Why are they obligated to show impartiality?
They are not mainstream media outlets. Complain all you want about ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, Washington Post, New York Times, etc. - these outlets and publications claim to be impartial, so if you think they're not, complain away.
But why do private citizens and non-media corporations have ANY obligation to express both sides of any story?
2007-06-04 06:22:19 · 12 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
truthwillnot: Really? Could you post a link to Yahoo's claim of impartiality? As for Michael Moore... we all know he doesn't even pretend, so why are you lying?
2007-06-04 06:27:30 · update #1
They AREN'T required to be objective. Unfortunately, we've got people around here claiming that their deleted thread is a Free Speech issue, so....
I think you're fighting an uphill battle here, darlin'. =P
2007-06-04 06:30:37 · answer #1 · answered by Athena 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's sad that you don't know how news organizations, and documentaries are suppose to work. So if someone did a documentary about Nazi Germany,and they said the Holacaust never happened that would be o.k. with you? Why should they have an obligation to tell the truth is your theory right? Moore does a movie in which he claims the N.R.A,and the K.K.K. are linked, which anyone who knows anything about the history of the K.K.K. is a complete fabrication. Or says the Bin Laden Family was allowed to leave the U.S. before flights were allowed to leave airports because they are old Bush oil buddies. Which is just one of many,many lies Moore tells in his "documentaries" News organizations,and documentary makers have an obligation to tell the TRUTH not give their opinion,and that includes Fox news too. So don't think I'm being one sided.
2007-06-04 06:34:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They have no obligation, But I WOULD like to hear Moore admit that his Documentaries are more fiction than anything else. I am sure I could splice together audio clips of George Bush speaking to make the following phrase:
"I like to" "molest" "children"
He TECHNICALLY said those words, but not all in one sentence. So, if I put these together, it does NOT make a "documentary". So it would be nice of Moore to at least quit pretending that he isn't impartial.
Yahoo, on the other hand, I don't find to lean in one political direction or another, but I do tend to find they are strict about the strangest things. Someone can be blatenly offensive in a question, and not be deleted, but I could have a question where the actual question is there, but hard to find, and I get deleted as "rambling", even though I obviously asked a question.
2007-06-04 06:41:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both sides of the fence have the "Kool Aid" drinking wack jobs. Sean Hannity on the right, James Carvelle on the left. There are many other examples.
You will not convince either of those groups that they need to take a pill.
Far to many people fail to realize that the 1st amendament applies only to the US Congress. It says nothing about a coffee shop owner not being able to toss someone disrupting his business or that any private organtization has to be fair or balanced.
You are right they have no obligation. We all get to vote by changing the channel and hanging out with people that agree with our own views.
2007-06-04 06:42:18 · answer #4 · answered by Stand-up philosopher. It's good to be the King 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They do not. As a Libertarian, I do not care if private groups are impartial or partial. Personally, I would have a lot more respect for organizations like the NYT if they just came out and said
"We are liberals. We will paint liberals in the best possible light and conservatives in the least flattering light. Our readership expects and demands it."
However, they do not, because they are ultimatly cowards.
Non-media corps do not have any obligation at all. They are independant organizations, and are subject to the pressures of the free market.
Now, if they specifically state that they are a biased source, does that mean that they therefore should sacrafice their 1st amendment protection of media from Federal Government encroachment?
2007-06-04 06:28:18 · answer #5 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
properly,for the creatures you have listed besides, we in basic terms don't have the technologies as a manner to habit a perfect examine.besides the areas the place the yetis and loch ness stay are exceptionally drastic.working example on the tutor holiday spot certainty, their team went into the Andes to pass seek for the yeti, as their have been many sightings their those days and that they have had many greater in the previous years.mutually as they have been finding for the period of the night they got here across a clean music of a marginally large, bipedal creature.It resembled that of a human or different ape's foot.because of the fact the climate their is so harsh, they are unable to spend greater advantageous than a pair days. With Nessy, this is the same factor.we do no longer likely have the technologies to actual seek those waters thoroughly for something like Nessy to be got here across.
2016-11-04 22:25:13 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are not obligated to show impartiality.
It's just sad that someone like Michael Moore is a god to those that can't or won't think for themselves.
2007-06-04 06:28:33 · answer #7 · answered by Mystine G 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
uhhhh errrr uhhh because it's the ethical thing to do? they're all owned by a hand full of people when their opines are continually leftist? that's biased..that's propaganda..that's brainwashing....that's nazi germany and russia etc...michael moore is a straight up propagandist nothing he says is true...he twists and edits this videos to promote his version of "Truth" ala nazi germany....and lefty yutzes eat it up as truth!
but private citizens and non-media corporations can do whatever the hell they want....and often in the public again, it's leanin lefty..which is fine so that way i can decide whether or not to buy their products or attend their events etc....i WANT To know who is a commie/socialist...i WANT TO know who will put me into a 'happy' camp if they took over the government and or country...i like to know my enemy.
2007-06-04 06:29:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
They're not obligated to show impartiality.
It's just that they SAY they're impartial and that's a lie.
2007-06-04 06:25:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
They should either present fact as fact or fiction as fiction, but Michael Moore presents fiction as fact, creating blatant lies and misrepresentations in the process, and the more ignorant people of America actually believe him. Libs love him, because he convinces people to join their side. Who cares how he does it?
2007-06-04 06:29:20 · answer #10 · answered by Brad the Fox 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋