|
| |
|
|  moookid | Feb 7, 6:10am | Can I sue a news program for claiming to be independant, unbiased and fair when I can prove it's not any of these things?
It's essentially fraud.. if it's not illegal then it should be. |
|
| 
| | csny | Feb 12, 6:19am | | not very likely(maybe in the U.K.) |
|
| 
| | amyachlys | Feb 12, 7:42am | | No, I don't think so... considering ALL news sources are biased. |
|
|
| | moookid | Feb 13, 2:06am | | I don't mind bias, provided they don't claim to be unbiased. |
|
| 
| | rhongo | Feb 13, 6:04am | two independent yet connected issues here
in order to file suit.. one element has to show "damages" to the party sueing
filing criminal/civil charges of fraud, requires specicivity of facts and not just conclusory opinions for which you may be sued for defamation |
|
| 
| |
| 
Sponsor |  Yoza | Jun 9, 1:22am | This issue has already been raised in a court in the U.S.(I'm not looking up the link). The judge in the case ruled that it is acceptable for news organisations to lie as they are expressing their constitutional right to free speech, practising free speech is not confined to being truthful.
I am fairly certain the court case I am thinking of appeared in the documentary "The Corporation" and concerned the feeding of hormones or steroids to dairy cows, two investigative journalists pursuing the story were being blocked from presenting it by their corporate media employers(I can't remember which news org. it was), the news organisation was being pressured to pull the story by one of the major agribusiness corporations (may have been Monsanto).
The more I think about it the more sure I am that that is where this issue arose.
Watch "The Corporation" it is a great documentary. |
|
|
| | moookid | Jun 9, 4:36am | I would have no problems with subjective news programs if it were not that they are marketed as objective.
News should be objective anyway and 'News' media should really be regulated to ensure that people are not being exploited.
If you have to lie, do it in a documentary or film like Al Gore did :P |
|
|
Sponsor | | Yoza | Jun 10, 3:52am | The 'news' or the corporate media in general serves an important function, along with a number of other institutions, in a 'democratic' society. In social democracies it is vitally important that the illusion of freedom of choice and speech is maintained, even if freedom of choice has been diminished to the point of being allowed the choice of deciding which brand of dish-washing detergent would be preferable and freedom of speech is listening to political candidates from separate camps delivering the same message with superficial variations.
The corporate media and organisations like the B.B.C. exist to provide an interpretation of events which compliment the ideology of the ruling elite while maintaining the fantasy they are being objective. It would not do to come out and admit they were biased as that would diminish the overall purpose of their existence. The vast majority of what appears in the news is true, mainly because it is so trivial that there is no reason for it to be anything else.
What you will never see on any main-stream medium is a context for violence, drug abuse or criminality generally. On television people don't commit crimes because of psychological conditioning resulting from poverty or a violent environment, no, on television they commit criminal acts because of some mythical character flaw, because they 'choose' to do so or (my favourite) they are innately evil. Blaming the individuals or impoverished groups for their actions, as if these people just dropped out of a vacuum, is more convenient and inline with elite opinion than questioning the system which creates the conditions that lead to the behaviour being derided.
I'm curious. Is there any specific news item that sparked this thread? |
|
|
| | moookid | Jun 10, 5:14am | I'm sure there was a final straw but I can't actually recall which one specifically :)
I have a feeling I wrote it after watching coverage of the GOP debates.
Interpretation is one thing (which I'd rather not, but can just about, live with), deliberately manipulative expression of that interpretation is an entirely different matter.
It's essentially theft. Theft of freedom, since they are tricking the public into believing they are receiving a balanced view (via fraud) when they clearly aren't receiving it.
The problem that the US has; is that there seems to be this idiotic fear of being cynical, un-patriotic, negative, call it what you will. This is leveraged by the major news media groups who tailor their content to manipulate the majority of unquestioning Americans into fuelling their agenda.
I don't know what the agenda is, it may be positive. But it's still an immoral method in my opinion.
edit:
not only immoral, but destructive to the democratic system. (is that facism?) |
| |
|
You need to Sign-up for StumbleUpon to post to this forum
| |
|
Anti-Fascists → Discussion