Is there such a thing as free press? Are independent news outlets impartial?

No. Check out my last post. You'll probably hate me. I don't care. I've been a Skinhead for 15 years (not racist, a proper English Skin).

If you were trying to get me to hate you, you failed. I think it's unfortunate that someone as eloquent as you is so misinformed. Pity.

Nox

All media outlets are biased. Even in my school newspaper you are not allowed to publish anything that might damage school spirit. I just wonder how bad it gets on a much larger scale, where so much more is at stake. I even know if I want to know. I never trust the media, and have to go to places like totse and the ACLU to hear what I need to know. To my knowledge none of the major news outlets have even mentioned the Information Awareness Office, what is up with that? Think about it.

"Free press" normally means no goverment control. In capitalist society, the media is controlled by corporations. Independent media relies on donations from the gov't (usually democratic), and donations from citizens (usually liberal), so they cater to a specific demographic as well.

Pure 100% objective news doesn't exist. But it's fairly easy to read between the lines.

quote:

---

Originally posted by user X:


Pure 100% objective news doesn't exist. But it's fairly easy to read between the lines.

---

It was a loaded question, we all know that the news is mostly bs, but it shouldn't be.

"In 1983 there were fifty corporations that controlled the media market, as of the year 2000 it is down to six."(Kenn Thomas)

The 1st amendment of the Constitution guarantees the people the right to free press. Why has the government allowed a monoply of the press? If this were any other market, people would be screaming anti-trust.

Right now the FCC is looking at loosening the restrictions on how much control one company can have on media in a single community. "Soon, one company in a town will be able to control the newspaper, several TV and radio stations, the cable system, and the principal ISP..." democraticmedia.org

This country needs diversity, if we continue to let others limit our options, one day we won't have any options left.

If you want to voice your opinion to the FCC and your Congressperson...clickhere.


[This message has been edited by Templeton (edited 12-11-2002).]

Whoever owns the media outlets; has the constitional right to produce whatever they want. That's "free press".

And your scenario of small towns being unduly influenced is too far-fetched. You mention the local IP - as if they will filter out all pages from the outside world? Not likely.

quote:

---

Originally posted by user X:
Whoever owns the media outlets; has the constitional right to produce whatever they want. That's "free press".

---

True, but the American people, or any people for that matter should be allowed to know what is really happening in the world around them.

quote:

---

And your scenario of small towns being unduly influenced is too far-fetched. You mention the local IP - as if they will filter out all pages from the outside world? Not likely.

---

That was text taken from here--->democraticmedia.org

I believe they were refering to AOL-TimeWarner types. There was no mention of filtering web content, but AOL does censor searches if you use their search engine. As for TimeWarner, you can not pick whatever channels you want, you can only pick from the channels they offer.


[This message has been edited by Templeton (edited 12-12-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Templeton:
people should be allowed to know what is really happening in the world around them.

---

Media outlet ownership consolidation doesn't DIS-allow access to information. People should still be responsible for seeking out the truth, just because it becomes inconvenient for the lazy, doesn't mean that someone is preventing them from obtaining it. Most of the major outlets suck anyway. Is the news department supposed to be credible just because it's down the hall from Leno?

"The weakening of media ownership safeguards ...has meant a greater focus on bottom-line tabloid programming." - from the link.

Does it matter? when drool is more profitable than substance?

we're surrounded, all the information avaible to me has either been tampered with or changed or made up. there are some free press out there but not many. but really, if u can think for yourself you might be able to filter the crap that comes from the news on tv

quote:

---

Originally posted by user X:
People should still be responsible for seeking out the truth.

---

There is a good portion of the working class and below that actually believe what they see on tv, and they vote.

That is not the point to this thread though. By letting fewer companies control more media and everything else; it gives the people less options in general.



[This message has been edited by Templeton (edited 12-13-2002).]

You find no objection with the fact that society has deteriorated to the point; where it has to provide a tit to it's voting-age adults for their entire life? If the stupid are that hopeless, then they shouldn't be voting.

Besides, none of those 6 corporations owns my community's newspaper. They can't control the discourse at totse. They can't buy PBS.

And are you going to give 'em a little Mozart with their Eminem? because they're also tone deaf drones with no sense of beauty?

If the point is just inconvenience, then zzz.

In the United States, today's 50 largest media companies account for little more of total media revenue than did the companies that made up the top 50 in 1986.

Incremental growth of smaller companies and breakups and divestures do not recieve much publicity.

I suspect that Nox and Templeton are conspiring to turn Politics... into Conspiracy!