In the US there are few legal requirements on news broadcasters to provide an unbiased view.
In Ireland and the UK news broadcasters must remain neutral. They must present all sides of an argument and not form a personal opinion.
This does not amount to censorship as it only applies to news programmes.
I know that the news organizations in the US are distrusted by a large amount of people. I've watched Fox News on occasion and can see why.
Would the US benefit from Irish style broadcasting laws?
2006-08-03 00:02:49 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I used the European spelling of the word programs, it's not a mistake so don't bother correcting me.
2006-08-03 00:04:32 · update #1
to long
2006-08-03 00:07:10 · answer #1 · answered by sunny 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There was a time when news was reported for the sake of the community being informed.
Now, it seems as though the only thing that's important are the ratings.... that a commentator will say just about anything (whether he/she believes it or not) just to get the air time and stir up the community.
While the UK/Ireland media thing DOES sound like a great idea, I wonder if those newcasters don't find ways around that type of rule by simply eliminating the facts that they don't feel like sharing... which would still cause the viewer to remain uninformed as to all the true details of a situation. And, on top of that, you have the governments that suppress whatever they want to hide from their country... so, is that society any more informed than another? And I'm asking this because I sincerely don't know... and I haven't been exposed to European media to know how high the standards are (so please excuse my ignorance).
ANYway, again, the media law idea is appealing to me... But I am STILL grateful, believe it or not, for the reporting styles that have cropped up here in the US.... because it has taught me to be very shrewd about what my leaders (whether government or job) tell me. I watch/listen to my news from a variety of sources (including the BBC and PRI), understanding that they all have their own slant on what's going on in the world. From there, I am able to come to my own conclusions about what I am going to believe and what I am going to ignore.
Thank you for your question.
2006-08-03 00:30:19 · answer #2 · answered by A Designer 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In a free country, news organizations should have the freedom to tell the truth from whatever slant they choose. this happens in both the US and the UK. The press is not free to outright lie & when they do they get called on the carpet or sued (can anyone say "dan rather"?). However, there is a value in allowing slants. who is going to decide which perspective is most balanced? That of the New York Times or that of the Washington Post? Certainly the government is not qualified to police what consititutes fair and unbiased (is unbiased news even possible anyway?)! That's the beauty of the marketplace! Everyone knows the news is biased one way or the other, but when the marketplace is free, the individual has the choice of where to go for their news. For my part, i like to peruse Al Jazeera, NPR, Fox News, BBC news & CBC news for a variety of perspectives and I'm thankful that democracy affords me that freedom.
2006-08-03 00:20:16 · answer #3 · answered by KDdid 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would love to have laws here governing the media. It is so biased, one way or the other, that I have to read tonnes of articles just to get an idea of the truth, (I spelled tons that way just for you. :-) ) and it's not the best way to get news, by reading a liberal-slanted article and then a conservative-slanted article on teh same topic... Two half-truths don't make a whole... good question and top 'o the day to ye.... take care.
2006-08-03 00:13:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope but it would be a good idea. US media has a nasty habit of distoring stories for personal, political bais but more often just out of lazyness or to sensationalize something. TV news in particuler is completely unreliable in my opinion.
2006-08-03 00:08:13 · answer #5 · answered by draciron 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All news and information should be unbiased. How else can people decide who to vote for - for example. If the news is tainted then democracy is a farce as it is in America.
2006-08-03 00:09:01 · answer #6 · answered by pieter U3 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes it would benifit us but it will never happen.
The news controls our government. They determine who gets ellected and what decions should be made. right now it is mostly without direction becuase they just care about ratings. So something like this that would hurt ratings would be said to be evil by them all and the would give the names to the voters of anyone who supported it.
2006-08-03 00:49:10 · answer #7 · answered by thatoneguy 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
US media is very biased.
For example this latest flare up between Israel and Lebanon..i don't know many times i change the channel and see some jew lover or wannabe crying about how hard they have it..running to the bomb shelters...what ****.
2006-08-03 00:07:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
we won't benefit from anything from the UK
2006-08-03 00:07:48 · answer #9 · answered by b 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
US media is Israeli media. I pity the Yankee
2006-08-03 00:07:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋