What i dont understand is, Why would you want the media to have checks and balances? Why would you want the media to be censored? That just doesnt make any sense to me. The media is an extention of our first amemndment rights. There can be NO checks against it! Doing so would put our right to free speach at risk.
the problem is the media often acts irresponsibly and can even shape reality just by broadcasting imagined reality. Granted, it is up to the individual to absorb and judge all information provided by the media.
Originally Posted by eestlinc
But, that still 100 times better than having the government strictly control the media. I'd rather have the media sometimes act irresponisbly than to have the government use it as a tool to sprout its propaganda down my throat (Blatantly that is).
i agree to that as well. however the real problem isn't the government controlling the media as much as the same people or groups controlling both the government and the media.
I am extremely amused that Bill O'Reilly, a member OF the media, is bashing the media.
In any event, the media is checked by the following:
The need to make money.
The media exists at the mercy of the people. If people don't buy what the media says, the media doesn't make money, and the media ceases to exist. Unfortunately that leads to the need for sensationalism, but so long as people are willing to give the media that power, the media is going to use it.
Instead of saying "someone needs to check the media" why not say "darn it, I don't like what the media is doing and I'm going to DO something about it."
I mean really. I've said this before and I shall say it again. We ARE taught ethics. It's not like the entire institution of the media is a soulless business that exists to slander anybody it disagrees with. We're taught to act with professionalism and we're taught how to report in as unbiased a manner as possible. Doesn't always turn out that way, of course, but it is how we're supposed to act. If you don't think that's true, then do something about it. In the age of the internet, it isn't as hard to rally people and take action as it was long ago. And remember, centuries ago people were able to rally whole ARMIES to change what they thought needed to be changed. I'm sure if you think it that bad you can do SOMETHING about it.
The BBC are sickeningly pro-Labour, especially since the Hutton Report, when they've not dared say a word against them.
Actually it's not really quite so simple. Most (all?) media is regulated by Ofcom, which puts strict regulations on how politics is portrayed. For instance, if you wish to interview a member of a political party, you have to give notice to the other parties so they can give a response.
And if you watched the election coverage, Paxman was bashing Labour as badly as he was the Tories and the Lib Dems.
<3
Of course it's possible, they don't cancel TV shows when their ratings are exactly 0. If a significant ammount of people stop watching or listening, the media outlets will do what they can to get them back. As I heard on an episode of Boston Public; the media is a business free to sell whatever product they want, and the people are free to buy or not buy it. And if they want to buy crap, that's their problem. Just like it's their problem if they elect a crooked congress and president (And Supreme Court? Well some crooked dick they elected could appoint them to serve his interests if it's not directly set by the people). And the parties will nominate a crooked guy for president if they think he can win.
Paxman, with the exception of the now retiring John Humphreys, is the only unbiased BBC interviewer.
<3
But during the elections, I was finding it interesting what stories the BBC covered. For example, they made a story out of how some Tory MPs said Michael Howard was too extreme, whereas I don't recall them having the story that Labour made anti-semitic posters about Howard and Letwin (Putting their heads onto pigs), which differs from other channels.
psy is right there is an obvious liberal bias in the BBC ranks it's not an intentional thing its just the only people who seem to want to work for the bbc come from liberal bents and hence they favour the left.
besides i dont' watch bbc news i watch sky news, give me a news station that is run on capitilism any day.
Your sig is too hilarious and witty, thus i have removed it to protect the minds of all forum goers
-The allways inspiring leeza
Granted, through such acts as Executive Priviledge (first invoked by Eisenhower), each branch of the government--and the government as a whole--has far overstepped the bounds it was created within. However, the Judiciary branch is a law unto itself. Once a federal judge is appointed, they have the power to abolish, create, or change any law they want, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.Then again, the judicial branch certainly is not without peer in this sense considering the myriad executive and legislative oversteps through the years.
Due mainly to Republican spinelessness, a very sizable majority of judges are liberal, and it's no surprise that the majority of liberal policies inflicted upon our nation were brought to power not at the ballot but through the judiciary--even Planned Parenthood admits that abortion, for example, would be banned in the majority of states either immediately after or within a year of any Supreme Court decision overturning Roe vs. Wade.
"Due mainly to Republican spinelessness, a very sizable majority of judges are liberal, and it's no surprise that the majority of liberal policies inflicted upon our nation were brought to power not at the ballot but through the judiciary--even Planned Parenthood admits that abortion, for example, would be banned in the majority of states either immediately after or within a year of any Supreme Court decision overturning Roe vs. Wade."
I don't see how policies can be "inflicted" upon a nation as that gives it the message that some great harm is being placed upon the country. Judges, regardless of anything else, intepret the law, they don't "inflict" policies one way or the other. Whether we like it or not, opinion has little say in how law is intepreted. Judges, whether they tend to shift to the right or left have to intepret the law as they see fit and if they do blatantly shift to one side or the other they shouldn't be on the bench.
Also, keep in mind that the Supreme Court is the court of the entire country, so it must intepret the law for the good of the entire country, not just for selected states, in either direction.
Take care all.
:D That's exactly the message I intended to give.don't see how policies can be "inflicted" upon a nation as that gives it the message that some great harm is being placed upon the country.
And herein is the problem. They are supposed to simply interpret the law, but we end up with judges who tell a mother she can't teach any of Christianity to her daughter unless someone's reviewed it, or overturn jury verdicts because the jury was sequestered in a hotel room where they had access to Bibles, or just about anything done by the 9th Circus Court of Appeals.Judges, regardless of anything else, intepret the law, they don't "inflict" policies one way or the other. Whether we like it or not, opinion has little say in how law is intepreted. Judges, whether they tend to shift to the right or left have to intepret the law as they see fit and if they do blatantly shift to one side or the other they shouldn't be on the bench.
That's only half the issue though, the reverse is also true, as you have judges basing law directly out of the Bible which is also not what should be done.
Take care all.
Which judge is basing law directly out of the Bible?That's only half the issue though, the reverse is also true, as you have judges basing law directly out of the Bible which is also not what should be done.
Posting Permissions
