2006-09-06 14:47:49 · 8 answers · asked by ronfschmidt 2 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
Are you aware that all administrations in our government hide 90% of the facts.....be greatful that we have a free media.....that is about all the public gets that is even halfway related to the truth.....how sad.....
2006-09-06 14:49:50 · answer #1 · answered by Cassie 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Media Regulation Pros And Cons
2017-01-20 20:02:41 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is simple. The pros to regulation is that the media can not let economics allow for an unabated output of material that can have a negative affect on the minds of certain people. No regulation today and porn is all that is on. That can lead to degradation. Some people can be influenced to easily over that. To much regulation and the media produces nothing vital. Wars are too bloody to show for children, porn is to slutty and unchristian, political satire is unpatriotic, sports has too many cheaters who will corrupt children , news is never honest or respectful to its host. The key to regulation is to make things regular. The middle road. The problem in this country with all of the regulation within it is the absence of truth. From t.v. to airplanes., to cars. Regulation is used to exact revenge on political opponents or opposing lobbys, or to bestow gifts on political allies or patronizing lobbys. The system of regulation needs to be regulated. But the only yardstick can be truth. The one thing that is lacking more than anything else in washington.
2006-09-06 14:54:59 · answer #3 · answered by Monsignor Klaatu 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm thinking of a public review board. Perhaps 3 members elected by the public, 2 or some even number from business and government so long as the public representatives hold a firm majority.
This would allow for scrutiny and accountability of the media while maintain their freedom.
Today, the media's bias for our nations self-proclaimed enemy does move well into the realm of treasonous.
With this presiding authority, the public and government representatives could prevent some stories from being run or levy heavy fines on the media for printing patently false stories that damage a public servants reputation, such as dan rathers "story" about Bush's military service that was shown to be false. But such disciplinary actions would require a clear majority vote of the board.
2006-09-06 14:52:29 · answer #4 · answered by Archer Christifori 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think one person could determine the answer for this. I feel that we need a board to determine standards of decency. Maybe we could have guidelines to several different levels of content, similar to ratings.. This is not an easy question, because we all have our own ideas about what is acceptable behavior. Remember the movie "On Golden Pond"? The cursing and profanity in that movie ruined it for me. I thought it was out of character for two old refined people to curse and take the Lord's name in vain. Frankly, I feel like we have gone too far in the wrong direction. When "Gone With The Wind" was released, most people were shocked by Rhett Butler's statement, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damm." Now , who would bat an eye at that statement? We have become so desensitized to inappropriate language and behavior. Why do we need this in order to be entertained? On the other hand, we need freedom of speech. But lets remember that freedom of speech should never compromise decency.
2006-09-06 15:11:16 · answer #5 · answered by itwog 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The guideline that is used varies from place to place - but in a general sense it is that which is accepted community values. What does that mean? Its kind of vague. A Supreme Court judge many years ago once stated,...... I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it. What may be allowed and accepted in New York or San Francisco, might be offensive to someone on Omaha, Nebraska where more conservative live. However, with paid satellite radio stations, most anything goes - you are a subscriber - not someone listening the local news.
2006-09-06 14:54:14 · answer #6 · answered by Coach D. 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
With all the biased shenanigans that have been happening in recent years by "unbiased " "journalists", we definitely need some watchdog group to hold them accountable for dis./ mis/ biased-information that skews the truth. This group should be representative of the general public, across the political spectrum, and should be able to impose serious consequences for flagrant actions such as "photo-shopping/cropping".
2006-09-06 15:55:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Check out http://www.fair.org/index.php for a look at how the media attempts to regulate itself.
2006-09-06 21:10:47 · answer #8 · answered by roninfett 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋