Should the Government Decide what a Newspaper Publishes?

Generally speaking: hell, no.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Hmm.

We have separation of state and Church. I would like to see separation of state and media. I would like to see actual objectiveness in the news - not the fingermarks of big business and government influencing the slant and how things get reported (if at all.)

So no, the Government should have no influence over what a newspaper publishes. The paper should publish news based upon facts, and should not be cowed by glares from those in the Government and big business who might not want the light focused on them quite so much.

As long as money is involved....there will be fingerprints. tis unavoidable and imo capitalism should not entirely be done away with.

the opinion on the true state of affairs within the media of John Swinton, a journalist on the New York Times, who is reported to have told his staff at his retirement dinner:

[i]"There is no such thing as a free press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who would dare to write his honest opinions. The business of the journalist is to destroy truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell himself, his country, and his race, for his daily bread. We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks; they pull the strings, we dance; our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are the property of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

A corrupt media attempting to expose a corruption of freedom by f*cking with a corrupt government is like so fabulous, darling.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No.

But the gov. should put limits. We have freedom of speech, but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

Bullshit. I hate that rule. If there's an actual fire, then what the hell.

This is getting a bit stupid. It seems like the Bush Administration is getting a bit too totalitarian with their politics. I'm all for protecting national security, but the American people do have a right to know what they're doing, particularly if what they're doing could fall into the arena of breaking laws.

I'd like to see somebody force the newspaper to change the score in the paper when my team loses...that's really all I'd care to see in this regard.

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/msnbc_ko_nyt_swift_leak_060628a_240x180.mov

must see - copy and paste link

Originally posted by PVS
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/msnbc_ko_nyt_swift_leak_060628a_240x180.mov

must see - copy and paste link

That's perfect. Yet another example of how fuct the Bush administration is. However, when will all these misdeeds be dealt with?

Originally posted by Alliance
As long as money is involved....there will be fingerprints. tis unavoidable and imo capitalism should not entirely be done away with.

Hmmm, but there is a difference between just fingerprints and media sources that are actually demonstrating a political agenda. I can accept such a thing in the more underground news papers that are tools in political statement, but when a mainstream media source claiming to be impartial in reporting only the facts starts warping and "selectively editing" in order to toe a political line, and bring people in line with that line, well, that should be unnaceptable.

Media moguls such as Rupert Murdoch have used their own money to invest in their publications and TV stations, so it really should be no surprise that they use them to further their own agenda and reinforce their own political beliefs.

It's just like us voicing our own opinions here, but they can do it in a much louder, influential and further-reaching way. I don't like it, but it's the nature of that unstoppable beast called Capitalism.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Hmmm, but there is a difference between just fingerprints and media sources that are actually demonstrating a political agenda. I can accept such a thing in the more underground news papers that are tools in political statement, but when a mainstream media source claiming to be impartial in reporting only the facts starts warping and "selectively editing" in order to toe a political line, and bring people in line with that line, well, that should be unnaceptable.

I think there are no two worse culprits than Rupert Murdoch and Sun Myung Moon, the cult leader who owns the Washington Times.

I DO think the government should have their own state-controlled newspaper/magazine in order to hear their side of the story alongside with our current private enterprise media. How much does the media filter out to make a more sensational headline? How much does the media lie about or make up to further their own agendas? The media has complete control over our information; what we hear, what we watch, what we know for that matter.

The purpose of a privately-owned media corporation is not to give news in an unbiased manner for the sake of journalism. No, it's simply to make as much money as possible. Drama, sensationalism, and gory headlines sell money better than dull headlines that aren't as fantastic as we would have it.

Which makes me wonder if the media does "trounce" the actual facts up a bit to make a faux controversy to sell more newspapers and get more ratings.

Is it too much too ask to have a newspaper that is solely sponsored by the government? True, it will be biased but the media is biased as well. But we will have the option of having two sources of information from both private and governmental interests.

Originally posted by Draco69
I DO think the government should have their own state-controlled newspaper/magazine in order to hear their side of the story alongside with our current private enterprise media. How much does the media filter out to make a more sensational headline? How much does the media lie about or make up to further their own agendas? The media has complete control over our information; what we hear, what we watch, what we know for that matter.

The purpose of a privately-owned media corporation is not to give news in an unbiased manner for the sake of journalism. No, it's simply to make as much money as possible. Drama, sensationalism, and gory headlines sell money better than dull headlines that aren't as fantastic as we would have it.

Which makes me wonder if the media does "trounce" the actual facts up a bit to make a faux controversy to sell more newspapers and get more ratings.

Is it too much too ask to have a newspaper that is solely sponsored by the government? True, it will be biased but the media is biased as well. But we will have the option of having two sources of information from both private and governmental interests.

www.whitehouse.gov

or if its tv you prefer, then foxnews

Originally posted by PVS
www.whitehouse.gov

or if its tv you prefer, then foxnews

Well that's a start....

Not exactly what I was think of though...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
NO.

Freedom of the press, First Amendment.

That's like asking : "Should the government take away free speech and our decision to worship whatever we want?"

Originally posted by PVS
first watch this clip:

(copy and paste this link to your browser)
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bernie-Sanders-S.mov

then answer the question, as that jerkjob refused to: who should be allowed to decide what can and cannot be published?

...and if the government holds sway over the press, do they not have the ability to filter out any news which puts them in a bad light with the red rubber stamp "national security"? after all...by extention, any news which makes them look bad 'aids and comforts the enemy'....right?

Of course they shouldn't be allowed to.But the sad fact is they do and of course they sway over the press,and have the ability to filter out any news which puts them in a bad light.Like you said,they filter out news and don't allow people to print REAL news all in their little white lie they have of "Its because of national security." Financial Interests are what controls the media and like botankus said,its driven by Financial interests not in giving us pions knowledge.Thats why I highly recommend internet sites like rense.com and infowars.com because They do have an interest in giving us knowledge with REAL news.The mainstream media considers REAL news to be O.J.Simpson.Enough so that they plaster it on the front pages of newspapers for an entire year when thats such minor news that it SHOULD have been on the back page of a newspaper for one day and then that should have been it.They don't consider The Mena connection REAL news to cover on the front page of newspapers.How many here know about the Mena Arkansas Connection ,what its about? I bet not too many.Its REAL news but you wont see the mainstream media cover it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No.

But the gov. should put limits. We have freedom of speech, but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

correction.we are SUPPOSE to have freedom of speech but we dont.Are government has been taken over by big businesses and big corporations who control the government which is suppose to be controlled for the people,of the people and by the people like my forfathers here in the united states fought for but our constitution has been trashed by these people and has become a dictatership country now.we dont have any freddoms anymore.very few anyways and freedom of speech is not one of them.

Originally posted by Deano
the opinion on the true state of affairs within the media of John Swinton, a journalist on the New York Times, who is reported to have told his staff at his retirement dinner:

[i]"There is no such thing as a free press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who would dare to write his honest opinions. The business of the journalist is to destroy truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell himself, his country, and his race, for his daily bread. We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks; they pull the strings, we dance; our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are the property of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes."