View Full Version : Freedom of the press, a freedom we could do without
No, I am not a fascist, I just don't think that freedom of the press is such a good thing. When news agencies claim to be completely unbiased, they aren't (hence they are lying) and when they do reports they often try and spin it way out of proportion. My friend and I were interviewed by a newspaper reporter who didn't even speak English properly (kept saying "Yous" instead of you) and then in the article what we said was changed, some stuff we didn't even say at all! :wall:
At least with a state press you KNOW it is biased, there was also a news special on a kid (A) who got suspended from my school for getting into a fight with another kid (B), who also got suspended I might add, but the reporters kindly omitted this detail. Why do a special on this? Because A's mother was a lesbian, so they tried to make out that A was attacked by B because of his mother's sexuality, the truth of the matter is that A spat in B's face, so B punched A and the fight started.
In fact B didn't even know that A's mother was a lesbian. A gets teased on the bus to school but kids from his neighbourhood, is the school to blame? Aparently so, as thats how they made it out. The reporters weaved their web of propaganda to influence the minds of the people against my school. However the funny thing is that locals were shocked by how biased the media was and supported the school.
This is why I hate the press, if only they ADMITTED to being biased people maybe wouldn't take everything they hear on the news as fact.
Another example, when NZ troops went to war last year in Papa New Guinea (I think it was) the media portrayed the rebels as suicidal looneys wielding machetes and cutlery, I didn't think that seem right. It turns out that later during the week the reporters admitted "They appear more organised than we first thought" but of course they tried to pin it on the government.
ALL news is propaganda and ALL news is biased (at least to some degree), yet people still believe the lies that are broadcast. Why? :shame:
PanzerJaeger
01-14-2007, 05:52
Its a difficult problem.
They are all liars and propagandists for their respective ideologies.
However, state press is far worse. Stories cannot just be biased, they can be completely ignored.
You just have to cull through several stories from more than one source and put the pieces together. Its amazing whats left out of a story from one agency, and whats put into the same story by others.
They have way too much sway over the populace - but at least with the internet the real story is out there, if you are willing to look.
So the options as you see it is a free press which lies or a state press which also lies? I'll take the free press, because at least they can chose to tell the truth.
A free press does not mean a completely accurate, unbiased or indeed truthful press and I'm not sure why you think it should. But you have more chance of reading the truth with a free press than you ever have with a state controlled press.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-14-2007, 05:55
The press will lie to make profit. This is far better than the reasons a government would have for lying.
I realise that both lie and that both are biased but what I am saying is by having a state press people KNOW it is biased and won't accept it as totally true, unlike with a free press who claim to be unbiased. It is just so that people realise that they shouldn't believe everything they hear.
In NZ we have only 2 tv news programs which are 1 hour long at 6pm. 1/3 of which is sport, 1/3 is NZ and Oceania news and 1/3 is international. They cover the same material, usually with the same opinions.
I also hate how the media feel it is their duty to criticise the government so thoroughly that they never actually highlight any decent things the government does and how they hunt for the saddest story but don't actually do anything to help the people.
There are two types of people I think society would be better without, the news people and politicians. :sweatdrop:
What I mean by the title is that: Freedom of the press shouldn't mean freedom to write whatever the hell you want whether it be true or not.
Banquo's Ghost
01-14-2007, 09:49
You are aware that removal of freedom of the press brings with it removal of freedom of speech for ordinary people?
The state tells you what you want to know. You have no way of finding out anything different because there is no free media. As an individual, you speculate privately about other options, but the moment you speak them openly, you are challenging what the state has told you. Bye.
To accuse the press of bias is simplistic. We are all biased. Your post is biased. My post is biased. We debate here and other places so that our biases can be challenged. A person of wit should always be challenging their prejudices, though they are comfortable for us. Having a free press is a delight, a frustration, but a core pillar of a free society.
Your call is a plea to be told what to think.
Patriarch of Constantinople
01-14-2007, 11:02
the media portrayed the rebels as suicidal looneys wielding machetes and cutlery
Like media portraying Muslims as scimitar weilding, camel riding terrorists who go "ALLAH! DEATH TO THE INFIDELS!"
You are aware that removal of freedom of the press brings with it removal of freedom of speech for ordinary people?
The state tells you what you want to know. You have no way of finding out anything different because there is no free media. As an individual, you speculate privately about other options, but the moment you speak them openly, you are challenging what the state has told you. Bye.
To accuse the press of bias is simplistic. We are all biased. Your post is biased. My post is biased. We debate here and other places so that our biases can be challenged. A person of wit should always be challenging their prejudices, though they are comfortable for us. Having a free press is a delight, a frustration, but a core pillar of a free society.
Your call is a plea to be told what to think.
I completely agree with you, though I'm not in favour of totalitarianism, I just think that news programs should have a message saying "Warning: may present a biased report" then maybe people wouldn't so readily accept what they hear on tv.
I like to debate with friends and family over current events and historical issues and I always take the opposing side to their views (regardless of my own views) because I find it frustrating how they don't think outside what they are told on the news. I have argued with my history teacher over the Vietnam war on the American side (since our history book was EXTREMELY biased as it was written by an anti-war protestor) and convinced her that it was not as much of an unnecissary waste of life as it is made out to be.
Though the problem here is that people don't have enough knowledge of their own. The average kiwi would have difficuilty finding Lebanon on a labeled map, let alone telling you anything about the place. Sadly history and geography are very much neglected in our education system, which means most people have limited knowledge about the rest of the world.
rory_20_uk
01-14-2007, 13:44
People are generally idiots. People in general don't want news, they want olds - to be told what they already think they know.
People go to their usual church not to confront their faith, but to have what they believe repeated to them like an endless echo. Similarly the people that read the Mail will rarely if ever read the Guardian. Stations have to give a view that their target audience wants to hear.
But at least the information is out there, even if people choose to self censor.
In my hospital there is a paper that is released weekly, and it rivals the North Korean Times for content. Everything is positive, with such minor matters as the senior managers' pay rises not making an appearance, nor the staff cuts or the departments that are being shut. We get that news from the local paper, and then photocopy articles for the departments.
A small example I know, but I'd rather know the truth than merely know what isn't true.
~:smoking:
Cronos Impera
01-14-2007, 14:02
The problem isn't freedom, it's stupidity and commercialism.
Money makes the world go round and liberty is also subjected to the laws of economy. The press is a mirror of a particular society. A consumerist one would have a more trivia oriented press while a third-world democracy is more likely to have more profound ones. The press writes what people expect to hear not the truth (the truth isn't profitable while lies are henceforth one must lie to sell his newspaper).
More concerned about the media shaping events rather then being biased, see Fortuyn. But biased they are, in favour of the left. We had a pretty nasty incident with illegal toxic dumping in Ivory Coast, 8 dead thousands sick, after a lot of wardrums and soon to come documentories on the statechannels suddenly all the craze died, as it turns out the one responsible for all this was a member of the green party, who sadly have editorial immunity. The media knows her task very well, never heard of it again.
I've been writing for regional newspapers for ten years, so I do have some experience with all this.
The newspaper I write for, and myself, are being investigated by the Quebec Newspaper Council for an article I wrote about the drinking water in my small town. The town council didn't like what I wrote and filed a formal complaint.
For weeks last summer the water here stank of fish and was piss yellow. It was not fit for human consumption, people were very angry, yet the municipal authorities did nothing. So I wrote about it. One subtle passage remarked, "The water in __________ looks like ****, smells like ****, and tastes like ****." (No stars in the paper, we can say the word.)
I accused the town council of trying to kill off the poor and the elderly with the bad water to make room for the rich city folks moving in and buying all the land. Then, I threatened them. I mentioned Walkerton, Ontario, where seven people were killed and hundreds made seriously ill by bad water, and wrote that if even one person in town gets sick from the water, the citizens should grab the mayor and councilors by their throats and shake them until their brains rattle off the sides of their skulls.
The day after the paper was published the town council went ballistic. Threats of lawsuits, complaints to the newspaper council, even a charming phone call from city hall calling me "Completely ******* ignorant!" What a day.
But other things happened as well. The town flushed the entire water system, had trappers get all the beavers away from the lake that serves as our water supply, put out a pamphlet in the mail that spoke in detail about the quality of the water and what they were going to do about it, and within days the water improved.
The moral is this - if the authorities can tax, fine, impose, imprison, legislate, and affect our lives at fundamental levels, then we have the right to complain about it. Period.
Viva la revolution!
Del Arroyo
01-14-2007, 16:13
:laugh4: LOL, Beirut, a great example of journalistic activism.
KukriKhan
01-14-2007, 16:18
The moral is this - if the authorities can tax, fine, impose, imprison, legislate, and affect our lives at fundamental levels, then we have the right to complain about it. Period
In Public. On the Record. Hence the need for a free (as in unfettered) press.
If you were in the US (I know; perish the thought), I would add that not only do you have the RIGHT to complain, you also have the DUTY to complain.
Duke of Gloucester
01-14-2007, 17:46
I
But other things happened as well. The town flushed the entire water system, had trappers get all the beavers away from the lake that serves as our water supply, put out a pamphlet in the mail that spoke in detail about the quality of the water and what they were going to do about it, and within days the water improved.
Viva la revolution!
The problem is that for every one story like this which gets something done we get 10 stories like the one Hepcat refers to, where the details are changed to make the story more interesting and 100 stories where the details are wrong because the journalists can't be bothered to get the details right. My view on this: the only thing you can rely on that you read in the paper is the date (and then I would check it just to make sure).
However, state newspapers would have the 10 and 100 stories, but not the one that made a difference. That would be much worse.
The problem is that for every one story like this which gets something done we get 10 stories like the one Hepcat refers to, where the details are changed to make the story more interesting and 100 stories where the details are wrong because the journalists can't be bothered to get the details right. My view on this: the only thing you can rely on that you read in the paper is the date (and then I would check it just to make sure).
Are you implying that the press should live up to the excellent standards of accuracy that our governments do?
doc_bean
01-14-2007, 18:27
The idea of free press is not to get a completely accurate and unbiased press, the idea is to get biased press from all sides, so the lies and bias kinda cancel eachother out. it's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've got (actually the internet blogging 'culture' is a new form of 'press' it would seem).
What's dangerous is one organization, or one person controlling all the media, then you have something to worry about.
Duke of Gloucester
01-14-2007, 18:49
Are you implying that the press should live up to the excellent standards of accuracy that our governments do?
I think my second paragraph makes clear my views about what government controlled press would be like. Let us be honest, saying newspapers are more accurate than governments is damning with faint praise.
Let us be honest, saying newspapers are more accurate than governments is damning with faint praise.
Both are reflections of the society they represent. Both are horrid. But in a democracy a free press must be at least 1% meaner than the government. If we're going to err, let's err on the side of expression, not discretion.
Both are reflections of the society they represent. Both are horrid. But in a democracy a free press must be at least 1% meaner than the government. If we're going to err, let's err on the side of expression, not discretion.
Its better to be accurate and forthcoming in your reporting then it is to be just expressing, unless of course one is writing an opinion piece then it must reflect the journalist's opinion.
The ability to express is important in journalism - that is what sells the papers, but that desire should not detract from the accuracy of the information.
Freedom and democracy is based upon information.
Freedom and democracy is based upon information.
The quality of information is subjective at best. There is much information the government thinks you should not have, likewise there is much you think the government should not have. Information, it is said, is power.
The act of dissenting is often more important than the reason or logic behind the dissent. If we allow only reasonable dissent, then odds are it will be those we are dissenting against who will set the limit. On the other hand, dissent does have limits. Those limits must always be pushed as far as they can until the other side pushes back. It is through that battle that democracy evolves.
Spetulhu
01-14-2007, 22:08
Freedom and democracy is based upon information.
Didn't one of the founding fathers say democracy was based on an educated and informed population? The sad fact is that people can't be bothered. They'd rather go ooh over the latest scandalous bimbo than read something dry about every-day politics.
The quality of information is subjective at best. There is much information the government thinks you should not have, likewise there is much you think the government should not have. Information, it is said, is power.
Information is indeed power - that is why the ethical journalist will at least attempt to give the most accurate and unbaised reporting that they can. If the journalist is writing an opinion piece I expect and enjoy reading their opinion. However if the journalist is reporting a story and is claiming that its an accurate report - I expect it to include as much information as the journalist can gather, for it to be organized into data that is confirmed, and what data is speculation or non-confirmed information.
This is how we as individual can determine how accurate the information is so we can make our objective opinion on the subject. Reporting of facts should not be tainted by the baised views of the opinion of the report without that reporting informing the readers of said baised.
The act of dissenting is often more important than the reason or logic behind the dissent. If we allow only reasonable dissent, then odds are it will be those we are dissenting against who will set the limit. On the other hand, dissent does have limits. Those limits must always be pushed as far as they can until the other side pushes back. It is through that battle that democracy evolves.
Dissent without valid reason is not dissent, its just mob reaction to foolish claims of foolish people, which foolish reports contribute to by feeding into the hysteria versus reporting the facts and the truth.
Your statement here contradicts itself to the point of having no meaning. Dissent should be based upon what actions the government has done or not done.
Didn't one of the founding fathers say democracy was based on an educated and informed population? The sad fact is that people can't be bothered. They'd rather go ooh over the latest scandalous bimbo than read something dry about every-day politics.
Yes one of the founding fathers of the United States did indeed state that - I believe it was Thomas Jefferson if my memory serves me correctly. If people can not be bothered with informing themselves they get the government that they deserve and the press that they deserve also.
Kralizec
01-14-2007, 23:32
I accused the town council of trying to kill....
That's a serious accusation - from what you're saying I'd assume it was red tape, at most apathy (wich is pretty bad) from the administration that caused their action - direct intent to kill off part of the populace? Maybe you were just being cynical, but I'm not surprised that the council takes offence.
-------
Unlike Fragony, I don't get the impression that the situation is particulary bad here, not that it's any good...
Kralizec
01-14-2007, 23:32
I accused the town council of trying to kill....
That's a serious accusation - from what you're saying I'd assume it was red tape, at most apathy (wich is pretty bad) from the administration that caused their action - direct intent to kill off part of the populace? Maybe you were just being cynical, but I'm not surprised that the council takes offence.
-------
Unlike Fragony, I don't get the impression that the situation is particulary bad here, not that it's any good...
That's a serious accusation - from what you're saying I'd assume it was red tape, at most apathy (wich is pretty bad) from the administration that caused their action - direct intent to kill off part of the populace? Maybe you were just being cynical, but I'm not surprised that the council takes offence.
Black humour, if you want to call it that. It's my calling card. I have zero sympathy for those in power who abuse said power and forget their responsibilities to the ordinary people. They get the pen full thrust.
However if the journalist is reporting a story and is claiming that its an accurate report - I expect it to include as much information as the journalist can gather, for it to be organized into data that is confirmed, and what data is speculation or non-confirmed information.
Agreed.
I don't pass myself off as a reporter, only a writer. When I do play reporter, not often, I play by the rules.
Dissent without valid reason is not dissent, its just mob reaction to foolish claims of foolish people, which foolish reports contribute to by feeding into the hysteria versus reporting the facts and the truth.
Your statement here contradicts itself to the point of having no meaning. Dissent should be based upon what actions the government has done or not done.
I don't agree.
We're not discussing Elvis sightings and UFO landings, we're discussing serious social issues. In that case, the writer must accept that people will take it seriously and those who do not agree with his opinion will scrutinize and criticize his work seriously. So unless the writer is a total hack, in which case no one will take him seriously, he is taking some effort to present the legitimate thoughts of a section of society. Those people are allowed their public representation. If that goes against the party line or conventional wisdom, so be it.
Freedom of expression is a duty (thank you Kukri) and a responsibility. If the writer is willing to be held responsible for what he writes, then he should be allowed to write it. Even if it says Elvis landed in a UFO.
I don't pass myself off as a reporter, only a writer. When I do play reporter, not often, I play by the rules.
Good to know.
I don't agree.
We're not discussing Elvis sightings and UFO landings, we're discussing serious social issues. In that case, the writer must accept that people will take it seriously and those who do not agree with his opinion will scrutinize and criticize his work seriously. So unless the writer is a total hack, in which case no one will take him seriously, he is taking some effort to present the legitimate thoughts of a section of society. Those people are allowed their public representation. If that goes against the party line or conventional wisdom, so be it.
Freedom of expression is a duty (thank you Kukri) and a responsibility. If the writer is willing to be held responsible for what he writes, then he should be allowed to write it. Even if it says Elvis landed in a UFO.
Serious social issues is not unreasonable dissent. What you write here is not the initial message I got from your comments. This is perfectably reasonable expectations of reporting events. Reporters have an obligation to record facts and to inform the people when they are expressing their opinion on facts. To do otherwise is a disservice to the people whom they are wishing to inform.
Serious social issues is not unreasonable dissent.
What is unreasonable dissent in your opinion?
IrishArmenian
01-15-2007, 04:07
With certain military acions, the press has no right to report on it. However, the people are privy to know what is going on. Modern Example: reporters should be able to print stories on "Slick Willy's" escapades and be able to write "How the hell does an old man from Arkansas still have it?".
Marshal Murat
01-15-2007, 05:06
In a book that I read there are two politicians
Politician 1:Force never solves anything!
Politician 2:Tell that to the CSA and the Nazi's.
The 1st Politician was blank, because history was an elective.
Like you'll hear, if you don't know history you will repeat it.
Pizzaro in Peru is a perfect example. He invites the Emperor to meet him to talk. Now, any educated person will point to any number of literature pieces that decisively argues against such a meeting. While any Incan with no written literature thinks 'hmmm, sounds good, lets talk!"
An educated populance is key to a good democracy, and while some couldn't figure Iraq from Ireland, they still have views that should be expressed in their vote.
The problem with the news sources and then such together, is that I'll get 4+ news sources in a day (BBC, NPR, local news, TV) while alot of my friends get 2 or so (Newspaper and TV, with some gossip thrown in)
The news (as much as I hate to say it) has a duty to police the government.
However, sometimes I have conflicting views.
In WW2 you hear about booming industry and conflicts and etc. You get very positive feelings, and the Democracy can carry the war on longer. However, Vietnam+ you get news sources that are strong anti-propoganda (whole 1984 thing) and give you the nitty-gritty which totally RUINS the Democratic ability to wage war.
Modern war sucks for Democracies because the nitty-gritty scares people, and they can't take the loses like you could have.
Winter War with Finland is a prime example. Stalin took horrific losses everywhere, but could forge ahead because he was 'Communist fatherland leader man dude.' He could take massive losses and keep on going.
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
What I meant by press feeling the need to criticise everything the government does is not anything like Beirut's story in which the council clearly had something to answer for.
It is all the complete CRAP which spews out of the press which frustrates me. Accusations of the Prime Minister's husband being gay, focusing on a story about the Prime Minister's driver driving faster than the speed limit while taking her to some meeting (she was in the back seat and they try to make her look responsible for it), the STUPID story which ran for nearly a week about one rugby player hitting another rugby player with a women's purse, the news special trying to slander my school and the story I mentioned before where they change what was said and reword things so that it gives a different message.
It is these experiences that have caused me to lose all faith in the media as any credible source for information, yet when I tell people that the news is biased they won't believe me :wall:. "But how?" they exclaim. "We are a democratic country, we don't get told lies!"
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
Kommodus
01-15-2007, 06:48
Hepcat, I feel your frustration. Most of the news (from virtually all sources) is skewed, to varying degrees - much of it badly. It's hard to know what, if anything, is trustworthy, and even if you think you know, you probably won't get many people to agree with you.
Still, I'd advise you to listen to what the good people here are saying. The press is one of the most important guards we have against tyranny, even when it functions badly. Allowing governments to control the information is a sure-fire way to destroy freedom.
(Hehe, I recently finished reading Democracy In America. Can you tell?)
Anyway, I don't think many people are really naive enough to think their press doesn't lie to them. The key is for everyone to be well-educated and trained to think critically. Then, by comparing the information from multiple sources, we have a better chance at getting closer to the truth.
Of course, that would be impossible if there were only one source (the state press). Look at China for a fine example. :no:
Well, oddly enough, the Backroom is my main source of news now, since I can at least see arguments for various viewpoints in the topics and learn a bit more about it from people's different point of view. Though I don't post often in debates because I am not very good at explaining my views without writing an essay, and usually someone says what I am thinking anyway.
I only read the paper during my break at work and don't watch the news anymore, all the major stories that interest me I can find here.
:2thumbsup:
Thanks people!
PanzerJaeger
01-15-2007, 09:16
No, I am not a fascist,
Dont knock it until you try it. We've got cookies.... :yes:
The sad fact is that people can't be bothered. They'd rather go ooh over the latest scandalous bimbo than read something dry about every-day politics.
Indeed.
While there are plenty of intresting news items in the own country as well as abroad, often more then 1/3 of our television news is spent on crap like "Paris Hilton showed her breast", "Wendy van Wanten found a new lover in our new popular television program", "Superstar I'm Not Interested is gay", "Blablabla won "Dancing on Ice" ", "Mister Who Cares??? won Big Brother", "Btw, Superstar I'm not interested is not gay, he's bi", ....
:wall:
I'm waiting for the day televisions cost 1 € a piece. I would throw a few of them out of the window every day.
Unfortunately, since I'm no millionaire, I'm limited to throwing my socks at it to ventilate my anger. Tearing up a newspaper and kicking the shreds around the house is also great fun.
What is unreasonable dissent in your opinion?
One without any foundation in fact.
Watchman
01-15-2007, 15:13
And who gets to pass judgement on the factual basis of dissent, then...?
yesdachi
01-15-2007, 16:19
Freedom of the press is important but it does need to be kept in check, that’s the hard part because we all want to know stuff even when we know we shouldn’t we still want to. How many of us would open Pandora’s Box (knowing that there was only a little news inside and not the end of the world)? Probably lots, and that’s the trouble, our curiosity gets the better of us and we throw what’s right out the window and we read/watch whatever the media can get to us. It could be a story about troop movement or Britney’s crotch, we shouldn’t be looking at either but we do (some we looked at twice :eyebrows:) and we will again if the media shows us. The people will not look away and we will even sit thru a commercial break to see the rest of the story and that’s what drives the media. It would be nice if the media would turn down a story or report it in respectful manner (like without the exact coordinates of our troops, their equipment and lodging arrangements.) but that doesn’t get the ratings as easily and the media is lazy and sensational.
I work PR with local and national media all the time and the one common thing I have found with all of them is that they are always (some exceptions apply) looking for the laziest way of doing things that will get them the largest audience. I say laziest rather than easiest because it is easy to get a second opinion or verify a source but they skip that part all the time when they have “enough” for the story, that’s lazy to me and often wrongly represents the story. (Knowing and understanding that, I try as hard as I can to provide the right information to make the story as skewed my way as possible, usually works too! ~D)
I have found that if you want the real story (go to the .org ~D ) you should try and catch it in as many sources as you can because they will all want to get a different take on the story just so they can have a shot at the same audience and not be considered copy cats. If you read the same story on FOX, CNN, ABC, etc. you might get a more rounded idea of the real situation. Local news is tougher because there isn’t usually an abundance of sources :sad:.
The government and even some private sector companies/institutions should kick the media out of some of their operations, the media should hold themselves to a higher standard and endorsing companies should look at the morals of the show they advertise in and not the ratings. But that is probably just a dream as kicking the media out will get you less favorable coverage when you do want it, higher standards equal more work and moral shows don’t get the same ratings as sensational ones.
Watchman
01-15-2007, 16:23
The highest return for the smallest investement sounds like solid capitalist thinking if you ask me...
yesdachi
01-15-2007, 16:38
The highest return for the smallest investement sounds like solid capitalist thinking if you ask me...
IMO capitalisms greed often ignores hard work and truthiness for a quick return.
And who gets to pass judgement on the factual basis of dissent, then...?
The people
Watchman
01-15-2007, 17:31
IMO capitalisms greed often ignores hard work and truthiness for a quick return.Anyone who claims different is probably trying to sell you something. :deal2:
The people:dozey:
...I can get nothing without asking, thank you.
...I can get nothing without asking, thank you.
Your most welcome.
The people must be the judge and jury. In order to do so they must be informed. In order to accomplish this the people must be willing to be informed and must activitily seek to be informed. This is the dileminia we face as the people. Many of us are just to damn lazy to keep themselves informed.
Hince the vicous circle continues. The people want to be entertained, the Press only entertains us.
The people must be the judge and jury. In order to do so they must be informed. In order to accomplish this the people must be willing to be informed and must activitily seek to be informed.
Interesting. But from my experience it is not the people who object to uninformed dissenting opinion, but those in power. The people, often as not, could care less. So if it is the people who must be judge and jury, would you agree that a touch a of uninformed dissenting opinion is healthy as it maintains the pressure of free expression and allows Joe Reader the opportunity to know and separate the intellectual wheat from the chaff?
Interesting. But from my experience it is not the people who object to uninformed dissenting opinion, but those in power. The people, often as not, could care less. So if it is the people who must be judge and jury, would you agree that a touch a of uninformed dissenting opinion is healthy as it maintains the pressure of free expression and allows Joe Reader the opportunity to know and separate the intellectual wheat from the chaff?
With the amount of things that any government does - even the most charitable and beneficial government makes mistakes - un-informed dissent only shows how maleable the people are. If your going to dissent have a reason based upon being informed - I detest mob rule.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.