Let's face it folks, the media is doing everything that it can to undermine the war on terror. They will print everything that they can get their grubby little hands on so long as it hurts public opinion and decreases troop morale.
In this time of war should newspapers, TV stations, and other media get a "seal of approval" for the news it reports? Should the freedom of the press be suspended for the safety of all Americans?
2007-03-30 19:42:52 · 13 answers · asked by bartmcqueary 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Alot of crazy Liberal crap should be monitered and maybe there should be a Bill passed that says During Wartime thou freaks shall obey their country. When a war is over you can spout your Twilight Zone garbage and just get laughed at . Great idea my Good Asker.
2007-03-30 19:51:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
If the media is going to announce troop manuevers in advance and put them at risk, yes. Since the media does have certain freedoms, with that comes certain responsibilities, which includes responsible journalism. That has been a standard between the journalists and the government since the Civil War days. Suspending freedom of the press isn't a good idea, but asking them to be responsible in their reporting is. Even President Kennedy had issues with reporting during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He asked them to hold off until after the crisis was over before the stories went to press. That's how to handle it. If the media can't be responsible, they shouldn't get passes to certain areas of operation.
2007-03-30 19:51:26 · answer #2 · answered by gone 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Freedom of Press is vital. It doesn't need to make things look bad or good to move public opinion. A real news company presents things the way they are, how it happened and with impartiality.
If, during that process, God forbid they show dead people because of war.... they did their job. They show it how it is. If people don't want to know something that is happening because they don't want to feel squeamish, then they should change the channel or drop the newspaper.
But the information should be available to all. The real truth.
2007-03-30 19:57:01 · answer #3 · answered by namojaro 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
media has ruined alot of things, and will because of the 1st amendment. We do have the right to know but people also have the right to privacy, right to other things. Heres a perfect example. If someone commits a crime and the media makes it famous then that person losses the right to a fair and impartial trial by his or her peers. So that persons right is violated. If a trial becomes too famous unless you live under a rock you will hear about it. Anyway.. the answer is no they should not have to get permission they should just realize they are violating several hundred peoples rights just for the almighty dollar. Which, is all it about anyway
2007-03-30 19:55:35 · answer #4 · answered by zunyone1974 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Whoa! I hope you're not serious. If we are to give up freedoms, shouldn't the government at least have to justify why? How does repressing information and suspending freedom of the press enhance the "safety of all Americans"? Repression will give the government more ability to do what it wants, but is the US to have a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" as Lincoln said or are we to have authoritarian rule?
2007-03-30 19:45:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
The "war on terror" is a marketing phrase. Like the war on drugs. It's an ongoing never ending attack on a concept.
As far as censorship -- the Supreme Court has been very clear on this topic for a long time now. NO!
The entire concept of political freedom depends on the right to free speech. Taking that away is terrorism, since it is a direct attack on the core foundation of this country.
It's terrifying that someone would actually advocate throwing out the Constitution in the name of opposing terrorism, since throwing out the Constitution is itself an act of terrorism.
2007-03-30 19:54:26 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
No, freedom of the press should continue, however, they should state that these are this particular reporters opinions, and stuff like that. We dont want to create fascism in the country now, the press has the freedom to spread their liberal biased.
2007-03-30 19:47:54 · answer #7 · answered by cliffburtongodofthebass 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
First amendment doesn't allow government approval. The media needs to do what it was meant to do tell the news, honest and unbiased and leave their personal feeling out.
Who cares what they think anyway
2007-03-30 19:56:31 · answer #8 · answered by Kye H 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, of course not. If the media is going to abuse their rights, there's not much we can do about it. All we can do is try to figure out what is believeable and valid, and ignore the fake and unnecessary news.
2007-03-30 19:53:31 · answer #9 · answered by Becca 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
no they shouldn;t i belive in fredom of the press.. but the press should use some common sence in some atricles... dirt sells papers yes, but back before vietnam they had some morals noone knew jfk was a womainzer, or fdr couldn't walk for years after their terms right now our press is more like a tobloid trying to dig teh dirt faster than teh next one
2007-03-30 19:49:09 · answer #10 · answered by lethander_99 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋