privacy, national,or personal security reasons.

Hereby the United Nations:

(1)
DEFINES A media institution as a corporation or group that publishes and/or broadcasts information or entertainement via any communications medium.

(2)
DEFINES A news outlet as any organization, group, or indevidual as well as their broadcasts, publications or other reportage) that reports the news. Including newspapers, radio or television broadcasts.

(3)
EXCLUDES From the above definition any publication or broadcast which is declared publicly to be fiction or opinion. as

(4)
DEFINES Unbiased (for this resolution) as news reportage that is conducted and published in a fair manner, with events represented directly, with limited or no influnce by the news outlet/reporter to alter the perception of the event or to alter public opinion.

(5)
DEFINES Libel as the intentional misreportation, misrepresentation, distortion of fact.

(5.1)
DEFINES Slander as Libel directed at wrecking the life and/or reputation of an indevidual or organization.

(5.2)
EXCLUDES From the above definitions broadcasts, writings, and publications that are publicly stated and intended as the opinion of the author, and not hard fact.

(6)
MANDATES That no government, organization, or indevidual may control (in any way) in any way more then %10 of available news outlets.

(7)
MANDATES That no government may, or may through lack of action, allow news outlets or media organizations to be censored, moderated, fined, or punished for unbiasedly and fairly reporting news.

(8)
MANDATES That all news outlets and media institutions report the news fairly and unbiasedly.

(9)
MANDATES That no news outlet or media institution participate in or allow libel or slander.

(10)
MANDATES That all cases of libel, slander, or news mis-reportation be investiaged and dealt with fairly, and that news outlets and organizations be punished apporpriatley, with fines or broadcasting/publishing limitations only in the most severe situations.

(10.1)
MANDATES As well that in the case of indevidual responsibility, that entire organizations/groups not be held accountable for the acts of indeviduals, should it be confirmed that the organization could not prevent the acts of the indevidual.

Co-Authoured by Naturalog

People do realize there is already a resolution (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=62) on press freedom? Why do we need another one?

And please, please: get a spell check. And then use it.

People do realize there is already a resolution (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=62) on press freedom? Why do we need another one?

Hell, why did we even need that one?

Before I address the proposal in question, I would like to thank Her Excellency Ambassador Choole of Gruenberg for her kind gift (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11734512&postcount=49) to Ariddia's head of State, Prime Secretary Ud. (OOC: Good post! :p)

Regarding the proposal at hand, we see good elements within it, but my government must reject it based upon the seventh clause:


MANDATES That no government, organization, or indevidual may control (in any way) in any way more then %10 of available news outlets.

In our socialist society, all media are technically under State ownership, although Ariddians enjoy full freedom of belief and expression. We cannot condone an enforced return to private enterprise.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

We share Ariddia's concerns about the wholly arbitrary, unrealistic and, frankly, stupid requirement that no more than 10 percent of "available news outlets" be owned by the same source. Presently most media outlets in OMGTKK are owned by Rupert Murdoch and the Walt Disney Company, and we cannot imagine usurping the "Corporate Rights" section of our Constitution for the sake of some ignorant socialist legislator in this body who clearly despises the idea of open media markets and competition. We shudder at the thought of having to sell off many of our Fox News affiliates to Ted Turner. Or at least we would be, if the language didn't say 10 percent of "available news outlets" -- which would allow us to dilute perceived media concentration by compelling private citizens to start up silly "news-related" blogs and other Web sites, or hand out photocopied "news fliers" on street corners, until the number of "news outlets" controlled by Disney and Murdoch dips below 10 percent.

If it said something like "available media markets," that would be a different story, but, meh, we doubt the DBL representative understands what we mean anyway.

We share Ariddia's concerns about the wholly arbitrary, unrealistic and, frankly, stupid requirement that no more than 10 percent of "available news outlets" be owned by the same source. Presently most media outlets in OMGTKK are owned by Rupert Murdoch and the Walt Disney Company, and we cannot imagine usurping the "Corporate Rights" section of our Constitution for the sake of some ignorant socialist legislator in this body who clearly despises the idea of open media markets and competition. We shudder at the thought of having to sell off many of our Fox News affiliates to Ted Turner. Or at least we would be, if the language didn't say 10 percent of "available news outlets" -- which would allow us to dilute perceived media concentration by compelling private citizens to start up silly "news-related" blogs and other Web sites, or hand out photocopied "news fliers" on street corners, until the number of "news outlets" controlled by Disney and Murdoch dips below 10 percent.

If it said something like "available media markets," that would be a different story, but, meh, we doubt the DBL representative understands what we mean anyway.

It's just refreshing to hear someone arguing in favor of consolidated press. You have a 2 press system?

People do realize there is already a resolution (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=62) on press freedom? Why do we need another one?

And please, please: get a spell check. And then use it.

The "Freedom of Press" (Resolution #63) is useful in that it encourages free press. What it doesn't do (and hopefully this proposal does) is explain what makes a press free. Resolution #63 is vague. If the press of a government is controlled (controlled, not necessarily owned) by the government, it may function perfectly well without reporting any real news. Likewise, if OmniCorp owns all the major media outlets, the recent OmniCorp scandal is likely to go unreported. Also, because Resolution #63 is vague, it cannot do anything more than URGE, APPEAL, and RECOMMEND. This resolution is more specific in what it does.

We share Ariddia's concerns about the wholly arbitrary, unrealistic and, frankly, stupid requirement that no more than 10 percent of "available news outlets" be owned by the same source. Presently most media outlets in OMGTKK are owned by Rupert Murdoch and the Walt Disney Company, and we cannot imagine usurping the "Corporate Rights" section of our Constitution for the sake of some ignorant socialist legislator in this body who clearly despises the idea of open media markets and competition. We shudder at the thought of having to sell off many of our Fox News affiliates to Ted Turner. Or at least we would be, if the language didn't say 10 percent of "available news outlets" -- which would allow us to dilute perceived media concentration by compelling private citizens to start up silly "news-related" blogs and other Web sites, or hand out photocopied "news fliers" on street corners, until the number of "news outlets" controlled by Disney and Murdoch dips below 10 percent.

If it said something like "available media markets," that would be a different story, but, meh, we doubt the DBL representative understands what we mean anyway.

I do not speak for Dancing Bananland, but I am not against an "open media market and competition". However, what has been described is not open media market and competition, but an oligopoly. Are Rupert Murdoch and the Walt Disney Company really going to lower their prices to compete? No, what they will do is have a quasi-trust, where both realize that a price war would be ridiculous. Instead, they will use advertising and other methods to pull people to them and not the competitor, but it will not affect prices.
However, what you say about telling citizens to form blogs or pass out flyers is true. What was intended was to have real competition, not a monopoly or oligopoly. I think the reason the clause should not be present is not because it discourages these, but because the clause can be gotten around. I agree that "available media markets" or maybe even "media institution" would make a stronger and better clause.

The "Freedom of Press" (Resolution #63) is useful in that it encourages free press. What it doesn't do (and hopefully this proposal does) is explain what makes a press free. Resolution #63 is vague. If the press of a government is controlled (controlled, not necessarily owned) by the government, it may function perfectly well without reporting any real news. Likewise, if OmniCorp owns all the major media outlets, the recent OmniCorp scandal is likely to go unreported. Also, because Resolution #63 is vague, it cannot do anything more than URGE, APPEAL, and RECOMMEND.So repeal it. It doesn't look like you can pass this without it.

I do not speak for Dancing Bananland, but I am not against an "open media market and competition". However, what has been described is not open media market and competition, but an oligopoly.Is that anything like Edna Krabappoly (http://www.actionfig.com/simpsons/db/data/1013130642_1304.jpg)?