the press / media
government
there is no god
Who should decide what is in the public interest to know. Who should decide what should or should not be printed.
Should the press/media have to clear everything with government ?
I think most would agree that the media needs to be sensible and act responsibly, but I would rather have news free from government Propaganda and control over one censored by government.
Last edited by vidcc; 07-01-2006 at 03:55 PM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
I agree, but with that your assuming the press can and will know when it is best to sensor itself. And I think there are a number of examples, even recently of that not happening. It's a fine line to walk. But with a huge glut of media outlets nowadays there is an ever growing need to snag readership, which I think may impare judgement.Originally Posted by vidcc
en(un)lightened
The question is not who, it is what, and the what is common sense, which is in short supply on both sides.
I cannot vote until you amend the formulation of your poll, sir.
In any case, you know how I feel about the main-stream media.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
I'm not making the assumption that the press will get it right every time. My view is that I would rather have a free press and not a government censored press.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
there is no god
No I think you will find the question I asked is who and not what
However as you feel uncomfortable with the actual question-
who decides what common sense is ?
In this case the choice would be the press or government.
"It's well know that truth has a liberal bias" ---- S. Colbert
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Just Lame
In any given situation there may be different views of what constitutes "the public interests", which in itself is a very nebulous and badly understood term.
However, if I had to make a decision based on the choices in this poll I would have to say it is down to our elected officials, rather than journalists. The former being elected by me, the latter being motivated by selling newspapers.
Yes, it may be a big story to print our defence plans, however is it really in the public interest (as opposed to being "of interest to the public", which people often confuse as being the same thing).
The bottom line is that the press should be as free as possible. However ultimately it must be the Courts who should decide on whether they are allowed to publish controversial stories or not.
there is no god
But if government is able to censor news that is politically unfavourable how will you be able to make a informed choice come election time?.
If government can hold up a story until a court approves it what stops government delaying stories in the run up to elections.
I would add that being elected doesn't mean the elected official is honorable or honest.
Last edited by vidcc; 07-01-2006 at 06:42 PM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
there is no god
OK confession-
This is what inspired the thread, but with recent political mischief lately here over several papers reporting on a story that was about as secret as Christmas being on Dec. 25th. I decided to make it a generic thread with no example to start with.
sourceChinese Media Law Would Require Consent to Report on Emergencies
By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, June 27, 2006; Page A15
BEIJING, June 26 -- The Chinese government has drafted legislation to fine newspapers up to $12,000 if they report on emergencies without first getting permission from local authorities, official media said Monday.
The new restrictions would apply to coverage of natural disasters, health crises and social unrest, such as the riots that have broken out across rural China in recent years. In effect, the draft law would make local governments the sole arbiters of information as they manage emergency situations.
The draft law, which has been sent to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, marked a further tightening of controls on the media in a country already subject to censorship by the Communist Party's national, provincial and municipal propaganda departments. Chinese journalists lamented what they saw as another sign among many that President Hu Jintao's government is curbing what had been a slight liberalization of press freedoms in recent years.
"We have never had such a law before," said Jiao Guobiao, a former journalism professor at Beijing University who was barred from teaching last year after writing an essay criticizing China's censorship rules.
"They surely want to tighten their controls over us," said a reporter at a well-known magazine who, like many colleagues, spoke on condition of anonymity to protect his job. "I expect that control over the press will become tighter and tighter."
Under a practice that has developed in recent years, Chinese journalists said, newspaper editors generally can publish sensitive stories using their own judgment, but at the risk of being called on the carpet afterward by party censors. The censors regularly coax senior editors by alerting them to certain subjects that are out of bounds and suggesting that others be handled with particular care.
This system has resulted in a gray area: Some newspapers dare to print stories others do not. But stepping too far beyond what the censors deem acceptable has cost several top editors their jobs in the past year.
One was Li Datong, who ran Freezing Point, a supplement in the China Youth Daily that published in January an essay questioning the official Chinese version of the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. In addition, Zhao Yan, a Chinese researcher in the Beijing bureau of the New York Times, was tried recently on charges of fraud and revealing state secrets after the newspaper published a story accurately predicting that former president Jiang Zemin would resign from the party's Central Military Commission.
Unlike news on other subjects, controls had never been loosened when it came to information about Hu and other senior party leaders. Where Hu is concerned, newspapers cannot stray from official New China News Agency reports, which according to agency journalists can be issued only after approval from party censors.
The draft law would put emergency news in a similar category. In doing so, it seemed to retreat from government pledges to be more open in emergency situations. The pledges followed attempts at coverup during the SARS epidemic in 2003 that allowed the disease to spread and, more recently, the coverup of a chemical spill that delayed cleanup operations as contaminated river water flowed toward the major city of Harbin.
The draft law, from Premier Wen Jiabao's cabinet, was designed to guide officials in handling such emergencies. It would oblige local officials to immediately report to Beijing on accidents -- such as the oil spills and coal mine explosions that plague China regularly -- and swiftly organize an emergency response. The draft law goes on to stipulate that local governments should "release information in an accurate and timely way," but that they should "conduct management work over the media's related reports."
In practice, local governments routinely seek to conceal embarrassing information, such as protests, and order local publications not to report it. Under the draft law, a newspaper's failure to cooperate would result in fines from $6,000 to $12,000.
"The problem is, who has the right to make the judgment whether the government releases information accurately or promptly?" Zhang Ping, editor of the Southern Weekend, wrote in a column Monday, adding later, "I think it is very dangerous to pass this law to guarantee the government can manage the media."
The cabinet's information office declined to comment or provide further information.
Radio and television stations, which are government-owned, traditionally have worked under close supervision and rarely veer from official information, making newspapers the law's main target.
Some journalists expressed hope that the National People's Congress, China's legislature, will reject the draft law's media provisions. In practice, however, the National People's Congress rarely, if ever, contests government decisions.
Last edited by vidcc; 07-01-2006 at 07:04 PM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Just Lame
I don't know about your Country but here there isn't that much that the Government can just censor. That which they can is normally open to a challenge in Court, in the public interest. How do you think so many damaging scandals get into the papers. If the Government could simply supress them they would.
Government is subject to the law, save in exceptional circumstances.
Anyone can try to supress things, not just Governments. Multi-nationals, or individuals can use injunctions to stop stories being published, if they think they are unfavourable to them. Or they can fight to have stories released which have been censored.
The bottom line, for me, is that I prefer the Courts to be the arbiter and not the newspapers.
I would add that owning a chain of newspapers doesn't mean the proprietor is honorable or honest. In fact in addition to profit they all, without exception, have their own political agenda.
╚════╩═╬════╝
money decides what is printed. that is why Art is rarelly mentioned and if it is is generally conservative established art. and never on the front page.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks