NationStates Jolt Archive

Ive been have some mixed feelings about this as of late, not only did i see a startling figure that 52% of american teenages are pro censorship, but a made the mistake of turning onto sky/fox news/ lookings at the sun/times news paper, and i thought to my self, shit me. My grandfather fought at D-day and caen to protect ideas like freedom of speech and this is the bullshit we get for the x number of wars the british people have had, and the xM people who had died for it.
Now i dont know if many of you are farmilar with these mediums (americans will know Fox and that might be by far the worst) but they openly flout the idea of freedom of the press to just pump mindless propaganda down our throughts theres no impartial news or jornalistic intergratry just opnion and hearsay, and then theres all this problems on the oposite side where someing officive might be on the tele or an example would be that play that offended the sikh race here in britian, and it takes only moments for a the ethically supreme mob to coagulate and sharpen there pickforks untill its taken off.
Freedom of Speech like so much else in our western society since the decline of religion over here in europe and the decline of the secular state in the u.s has left a total moral void that decadance and facsism have rushed into like water out of a damn. The only 2 solution i can see are
1. No one person should own a newspaper/ news station ect any from of informative media.
2. Media should really model its self on the bbc, its independant 100% but is funded by taxes, this means it dosent have to rake muck to get people watching.

I agree that there are some masive political biases in the media, but isnt it going to get incredibly expensive to introduce all the beurocratic (sp?) inefficiencies into the media by making all the major forms of media "independant" tax payer fed forms?
Surely what needs to happen is that people need to stop watching the broadcasters like Fox and all the other ones that censor and bias there information and start watching the more "un biased" comapanies productions.
After all they are going for ratings so if the people demand it they wil produce it

Isn't restricting to whom can report the news censorship in itself?

Ive been have some mixed feelings about this as of late, not only did i see a startling figure that 52% of american teenages are pro censorship, but a made the mistake of turning onto sky/fox news/ lookings at the sun/times news paper, and i thought to my self, shit me. My grandfather fought at D-day and caen to protect ideas like freedom of speech and this is the bullshit we get for the x number of wars the british people have had, and the xM people who had died for it.

It is depressing, but the price we have to pay to be able to express our own thoughts. If we try to regulate the expression of opinion to include only considered and balanced thought, we are placing control into the hands of reviewers, art, cinema and tv critics,and other such well meaning but generally incompetent groups.

The alternative would be to hand control to the politicians. Shudder....


Now i dont know if many of you are farmilar with these mediums (americans will know Fox and that might be by far the worst) but they openly flout the idea of freedom of the press to just pump mindless propaganda down our throughts theres no impartial news or jornalistic intergratry just opnion and hearsay, and then theres all this problems on the oposite side where someing officive might be on the tele or an example would be that play that offended the sikh race here in britian, and it takes only moments for a the ethically supreme mob to coagulate and sharpen there pickforks untill its taken off.

Fox, CNN, ABC, etc. are not flouting anything. They are giving the news as they see it. Now you do not have to agree, you do not have to watch. There is the ultimate censor of the off button, or even worse for these companies, flip channel.
Neutral news presentation simply does not, and can not occurr. Not even Auntie is capable of this. There is so much news that bias will show in the material selected for presentation. To simply present raw facts, with no comment, would be unwatchable for the majority; but any comment is necessarily from a perspective.
The pandering to excessively noisy minority groups, that occurrs in the British media, at least, is a direct result of the political correctness movements of the extreme left (Thank's Ken and co.) What you will not notice, however, is the degree to which your particular perspectives are also pandered to. Discuss the bias in the BBC with any first generation immigrant that you happen to meet.


Freedom of Speech like so much else in our western society since the decline of religion over here in europe and the decline of the secular state in the u.s has left a total moral void that decadance and facsism have rushed into like water out of a damn.

Freedom of speech is an enemy of organised religion. If one is strong, the other is generally weak. Look at the world around you (Muslim countries, The USA) wherever religion is strong, freedom of speech is either non existent or threatened (Patriot Act etc.). Where religion is weak, freedom of speech is generally strong (Australia, Scandinavia etc.). The same applies over time, just remember the inquisition. Stong freedom and weak religion does not mean a moral vacuum, unless you think of morality as something that society imposes on the individual. To me that is not morality, that is moral dictatorship, and this is the risk that the USA currently runs.
Facsism is a political view, that individuals can hold. I don't like it as a view, I however have to respect their freedom of opinion. If the country where I lived became a fascist state, I would leave. I hope that I would have seen the culture crumbling around me before the actual collapse into facism, and leave before the end.



The only 2 solution i can see are
1. No one person should own a newspaper/ news station ect any from of informative media.
2. Media should really model its self on the bbc, its independant 100% but is funded by taxes, this means it dosent have to rake muck to get people watching.

1. Who should own them and govern their direction then? Politicians? Politically appointed governers? NGOs? I prefer to deal with an openly biased media, one that expressly follows a political line, that of its ownership, rather than a covertly political media. I do not watch Fox often, but when I do I can compensate for their political line. With the BBC this is much more difficult as the political bias is covert.
2. See above.

Isn't restricting to whom can report the news censorship in itself?
Thats another reason I am pro-privitisation of media
If tis taxpayer funded then the government has too much say in the runnings of it and then they have the ability to censor it even more than if its not

Yes, Fox are distorting the truth - even lying.
Watch their piece on "Eurabia - Sweden under siege (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player.html?112404/fr_harrigan_112404&FOX_Report&Eurabia%3A%20Scandinavian%20Strain&acc&Special%20Series&13&wvx-300)" where they talk about a "sudden influx of Muslim immigrants", "The city is swamped" by "an explosion of Muslim immigrants" etc.
In the Fox show, The Malmo suburb of Rosengard is depicted as a war zone that the police and ambulance personnel are afraid to enter and where riots are common.
None of this is true, as shown by Swedish television in a recent documentary.

In reality, immigration to the city of Malmo from Arab countries is comparatively small and the increase in recent years described as a "sudden influx" by Fox is about 1%.
The fact that many of these new immigrants come from Irak and Afghanistan may have something to do with the American invasion of these countries...

It would perhaps be proper to talk about a Danish invasion, however. The number of Danish immigrants has increased from 3,989 in 2002 to 4,590 in 2003. That's a +15% increase.
Now, there's a show I'd like to see! "Sweden under siege from Danish immigrants who flee their native country because of its new harsh immigration policy!"

If people didn't want to hear it, there wouldn't be anyone to say it.

If people didn't want to hear it, there wouldn't be anyone to say it.

What pretty logic; but utterly untrue.

Some people akin watching Fox News to watching a Train wreck. Its horrible, but you can't look away. People watch horror movies to glimpse the dark side of things. It does not mean that you wish all movies to be horror movies, or all news programs to be as tainted by contraversy as Fox News.

It's just that what Fox News is doing is new to "the free world". We're used to this kind of propaganda from the likes of Stalin, Aljazeera and Chinese media, but America?
In the news piece about Sweden I mention above, they claim that ¼ of the population of Malmo are Arabs and that ambulance drivers will not go there without a police escort, which simply is not true.
Not to mention their allegations that the BBC is being anti-American...

Fox is lying and violating the public trust and their lies are quoted as facts by other news agencies, especially on the Internet.

I'm a teacher in Sweden, where America has been the dominating cultural influence for many years. Now, more and more of my students are wearing anti-Bush and anti-American badges. English (which is a compulsory subject from 3rd grade) is losing popularity and many students boycott American products.

In four years, the United States has gone from being the envy of the world to being the enemy.

In four years, the United States has gone from being the envy of the world to being the enemy.

Melodramatisera gärna!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/mommy_stupid.jpg

Ah, apparently only when it's your sides' agitprop it's okay?

There ought to be some sort of legal comeuppance for the media mis-representing the truth. However it's not going to happen when it's in favour of government policies.

At least with the freedom of speech we can criticise our own government and news media.

52% of american teenages are pro censorshipI think it only fair their opinion on this matter be censored.

It's just that what Fox News is doing is new to "the free world". We're used to this kind of propaganda from the likes of Stalin, Aljazeera and Chinese media, but America?
In the news piece about Sweden I mention above, they claim that ¼ of the population of Malmo are Arabs and that ambulance drivers will not go there without a police escort, which simply is not true.
Not to mention their allegations that the BBC is being anti-American...

Fox is lying and violating the public trust and their lies are quoted as facts by other news agencies, especially on the Internet.

I'm a teacher in Sweden, where America has been the dominating cultural influence for many years. Now, more and more of my students are wearing anti-Bush and anti-American badges. English (which is a compulsory subject from 3rd grade) is losing popularity and many students boycott American products.

In four years, the United States has gone from being the envy of the world to being the enemy.
I suppose you put more credibility in CBS news with Dan Rather airing a report based on obvious false documents regarding Bush's military service. Why don't you just be honest and admit you dislike Fox news because it does not cater to the liberal viewpoint as all the other news stations do.

Yes, Fox are distorting the truth - even lying.
Watch their piece on "Eurabia - Sweden under siege (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player.html?112404/fr_harrigan_112404&FOX_Report&Eurabia%3A%20Scandinavian%20Strain&acc&Special%20Series&13&wvx-300)" where they talk about a "sudden influx of Muslim immigrants", "The city is swamped" by "an explosion of Muslim immigrants" etc.
In the Fox show, The Malmo suburb of Rosengard is depicted as a war zone that the police and ambulance personnel are afraid to enter and where riots are common.
None of this is true, as shown by Swedish television in a recent documentary.

In reality, immigration to the city of Malmo from Arab countries is comparatively small and the increase in recent years described as a "sudden influx" by Fox is about 1%.
The fact that many of these new immigrants come from Irak and Afghanistan may have something to do with the American invasion of these countries...

It would perhaps be proper to talk about a Danish invasion, however. The number of Danish immigrants has increased from 3,989 in 2002 to 4,590 in 2003. That's a +15% increase.
Now, there's a show I'd like to see! "Sweden under siege from Danish immigrants who flee their native country because of its new harsh immigration policy!"

This may surprise you, but NONE of the American networks or wire services or newspapers ever get foreign reporting correct. And it's because of bias sometimes, and it's because of sheer ignorance of how the outside world works sometimes.

It's also specious to point out ignorant and slanted reporting (on occasions) and then go on to say that Fox ALWAYS lies.

I was watching the news following the recent Iraqi elections - and I heard National Public Radio (a source which some who hate Fox will hold as an unimpeachable and unbiased network) say the EXACT SAME THINGS about the election that Fox did.

So, if Fox is lying about the Iraqi elections, is National Public Radio.

Juan Williams works for NPR and Fox. I heard his commentary about the Iraqi elections on Fox. Does that make him a liar? Moira Liasson is also quite un-Republican and works for NPR and Fox. Does that make her a liar?

Hm?

It is disconcerting to think that American opinion is being informed by such unpredictable forces. Yet in a typically American way, the political bias of its news stations is open, brash and strangely addictive. The British bias is subtle, covert and shielded by the myth of objectivity. There is no such thing. When Fox News claims to be fair and balanced, we're all in on the joke. When the BBC makes the same claim, they seem to actually believe it.