News Save Journalism: A Call to Action for American Democracy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Dan Rather highlighted the existential threats facing journalism, linking them to the survival of American democracy and suggesting presidential intervention. Concerns were raised about the quality of news in a profit-driven media landscape, where sensationalism often trumps factual reporting. Critics pointed out the irony of Rather's call for government oversight, arguing that media independence is crucial for democracy and that his own past contributed to the current media environment. The discussion also emphasized the evolving nature of independent media, suggesting that the rise of platforms like Fox News and blogs reflects adaptation rather than decline. Ultimately, the debate centers on the need for a balance between media integrity and independence in a rapidly changing information landscape.
  • #51
humanino said:
Read the thread.

Done that already. How about you read the Voting Act of 1964?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
I hope you realize I quoted it in #25. Otherwise, no wonder you do not understand what I say. Thanks for paying attention.
 
  • #54
humanino said:
I hope you realize I quoted it in #25. Otherwise, no wonder you do not understand what I say. Thanks for paying attention.

Interesting and inspiring to see so many people quick to step up and defend our Constitution. Liberals and conservatives alike. It's been a good thread.
 
  • #55
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
drankin said:
Interesting and inspiring to see so many people quick to step up and defend our Constitution. Liberals and conservatives alike. It's been a good thread.
How often do russ and Ivan agree ? I must really be a freak.
 
  • #57
humanino said:
How often do russ and Ivan agree ? I must really be a freak.

Apparently the french even like to take their bosses hostage to resolve labour disputes. Admittedly though I find the idea somewhat appealing myself.
 
  • #58
humanino said:
How often do russ and Ivan agree ? I must really be a freak.

Not at all. You just don't understand this aspect of our value system. It's not like the idea is ludicrous on the face of things, but it does threaten some of our core values. We take the right to vote without qualifications very seriously here.

Now if I and I alone could say who could vote, and who couldn't, that would be another matter. :biggrin:
 
  • #59
humanino said:
How often do russ and Ivan agree ? I must really be a freak.

Nah, honey...you're just French. And we all love you :smile:.
 
  • #60
Thanks for your support :smile:

I need to rethink, since
Ivan Seeking said:
We take the right to vote without qualifications very seriously here.
might appeal to me too after all. Note that, I want everybody to vote, I just want to everybody to know too.

I did not mean to kill the conversation either. To "how to save journalism" I answered "dismiss it". Maybe there are better ideas !
 
  • #61
drankin said:
Interesting and inspiring to see so many people quick to step up and defend our Constitution. Liberals and conservatives alike. It's been a good thread.

I agree, but I thought this thread was about saving journalism? The last 2.3 pages have been regarding voting laws.

But anyways, I noticed the other day that I had become so disillusioned with standard news sources, that I now routinely seek out only two agencies for most of my information: The Daily Show on Comedy Central, and Al Jazeera.

I thought that was very strange.
 
  • #62
I think government or an independent body should at least try to raise the Journalism degree/education standards and making sure that only good journalists get graduated and work in this field.
 
  • #63
humanino said:
Thanks for your support :smile:

I need to rethink, sincemight appeal to me too after all. Note that, I want everybody to vote, I just want to everybody to know too.

I did not mean to kill the conversation either. To "how to save journalism" I answered "dismiss it". Maybe there are better ideas !

No problem. None of these are easy questions - how best to preserve a democracy; what is in the best interest of the country; how to maintain an informed electorate - but you ran into a philosophical wall on this one. :biggrin:
 
  • #64
rootX said:
I think government or an independent body should at least try to raise the Journalism degree/education standards and making sure that only good journalists get graduated and work in this field.

There's a start...

I'm just not so sure about the "government" deciding what a "free press" qualification is.
 
  • #65
humanino said:
Thanks for your support :smile:

I need to rethink, since

Ivan Seeking said:
We take the right to vote without qualifications very seriously here.
might appeal to me too after all. Note that, I want everybody to vote, I just want to everybody to know too.

I did not mean to kill the conversation either. To "how to save journalism" I answered "dismiss it". Maybe there are better ideas !

I think you should stick to your initial assessment. I went to http://www.foxnews.com/index.html"to see if perhaps I should expand my sources of information. After about 10 minutes on each site, I decided Al Jazeera seems to have much higher journalistic standards than the other two. About that time, the movie Idiocracy started on the television. The first 10 minutes reminded me of what I had just seen on CNN and Fox.

Americans should not be allowed to vote at all. Any of us.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #66
i completely agree with Ivan Seeking. i think that's why the news is so biased; because if it were nothing but the bare facts, people would find it boring and not watch. so they inster bias and emotion. its all about them ratings.(unfortunately...)
 
  • #67
russ_watters said:
3. He wants to preserve democracy via preserving media integrity by creating a government media advisory board? What a vicious cycle of wrongness!


seriously?! that reminds me of orwell's 1892. and i don't like it.at all.
 
  • #68
thomasxc said:
seriously?! that reminds me of orwell's 1892. and i don't like it.at all.

...umm...might you mean 1984?
 
  • #69
im sorry. yes.thats what i mean.
 
  • #70
thomasxc said:
i completely agree with Ivan Seeking. i think that's why the news is so biased; because if it were nothing but the bare facts, people would find it boring and not watch. so they inster bias and emotion. its all about them ratings.(unfortunately...)

I was recently talking with someone about a related issue. I made the comment that PBS is probably the best single source of news on television. He responded by saying that he does like that station, but he gets bored watching it because all they do is talk.

Note that PBS is supported in part by federal funds.
 
Last edited:
  • #71
drankin said:
There's a start...

I'm just not so sure about the "government" deciding what a "free press" qualification is.

Journalism is not a new field so I believe it has well established professional and ethical standards so there is no need for someone for defining the standards/qualifications. But, certainly someone shouldn't be able to work as a journalist/start a commentary show without knowing anything about journalism just because they can talk good.
 
  • #72
i agree.
 
  • #73
On a related note: I sure get tired of quality programs like This Week, getting preempted by sports programming. This Week - golf.

Their website has had problems lately so I can only hope to watch it later. Before the internet, there was no way to watch later. Years ago, I used to set my alarm for Sunday morning, 6:45 AM, so that I could watch Meet the Press [another quality news show, but not nearly as good as it was before Tim Russert died].
 
  • #74
I prefer to filter my news through Fark.
 
  • #75
rootX said:
I think government or an independent body should at least try to raise the Journalism degree/education standards and making sure that only good journalists get graduated and work in this field.

In addition to biasing the media toward the government, I think this would speed the decline of traditional journalism. (You lower the supply of journalists, raising their price; this increases the cost to, e.g., the ailing newspapers.)
 
  • #76
CRGreathouse said:
In addition to biasing the media toward the government,

Disagree. I don't know how making sure that everyone meets with the professional standards would introduce biasing towards the government. (I elaborated in the post after that government does not need to introduce any standards because they are already defined)

(You lower the supply of journalists, raising their price; this increases the cost to, e.g., the ailing newspapers.)

Agree. But would you favor unqualified people working as journalists?
 
  • #77
rootX said:
Disagree. I don't know how making sure that everyone meets with the professional standards would introduce biasing towards the government. (I elaborated in the post after that government does not need to introduce any standards because they are already defined)
Because the government could mandate the curriculum.
 
  • #78
j93 said:
Because the government could mandate the curriculum.

That's the jist of the contention. Aside from that, even if all journalist were incredibly professional, people will tune into what they want to hear. They just won't be hearing it from those journalists. But, it would be nice to have some media available to tune into that had that level of journalism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #79
How about a really simple solution ... better education. People that are well educated usually don't like very biased news. Popularity of news like Fox tell me that the viewers are not very capable of critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.
 
  • #80
Ivan Seeking said:
Not at all. You just don't understand this aspect of our value system. It's not like the idea is ludicrous on the face of things, but it does threaten some of our core values. We take the right to vote without qualifications very seriously here.

Except that this right to vote without qualifications has never existed in any democracy! In the United States, non-citizens, people under the age of 18, and 5 million felons are denied the right to vote, even though they make up a substantial percentage of the population. This is despite the fact that many teenagers are more well-informed than the average adult and that immigrants & felons, being "outsiders", need the most protection.

A test of the type Humano proposes would help by giving voting rights on the basis of merit and not age, citizenship, or personal history. Before anybody claims this would take rights away from the illiterate/dumb/whatever, whether or not a given group is oppressed depends more on moral values than on who's allowed to vote. Christian America can easily outvote its Muslim minority and elect a president who kills every Muslim in the country, but that doesn't happen; neither do massacres of immigrants or of autism sufferers. On the other hand, democratic America did commit genocide against the natives and lynch its blacks, and it was changing morals that enfranchised these groups, not the other way round.
 
  • #81
Ivan Seeking said:
Years ago, I used to set my alarm for Sunday morning, 6:45 AM, so that I could watch Meet the Press [another quality news show, but not nearly as good as it was before Tim Russert died].
Yeah, today everyone including the moderator repeatedly referred to those against the proposed Health care plan as "anti-reform". Is that bias really not blatantly obvious?

Gee, I think I'll make a proposal to congress, and if I just put the word "reform" in the name I can claim that the opponents are "anti-reform". It worked for Campaign Finance, Health Care, and others, it should work for me as long as I can get media outlets to perpetuate it.

And if any news program doesn't go along, well we'll just call them lunatic biased freaks.
 
  • #82
Al68 said:
Yeah, today everyone including the moderator repeatedly referred to those against the proposed Health care plan as "anti-reform". Is that bias really not blatantly obvious?

Gee, I think I'll make a proposal to congress, and if I just put the word "reform" in the name I can claim that the opponents are "anti-reform". It worked for Campaign Finance, Health Care, and others, it should work for me as long as I can get media outlets to perpetuate it.

And if any news program doesn't go along, well we'll just call them lunatic biased freaks.

:confused:

edit: sorry, I thought you are talking about the pf moderators.
 
  • #83
humanino said:
Fox is sick and I do believe they should be sued for crime against democracy. Playing with journalism as they do is not acceptable. They have no ethics.

Why don't YOU sue them? It's your right. Better yet, call the FBI and report the crime.

Please substantiate your claim - prove your statement - you know the rules.

Rather wants the Government to bail out the media. That is insane - the only protection we the people have from the Government is freedom of the press.

What next, a take over of religion? Wake up!
 
  • #84
humanino said:
If I were the supreme court, people should pass a qualifying exam to vote.

I don't agree with that. In any democracy, the 'stupid' people should be equally allowed to decide who rules them.

ideasrule said:
Except that this right to vote without qualifications has never existed in any democracy! In the United States, non-citizens, people under the age of 18, and 5 million felons are denied the right to vote, even though they make up a substantial percentage of the population. This is despite the fact that many teenagers are more well-informed than the average adult and that immigrants & felons, being "outsiders", need the most protection.

Giving children the right to vote is a bad idea on many levels. As for felons: once you commit a crime, I think it's certainly correct to have to surrender your rights to vote.

A test of the type Humano proposes would help by giving voting rights on the basis of merit and not age, citizenship, or personal history.

So should these tests be handed out worldwide: should everyone be able to vote if they pass certain tests. Come on, this is a terrible proposal: being a citizen of a country gives you the right to vote on matters to do with politics of your country. For anyone else, it's either none of their business, or you have to earn the right (i.e. earn the citizenship in said country by proving your worth etc etc..)As for the actual topic of the thread: there will always be some journalists/broadcasting companies that are more impartial than others. Still, it's common sense that in a democracy all such journalists should be 'allowed' to exist. It's upto you who you want to listen to. Sure, Fox news is very biased (as I think most Americans would know), but that's not to say they shouldn't be permitted to broadcast. As others have mentioned, once you restrict the freedom of the press, you are heading down a very slippery slope indeed.
 
  • #85
I don't think stupidity should be the test for voting.

I think the test should be whether on not you have paid in (or only receive) taxes. If you haven't paid in, you shouldn't have a say in how the money is allocated.

Now that Government is growing much, much larger, this should include Government workers. If you work for the Government - you have a conflict of interest - kind of like when employees of a company aren't allowed to enter company sweepstakes. The employees at WalMart (for instance) don't vote on the board members, the shareholders have the vote.

Does anyone believe our politicians think providing free health care to illegal immigrants is a good idea and will save money? It's being proposed to gain votes and consolidate power.

The press needs to be free of all Government control and subsidy - it creates conflict of interest.
 
Last edited:
  • #86
Ivan Seeking said:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090729145310.aspx

While I'm not sure what I think about Rather's call for the President to step in, I do agree with his basic concern: The news media is being sold out! In an age of disinformation and amateur journalism, I have grave concerns about how the public arrives at decisions. I see nothing in the free market that drives journalism to excellence. Instead, I believe the free market gives us the likes of Fox News and infotainment. It will sell to emotions and personal biases rather than logic and facts. As we have seen with PBS, there is a market for quality programming, but not enough to compete with popular programming. The problem with journalism is that good journalism is not good business, but it is critical to a Democracy.

Maybe, maybe not. Consider the state of journalism at the time of the American Revolution. It those days newspapers were strictly opinion pages. Libel, slander and exaggeration where the rule not the exception. Anonymous outrageous pamphlets were behind the fervor that created the revolution. One may say that we owe our independence to yellow journalism.

More important then controlling journalism is a educated populace which can separate the wheat form the chafe. Unfortunately it is not clear to me that we have that sort of population. What we really need is a better way of selecting who we are voting for.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87
Maybe Rather wants to be the first "News Czar"?
 
  • #88
cristo said:
I don't agree with that. In any democracy, the 'stupid' people should be equally allowed to decide who rules them.
...

WhoWee said:
I don't think stupidity should be the test for voting.

I think the test should be whether on not you have paid in (or only receive) taxes. If you ...

The press needs to be free of all Government control and subsidy - it creates conflict of interest.

WhoWee said:
Why don't YOU sue them? It's your right. Better yet, call the FBI and report the crime.

Please substantiate your claim - prove your statement - you know the rules.
..

What next, a take over of religion? Wake up!

WhoWee said:
Maybe Rather wants to be the first "News Czar"?
I don't see any point in arguing as he has already accepted that it is not a good thing for the US.

humanino said:
How often do russ and Ivan agree ? I must really be a freak.

humanino said:
Thanks for your support :smile:

I need to rethink, since might appeal to me too after all. Note that, I want everybody to vote, I just want to everybody to know too.

I did not mean to kill the conversation either. To "how to save journalism" I answered "dismiss it". Maybe there are better ideas !
 

Similar threads

News Why Do Americans Support Right Wing Media Outlets Like Fox News?
2
Replies
51
Views
8K
Three new books to read about expertise vs. democracy
Replies
4
Views
3K
News Rebuild GOP: Reclaim and Comeback Strategies for Winning Again
2
Replies
55
Views
8K
News Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?
7
Replies
325
Views
34K
News Media Bias - Is the media becoming more conservative?
2
Replies
59
Views
13K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
Replies
29
Views
10K
What is the true impact of free trade agreements on the American economy?
Replies
19
Views
10K
News What Role Does Fox News Play in the Spread of Misinformation?
Replies
14
Views
4K
News Why Did Americans Re-Elect Bush?
2
Replies
64
Views
9K
News An integrated North-American super-state
Replies
9
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top