RE: Media Freedom under threat?

RE: Media Freedom under threat? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Sanity -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 12:13:49 PM)
Absolutely Rich, I am in complete agreement with this. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I see quite a bit of it, Sanity. Lefty hate-mongers abound. Do keep in mind that a lot of it is just coming from Canadians who want to talk about their favorite soap opera, though. I freely admit to being a pain in the ass about free speech, and I'm just as much a pain to the side I align myself with. To get back to the bit I originally snipped, the answer to speech used badly is more speech, not centralizing the authority. Beck is going off the air because people stopped watching, not because the Secretary Determined, and that is as it should be. The idea behind our crazy sounding law is not that it is completely okely-dokely for the news to lie, but that the government doesn't have the opportunity or authority to label dissent as a lie. Hearsts and Murdochs are an inevitable price of a free press, and they can always be countered by free competition. An unrestricted media is our first, and best, line of defense against tyranny.

PeonForHer -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 12:42:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Is this freedom too important to be left to the private sector? There is a very spooky worldview implicit in this question, Tweak. Not at all spooky if your view of the private sector takes account of 'champions of freedom' like Murdoch and if you believe that there can be no freedoms without responsibilities. The private sector has been likened to a greedy, selfish child - and Murdoch's various media operations give ample examples of that.

Lucylastic -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 12:43:10 PM)
biggest pig in the lying business

TheHeretic -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 12:51:43 PM)
You're wrong, Peon. "Champions of Freedom" like Murdoch come and go, subject to the tides and forces of competition, and discussions exactly like we have here. "Champions of Freedom" like Stalin are a bit harder to remove.

Sanity -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 12:56:50 PM)
Is this the DNC talking point of the month, " ...if you believe that there can be no freedoms without responsibilities."? Seems to me Leftists are constantly coming up with a new angle on limiting freedoms they find inconvenient. quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Not at all spooky if your view of the private sector takes account of 'champions of freedom' like Murdoch and if you believe that there can be no freedoms without responsibilities. The private sector has been likened to a greedy, selfish child - and Murdoch's various media operations give ample examples of that.

Sanity -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 1:02:19 PM)
In your opinion, and few are as partisan as you. I personally believe that that the reason you hate Murdoch is because he is so successful, and you sincerely wish to silence the political opposition. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic biggest pig in the lying business

PeonForHer -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 1:49:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic You're wrong, Peon. "Champions of Freedom" like Murdoch come and go, subject to the tides and forces of competition, and discussions exactly like we have here. "Champions of Freedom" like Stalin are a bit harder to remove. Murdoch's been around for quite a few decades, now. The forces of competition apply less and less as monopoly is reached and Murdoch's power is reaching that point. He clearly wants to achieve more of it, too, if recent events in the UK are anything to go by. And Stalin was an autocrat - not all governmental control leads to autocracy. In the time that Murdoch's headed News Internation in this country, his media machine has pumped relentless propaganda. It's created some governments and brought down others. The concept of the fourth estate was brought into being to describe an unofficial power that isn't officially recognised. It's commonly, and rightly, applied mostly to the media nowadays. One of the oldest and most widely accepted ideas in liberal democracy is that of the separation of powers. Involved in this idea is that of checks and balances: that one power exerts a limiting force over another. The corollary is that a government should control the media in one way (by legal restriction), just as the media should control the government in another (by investigating and exposing). Underlying all this is one of the most central idea of liberalism of all, and one which is foundational to the systems of liberal-democracies the world over: that one person's freedom can be another person's restriction. You have to get the balance right, in short. It's pretty clear to most here in the UK, at least, that Murdoch's media machine is designed to support the world that Murdoch and his friends find the most conducive. He has been able to do with a great deal of freedom, but with little sense of responsibility. Governments have got to the stage here where they're frightened of him and his influence: no policy can be passed unless Murdoch finds it acceptable. If he doesn't like it, he can say what he likes about it. That's his freedom - but our lack of freedom.

Sanity -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 1:52:14 PM)
Use hyperbole much? quote: ...no policy can be passed unless Murdoch finds it acceptable.

Lucylastic -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 2:06:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity In your opinion, and few are as partisan as you. I personally believe that that the reason you hate Murdoch is because he is so successful, and you sincerely wish to silence the political opposition. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic biggest pig in the lying business And that just goes to show how totally meaningless your post are, I never claimed it to be anything more than my opinion, . my hatred of the man is much more personal.but you know nothing about it, it certainly doesnt mean its not my opinion is any more valid than yours Im sure when you have something of value to add , it will be dismissed as being a misstype.

TheHeretic -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 2:33:41 PM)
Obviously then, our two countries approach the matter from different philosophical outlooks. On my side of the water, we load our guns over this stuff.

Real0ne -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 2:36:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Citizens require honest independent media – it’s essential for the proper functioning of the democratic system. Is a private sector monopoly any better than a State monopoly? Is this freedom too important to be left to the private sector? Is media diversity critical? How best can we guarantee ourselves free quality media? I’d love to hear posters’ views. Thanks. lets start with understanding. By citizen you mean "a low townsman" who is "subject" to the ruler of the jurisdiction? Private sector includes what? State then does not include private sector? When you use the terms state and private how are they being used?

Real0ne -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 2:39:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Obviously then, our two countries approach the matter from different philosophical outlooks. On my side of the water, we load our guns over this stuff. yeh and then set them on the shelf go to the bar and pretend you can do anything about any of it anyway. that and a pot of beans LOL

TheHeretic -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 2:53:57 PM)
The canary is still tweeting, I see.

tweakabelle -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 3:07:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Is this freedom too important to be left to the private sector? There is a very spooky worldview implicit in this question, Tweak. The spookiness is in your head perhaps. This is not a call for State control of media at all. The question is an attempt to broach the issue of what happens when freedom of the press fails through monopoly ownership, which in my view is little different to monopoly State ownership - both monopolies promote a single set of interests. quote: TheHeretic Hearsts and Murdochs are an inevitable price of a free press, and they can always be countered by free competition. Monopolies are not dealt with by free competition - they are the precise outcome of free competition. Regulation - in the form of anti-trust measures - are the traditional way to deal with monopolies. The OP asks how best to prevent monopolies. The OP suggests that a diversity of media models - private, State-funded/staff run, and staff co-ops are 3 such models - are a better guarantee of permanently independent media than reliance on a single model of private ownership. Your thoughts on that? Given the political importance of a free press, is there a case for limiting ownership of any media to say 20-25% of market share? quote: TheHeretic An unrestricted media is our first, and best, line of defense against tyranny. I certainly agree that free media are the best defence against tyranny. It seems to me that you're ignoring the fact that media monopolies are restricted media. How do we react effectively when the free market fails and produces a restricted media?

luckydawg -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 3:13:46 PM)
Utter rubbish. There is no media Monopoly. THere are a variety of sources of all 3 models you cite as well as others. But the real issue is the lie, about fox and Canada, you told in your first Paragraph. The left has a serious need to lie about these things, and want anyone who would point out the lies silenced. Thats all it is. There is no media monoply....just hyper lying leftwingers, who want certain perspectives censored.

TheHeretic -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 3:20:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The OP suggests that a diversity of media models - private, State-funded/staff run, and staff co-ops are 3 such models - are a better guarantee of permanently independent media than reliance on a single model of private ownership. Your thoughts on that? Tweak, state-funded aside, I don't care what the business model is. I suspect that the root of your "monopoly" angle is that the paper/broadcasts you don't like are chewing up the competion that you presumably prefer. Yeah. Murdoch has been around for a good while. It takes time to build an empire you know.

PeonForHer -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 3:26:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Use hyperbole much? quote: ...no policy can be passed unless Murdoch finds it acceptable. Not when I talk politics, Sanity, no. Every Labour Party leader in the UK since Michael Foot has made the same point.

tweakabelle -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 3:30:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The OP suggests that a diversity of media models - private, State-funded/staff run, and staff co-ops are 3 such models - are a better guarantee of permanently independent media than reliance on a single model of private ownership. Your thoughts on that? Tweak, state-funded aside, I don't care what the business model is. I suspect that the root of your "monopoly" angle is that the paper/broadcasts you don't like are chewing up the competion that you presumably prefer. Yeah. Murdoch has been around for a good while. It takes time to build an empire you know. Murdoch owns 60% of press media in Australia, and has a virtual monopoly of cable TV. I believe (but am not certain) similar figures apply to his UK interests. To me, any individual - let alone any one as slimy as Murdoch - or any single set of interests owning that much media is unhealthy and means we have a restricted media. Can you have a free media without diversity of ownership?

Termyn8or -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 4:08:50 PM)
At one time in the US it was prohibited for one entity to own more than one TV station, AM, and FM radio station in the same market. Things have been reformed and now eventually one person will be in control of all that you see and hear. Not for the next hour like in The Outer Limits, but FOREVER. Happy now ? If not you will be because you will never hear anything you don't want to hear. We are the champions, we are number one and we're the greatest (wherever you happen to be). Oops, now there's that damn internet. I suspect some people don't even have a TV these days ! Those people are dangerous ! T^T

Real0ne -> RE: Media Freedom under threat? (4/9/2011 5:44:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic The canary is still tweeting, I see. plenty of worms to feed on

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625