Post by Arbee on Jan 16, 2010 20:22:27 GMT -8
Once again, this is one of those topics where you're going to be expected to have a mature, sensible outlook on the topic at all times, no matter what. If politics offends you, please take your chance to exit now. If you feel that you can contribute to the discussion, welcome on in. This is primarily geared toward United States citizens, but as long as you're a member here at the Maddhaus, you're more than welcome to give your input. So, let the long walk off the short pier begin...
Rather than jump straight into the discussion, I'm going to give you a good bunch of chances to back out or change your mind. So, are you going to continue ahead, or are you going to leave?
Seriously. You might get offended by what I imply here. If you're not sure you can handle it, nobody's going to call you weak or pathetic or make fun of you behind your back or to your face. I promise.
Okay, this is your last warning. I'm going to be going straight into the topic with my next sentence.
Hokay, well, I see you're still here, so I'll begin. The topic we're delving into today doesn't really cover any modern topics or recent news--yet at the same time, it does. My personal opinion of the media and its use of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as a shield is not a very good one at all. For instance, I don't think that reporters and camera crews belong behind a SWAT team attempting to rescue a hostage, especially if they're live. I don't believe that reporters should be allowed to follow celebrities (or anybody, for that matter) with the aggressiveness they do. In my opinion, it isn't right that the stories you see in the tabloids and see on TV are allowed to legally be published or aired.
Now, before I go on, I would like to say that I'm not some extremist who hates all news and media. Television, radio, newspapers, et cetera are all very useful. They bring us news, warnings, updates, and (most importantly) they keep all the idiots entertained so that we don't have to deal with them until their urge to go to Wal-Mart is greater than their urge to watch Jerry Springer.
I've always been of the opinion that freedom of speech needs to be limited somehow, and that's not necessarily to "brainwash" or "control" the population (the media already does that just fine without the limitations). There are just some things that don't need to be publicized straightaway (police and military operations that are relying on speed and surprise) or at all (what Michelle Obama's hair looked like when she was cooking breakfast on Thursday).
Remember when sneaking around and following somebody was called "harassment" or "stalking," and telling lies about them was called "slander" or "libel" or "defamation?" Why should it be any different now? There are plenty of interesting and exciting stories out there that don't involve which cereal brand the "Hollywood elite" prefer, or the assassination of somebody's character. True, if somebody's doing something that could hurt others, like stockpiling AK-47s, flamethrowers, and missile launchers, and has the obvious intent to use them, then the population might want to be alerted, but seriously--the baseless rumors, the speculation, and under-researched articles need to stop. One of my goals in life is to open a newspaper without justifiable cynicism.
The thing that ticks me off the most, though, is that even if a journalist/reporter/whatever doesn't actually do it, he or she has the option of hiding behind the First Amendment if he or she comes under attack. Anyone who utters the phrase "The people have the right to know" in defense of releasing under-researched, insignificant or false information should be put down.
Care to share your thoughts on this?
And if you think that this is (or has gotten) over the line, Sammich, feel free to delete it!
Rather than jump straight into the discussion, I'm going to give you a good bunch of chances to back out or change your mind. So, are you going to continue ahead, or are you going to leave?
Seriously. You might get offended by what I imply here. If you're not sure you can handle it, nobody's going to call you weak or pathetic or make fun of you behind your back or to your face. I promise.
Okay, this is your last warning. I'm going to be going straight into the topic with my next sentence.
Hokay, well, I see you're still here, so I'll begin. The topic we're delving into today doesn't really cover any modern topics or recent news--yet at the same time, it does. My personal opinion of the media and its use of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as a shield is not a very good one at all. For instance, I don't think that reporters and camera crews belong behind a SWAT team attempting to rescue a hostage, especially if they're live. I don't believe that reporters should be allowed to follow celebrities (or anybody, for that matter) with the aggressiveness they do. In my opinion, it isn't right that the stories you see in the tabloids and see on TV are allowed to legally be published or aired.
Now, before I go on, I would like to say that I'm not some extremist who hates all news and media. Television, radio, newspapers, et cetera are all very useful. They bring us news, warnings, updates, and (most importantly) they keep all the idiots entertained so that we don't have to deal with them until their urge to go to Wal-Mart is greater than their urge to watch Jerry Springer.
I've always been of the opinion that freedom of speech needs to be limited somehow, and that's not necessarily to "brainwash" or "control" the population (the media already does that just fine without the limitations). There are just some things that don't need to be publicized straightaway (police and military operations that are relying on speed and surprise) or at all (what Michelle Obama's hair looked like when she was cooking breakfast on Thursday).
Remember when sneaking around and following somebody was called "harassment" or "stalking," and telling lies about them was called "slander" or "libel" or "defamation?" Why should it be any different now? There are plenty of interesting and exciting stories out there that don't involve which cereal brand the "Hollywood elite" prefer, or the assassination of somebody's character. True, if somebody's doing something that could hurt others, like stockpiling AK-47s, flamethrowers, and missile launchers, and has the obvious intent to use them, then the population might want to be alerted, but seriously--the baseless rumors, the speculation, and under-researched articles need to stop. One of my goals in life is to open a newspaper without justifiable cynicism.
The thing that ticks me off the most, though, is that even if a journalist/reporter/whatever doesn't actually do it, he or she has the option of hiding behind the First Amendment if he or she comes under attack. Anyone who utters the phrase "The people have the right to know" in defense of releasing under-researched, insignificant or false information should be put down.
Care to share your thoughts on this?
And if you think that this is (or has gotten) over the line, Sammich, feel free to delete it!
