Save Journalism: A Call to Action for American Democracy

[rootX]

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.

 

[thomasxc]

i agree.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

On a related note: I sure get tired of quality programs like This Week, getting preempted by sports programming. This Week - golf. :grumpy:

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].

 

[kldickson]

I prefer to filter my news through Fark.

 

[CRGreathouse]

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.)

 

[rootX]

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?

 

[j93]

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.

 

[drankin]

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.

 

[Focus]

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.

 

[ideasrule]

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.

 

[Al68]

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.

 

[rootX]

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.

edit: sorry, I thought you are talking about the pf moderators.

 

[WhoWee]

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!

 

[cristo]

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.

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[Integral]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

Maybe Rather wants to be the first "News Czar"?

 

[rootX]

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

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.

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!

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.

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

Thanks for your support

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 !