Does freedom of the press even exist?

Question

How on earth can the claim of freedom of the press be stated when only the rich, who OWN and CONTROL the press outlets decide what gets published and broadcast?

Would it not be true freedom of the press for everyone who CHOOSES to own some sort of news agency be made to publish ALL sides of the story?
Would that not be a truely free press instead of the current propaganda machine we now endure?

I know the claim that 'freedom' could not exist if there were rules against one-sided stories, but freedom of the press should include the free access to said press, should it not?
A controlled press, be it by a government or a corporation or an individual (each with their own agenda), is, by definition, not-
FREE!
Opinions?

I LOVE IT!!!
Those who do not know me just make assumptions about my knowedge base and judge me to be ignorant.
How arrogant you are!
I do understand the concepts that are protected in our constitution.
1. freedom from being a government controlled or censored propaganda outlet
2. freedom to dissent or oppose government views oractions or policies etc...

These freedoms, afforded to the "Press" have limits:
The press cannot break into my house to search for a story or to find the truth about me or you.
They can report what they know, but that does not give them the right to know anything!
They cannot slander.
They cannot incite treason or riots.
The "press" is subject to fair trade practice laws.
My point is that the "press' is not free but controlled and is a monster of its own makng that resects nothng, not even the truth, and YOU NO choice in the matter.
If you disagree with that statement just try to have your local TV station change what they misrepresented to you.

You can't!

Answer 1

who ever said there is freedom in anything , not only press

nowadays ,who get the power ,get it all , END OF STORY

Answer 2

First off, you don't really understand the first amendment. What Freedom of the Press means is that the press does not have to get articles approved by the government before printing them. Nor does anyone have to pay for a liscense to print a newspaper. You could start your own newspaper with your printer and some help from kinkos and start handing it out on the streets. That's what freedom of the press means. And along with that freedom is a person's sole right to choose what stories they run and what angle they take on them. In the Supreme Court case of Near v. Minnesota the court ruled in favor of Near who printed a paper that vilified Jews and Catholics and exuded contempt for officers of the law. The court said that no matter how reprehensible the content or conduct of speech may be that Prior Restraint cannot be allowed. That's the freedom of the press my friend. No one can tell you what you can and cannot write (unless they are out right defamation type lies). And no one can force a newspaper to cover both the right and the left side of a story. To do so would be compelled speech which the Courts have also ruled against. The first amendment protects you when you say what you want to say and protects you from being forced to say or associate with speech you do not agree.

Answer 3

Because the conservative-biased media is owned by giant conglomerates, the Fourth Estate no longer exists in our country. "Freedom of the Press" used to mean that the press could write and report the truth, regardless of who it affected. Not since the days of Watergate has the press enjoyed real "freedom". Government had figured out how to manipulate, control, and intimidate the press so that it no longer functions as a watchdog or guardian of our rights.
Today, the Fox "News" channel is nothing more than a Nazi-inspired propaganda machine for the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh is a shouting-head conservative intent on destroying the rights of people who disagree with his viewpoints, or who wish to express an opposing opinion. You are shouted down, embarrassed, humiliated, and called vulgar names if you don't agree with Rush.
The media no longer questions government press releases. Press kits are handed out, and the media reads them verbatim without any skepticism, doubt, questions, or investigation to even see if the information is accurate, balanced, or true.
Today's "free press" is intimidated by the Bush administration and threatened with isolation if it doesn't report what Bushites want reported. Once a press controlled by the government is entrenched, this country then becomes no different from that of Nazi Germany, or Stalin's Communist Russia. -RKO-

Answer 4

Are you referring to the U.S.? I think you should read the First Amendment more carefully.

Freedom of the press DOES exist in the U.S. It sounds like your problem is not with freedom of the press, but with biased journalism. Biased journalism is unavoidable. It is impossible to write with true objectivity because journalists themselves are incapable of being perfectly objective.

However, we do the best we can, and the American system is significantly freer and more diverse than most other systems in the world. I do not fear for my life if I publish something incriminating about a politician. I am not afraid to voice an opinion-- that's not insignificant.

We live in a 24-hour news cycle, and in this era of connectedness through television and the internet, anyone can suit their "news needs" through whichever medium they please. There is a news outlet for every persuasion, ethnicity and political party.

The American press IS free. It's individual journalists who determine the validity of each story. And incidentally, it would be impossible to write without a point of view-- and this is why no one could publish "ALL sides to every story," as you suggested.

Edit: The guy above me complains that there is no freedom of the press because if he were to write something critical of the Jews, he'd be attacked. That is not a case of being restrained in what he'd be allowed to print. That is a case of his opinion being so offensive and hateful that the PEOPLE who read his work would label him an Anti-Semite (a label that seems appropriate). It has absolutely nothing to do with what he is allowed to print or not print, and it has no bearing on this issue.

Answer 5

The cost of communicating ones opinion with large numbers of people is cheaper than ever. With all of the different channels to get news from around the world now, we actually have access to more sides of the story than at anytime in human history. The trick is, you have to actively search for it and then make decisions about accuracy and credibility. Use your head and don't be lazy.

AND ROY.. you are a moron. People deciding not to buy an album or go to a concert is not censorship. To my knowledge, the government did not ban the sale of Dixie Chicks merchandise. Only GOVERNMENT can CENSOR speech, private entities and individuals simply make business or personal preference decisions.

Answer 6

But yes, they are free to print the news as they see it, from their point of view. That's what makes it freedom of the press. You are also free not to believe everything you read. If you truly want to be informed, then you must seek alternative avenues of information. Find out what is being said from both camps. It wouldn't be a free press if they were forced to print both sides of an issue. THAT would be government control. If you happen to agree with what's printed, then there is no need to look farther, but if you disagree, then it is your responsibility to look farther.

Answer 7

Freedom of speech does not exist if you are critical of Jews or Israel or Zionism. One should be allowed to speak of the above subject openly. But if you do will automatically labled as an anti Semite. By the way all major newspapers and TV stations are owned by them and many journalists have been sacked for expressing freedom of speech.

Answer 8

you have a legimate complaint and i agree with you whold hartily.just lok at who own all or most of the radi stations now and the majot tv stations. and look at the damage that has been done to the dixie chicks for expressing their opinion of our president. that my friend is censorship in action. when was the last time you heard a radio station play a dixie chick record? we do need some rules that need to be put in place governing the way radio tv and the news papers are operated. now as it is they all are one sided as hell.

Answer 9

Fox News does have freedom.
It tells the truth.
The rest of the News Media has had a liberal socialist agenda for years.
Thanks to Fox News we now do have Freedom of the Press.
Will the commie pinkos take over Fox News like all the rest? We'll have to wait and see.

Answer 10

We suppossed to have it. But?? No we don't have Freedom of speech, Freedom of the press. You'r innocent until proven guilty!!