Freedom of the press, a freedom we could do without

[Hepcat]

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!

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?

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[Slyspy]

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]

The press will lie to make profit. This is far better than the reasons a government would have for lying.

[Hepcat]

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.

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]

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]

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!"

[Hepcat]

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]

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.

[Cronos Impera]

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).

[Fragony]

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.

[Beirut]

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]

LOL, Beirut, a great example of journalistic activism.

[KukriKhan]

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]

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.

[Beirut]

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]

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]

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.

[Beirut]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Beirut]

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]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Redleg]

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]

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]

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...

[Beirut]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Beirut]

Serious social issues is not unreasonable dissent.

What is unreasonable dissent in your opinion?

[IrishArmenian]

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?".