Does our news reveal too many secrets to our enemies? Do they paint people under suspicion as guilty and possibly ruin the chance for a fair trial? Agree or disagree?
2006-09-30 06:01:49 · 10 answers · asked by Edward J 6 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
I don't think people get a really air trial because of the media. Too, I agree. I've thought before if we're not revealing way too much to the enemy. Yet - If the media doesn't report, people get angry.
2006-09-30 06:10:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, I don't agree. In wars, each side believes it's own intelligence more than the news, and the news can be used to mislead an enemy. Al-Quida scouts out it's attacks. The idea that phones can be tapped and traced is well known. The amphibious assault exercises shown in the first Gulf War were a trick. The terrorists have their own opinion on if they are getting stronger or weaker which may or may not agree with the leaked NIE.
For trials, the press has a second opinion which may or may not agree with the juries. OJ got off, despite the press. The Jon Benet Ramsey guy got thought innocent quite fast because his story just didn't add up. And there is Michael Jackson and the last guys to see Natalie Holloway in Aruba. All these people got bad press without being found guilty. In the big picture, is it fair people know about these stories? Also, sometimes the press takes up the cause of someone who was unfairly found guilty.
2006-09-30 07:40:26 · answer #2 · answered by Eric 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A free press, if given access or through a "source," will print whatever sells papers and brings in journalistic awards. A responsible paper will not print secret information that does not have a direct impact on the public until after the fact. Newspapers, especially the National Enquirer, of all papers, will print facts obtained via investigative reporters and have and may prejudice a jury before it is picked. But them's the chances one takes.
Today I question whether Woodward and Bernstein would have the freedom to pursue the trail of a Watergate because of political correctness and the owners of newspapers not willing to cut ties with political power. Then again, with Republicans in the White House, they probably would. If Clinton was in I do not think the leeway would be there.
At any rate, a free press is the MOST important of our freedoms. Take that away and you have fascism on the rise.
2006-09-30 06:16:41 · answer #3 · answered by ALWAYS GOTTA KNOW 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do think that the media makes it difficult for people to get a fair trial, just because people just believe what they see on tv and make up their minds, but as far as secrets to our enemies, I highly doubt that terrorist have ever watched the news and said "Hey wait! They can track our money through the banks? I've been putting my signing my name on the checks and putting "terrorism" in the 'for' section! Now they know where I am! I had no idea they could do that!."
2006-09-30 06:07:29 · answer #4 · answered by Chris D 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am not all that sure about revealing too many secrets to our enemies, but regarding the fair trail issue...absolutely yes. I hope my life is never exposed to the press like other folks lives have.
2006-09-30 06:10:25 · answer #5 · answered by Emma 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"NEWS" or rather the entertainment that Journalism has become, neither shows nor does it hide anything from anyone globally. In fact I suspect our "Reporting" isn't at all taken seriously by any country where "tabloids" insist themselves on the population.
We got away from honest NEWS reporting many years ago, with the exception of a very narrowly defined group of people and media that still exist. A good example is we NAME our wars,,, sigh,,,as much to make them more causal in how they effect the people who either support or condemn them. It's entertainment, not honest journalism.
Rev. Steven
2006-09-30 06:15:44 · answer #6 · answered by DIY Doc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't agree that they reveal enough. I think that they should show more to the communities and try not to hide so much from us because we have a right to know as society to know every single detail. For for example that there was a killer out there and we didn't have enough information or detail as to who that person was. I would need to know what kind of danger I am in and what should I look out for.
2006-09-30 06:06:35 · answer #7 · answered by Starlesha23 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree in a lot of cases. I think we all know that OJ Simpson was guilty, with every smidgen of seamy info splashed over the front pages every day.
I think we all know he had something to do with it, and while it was a vicious awful murder( well what's a nice murder anyway duh) it was, and I don't think it was right at all and he was as guilty as hell, I think it was a somewhat ( if not terrible) victory for the black community
for all the times they were screwed in the past with lynchings and such, while the white man gets away with it time and again. So I was not surprised at the verdict I don't think it was very surprising. Yes the media affects people's opinions. That was just my example, and I think the media needs to stay out of the courtroom.
UNLESS it concerns us and our rights! Are you with me here?
2006-09-30 06:14:42 · answer #8 · answered by Matt M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes and no. Yes because if the cops are tring to catch someone, then all that person has to do is look at the news to see where the cops are.
No because thier are some things that the public needs to know like who, what to look for and such things.
2006-09-30 06:13:29 · answer #9 · answered by Speedy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well it depends on wat news.......... But most of all they cant reveal all because they are too many things and stuff happening around us............And by the way some of the news is unfair because it wil affects A PERSON thinking and ruin a PERSON FUTURE by accusing....
2006-09-30 06:13:44 · answer #10 · answered by rikkusolar 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋