Does the press in the United States cause harm, or do good?

Question

Personally I think it does a lot of harm. People put so much faith in the so called "facts" the news gives out. But the truth is a lot of the time they lie, exaggerate, and mislead people. It also seems the press will do anything just to get their story. They will ruin peoples lives, just so they can get the story that will in turn make them a few more bucks. I would love to see some laws which limit the power of the press in the United States. Unfortunately the constitution prohibits most laws that would restrict the press, in turn they've abused their privilege of freedom.

So what do you think?

I disagree with the people saying it was once good. Have you guys ever heard of yellow journalism? Lying in the media actually was once much worse.

I'm not saying we should censor them I'm saying we should do a better job of making sure they don't lie or even attempt to mislead.

As for the person saying what if the press was controlled by a radically liberal government or the opposite. Look at the American press, it is probably 90% liberal and 10% percent conservative(fox news). The truth is the press needs to be non-political or moderate in it's positions. The people who own these media sources are using them to push their political agendas. Therefore they are using them to gain political power, thus allowing them to establish a liberal press, or conservative press.

Answer 1

To answer your question;

Harm, The press in America has shifted from reporting the news, to skewing the news to fit their political opinions. The press today I believe thinks that given the facts, the person reading the article might come to a different conclusion than the writer wants.

Press in general (Newspapers) are declining in sales every year as more and more people use the Internet to research on their own.

Biased News organizations (CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News) are losing viewers in huge numbers with layoffs and cut backs in all. The only outlet that has increased viewers is Fox News, who's concept of fair and balanced has drawn in viewers that have turned off other outlets.

Answer 2

I'll tell you this-- I wouldn't want to live in any country that didn't have a free, functioning press.

"But the truth is a lot of the time they lie, exaggerate, and mislead people. It also seems the press will do anything just to get their story"

I'm a journalist, and I do none of these things. You may be thinking of high-profile cases in which journalists have outright lied or slanted stories, but I assure you, those cases are the exception, not the rule. This country is full of decent hard-working journalists who do a good job on both a local and a national scale, but you're not even thinking of them-- you're thinking of the few sensational cases that make our profession look bad.

"Unfortunately the constitution prohibits most laws that would restrict the press, in turn they've abused their privilege of freedom."

A free press is necessary for any functioning democracy.

Thomas Jefferson said: "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it."

He also said, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

I overwhelmingly agree with Thomas Jefferson.

I hear a lot of people complaining about bias in the press, but it's hardly as widespread as you suggest, and I would argue that the worst offenders are limited to new media and broadcast news, not print journalism.

To judge an entire profession by the sins of a few is foolish.

Answer 3

I'm from Australia, and a lot of our news broadcasts are supplemented by reports from the US media.

I think the US media does a lot of harm. For instance, when September 11 occurred, every station here was broadcasting a different blow by blow telecast of the unfolding events. Little kids were coming home from school or kindy to watch Playschool and the Wiggles, and instead got to see people jumping out of burning buildings. Not very appropriate. 9/11 was a horrible event for the people of the United States, but why don't we get coverage of people in situations that are far worse on a humanitarian scale, like Pakistan after their big earthquake several years ago, or people starving in Sudan? The answer is, American mainstream television viewers don't want to see stories about black/foreign people. This suggests subliminally that to mainstream viewers, that people from overseas, especially people of colour, and those that do not speak English, are somehow inferior. This is totally unjustified and wrong.

The problem is, the United States media has so many resources that they often dominate broadcasting, so if they have an agenda, they can push it with very little contradiction. This is dangerous. I am very picky about the news I watch and often listen to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation News, (ABC over here) because it is more balanced.

Answer 4

You have also described most politicians.

Freedom is a two edged sword. I think it is far better to have a free press that lets me decide what to believe and what is garbage than to have a law that restricts what I can read.

For example, imagine what the newspapers would be like if controlled by a religious right government, or an extreme left government. At least now there is an outlet for all points of view, which you can take or leave.

I would be more concerned about the politicians running this country. The debates have proven once again that none of them will give a straight answer...it's all posturing.

Don't worry...just keep questioning what you read, and also make sure you also read opinions that differ from yours. That, my friend, is the key to wisdom.

Answer 5

Excellent question. It is only as good if what is being reported is free from slant and manipulations. Yellow journalism is dangerous. Propaganda is journalism.
The freedom of the press is necessary to share stories and ideas and even get the people up in an uproar, on topics that need addressing.

We must remember the song by Don Henley, "Dirty Laundry"
"Got the bubble headed bleach blonde she comes on at five, she can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye, interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry."

Journalism is a business. All business must make ends meet and then have profit. I believe news that prattles on about Anna Nicole, Brittany Spears, and Ojay Simpson's latest victim is news whatsoever.

Nor, do I believe that the freedom of speech, nor journalism should supercede the need for gagging critical information e.g. military tactics, and certain political styles of mud slinging, or the likes.

I believe that you are right on some news organizations having abused their right of freedom, however and not priveledge of freedom.

It is up to the public to weed through the rhetoric and the slant of agency biases. It is up to us to buy amy one news agency's take or views with comparatives to other agencies' news.

Only the fool would believe any one newscaster. Or only one stations reliability to offer information. There must be a variety of news providers that should be perused and listened to in order to get a sounder assessment of reality.

Remember believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. So by watching the news believe in a 25% accuracy.

Answer 6

well... I mean it's a two-way street...

if you give the government more power... which you would with more restrictive laws... that means you trust the government...

and I don't mean to state the obvious, but they have ruined a few lives too...

so, it comes down to "who do you trust more"... the government or the press? I think a lot of people would choose the press and that's why they have the power they have...

restrictions on the press historically led to even more serious criminal actions by the government... all you have to do is look at communist nations and their control of the press...

Answer 7

you do not have something to rigidity approximately. whilst they could report a lawsuit or perhaps an arrest warrant for you using downloading copyrighted cloth, they are actually not going to. in accordance to an editorial by using u . s . immediately, they gained't be going after consumers who downloaded some video clips and that greater effective than probably is composed of consumers who purely downloaded some copyrighted cloth archives. They have been purely concentrating their efforts on the sources that created the positioning.

Answer 8

They are politically biased in favor of Socialism.
You are correct in your assessment.
The Founding Fathers gave us a list of rights guaranteed to be the rights of the PEOPLE! They are the Bill of Rights (the first then amendments).
The right to free speech is the primary right listed. The right to bear arms is second and the only one that must "not be infringed".
What gets left out of the discussion is the fact that WITH EVERY RIGHT COMES RESPONSIBILITY.
All rights must be handled responsibly. If a newspaper deliberately makes a false or misleading statement (even by omitting pertinent data) they should be LIABLE for their irresponsibility just as surely as an individual is held liable for irresponsible use of a gun.

Answer 9

The media is overwhelmingly liberal. They cause much more harm than good. I am not saying that we should have government control over the media, but the media is just as corrupt as government.

Answer 10

Mainstream 'news' that is monitored and paid for by large corporations will contain omissions, lies and propaganda.

That it 'causes harm' is probably an understatement.

.