The Forum > General Discussion > Freedom of Speech imposes a Duty of Responsible Journalism
Freedom of Speech imposes a Duty of Responsible Journalism
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
Posted by Aaron 1975, Saturday, 2 April 2011 8:26:42 PM
| |
One question, Aaron 1975: Do you also feel the same horror & disgust about what Wikileaks is doing?
Posted by SPQR, Sunday, 3 April 2011 7:38:16 AM
| |
Stop watching the Corp media trash and don't buy their papers.Look at the independant media on the web.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 3 April 2011 7:46:11 AM
| |
But then, should we be giving the media the responsibility to decide what is reported? I'd rather they report EVERYTHING, than what they deem 'beneficial'.
I don't like the 'news'. Much of it is rubbish, but I decide what I read and see and I decide the validity and value of that content to my life. And the thing is, so does everyone else. What I consider news, others might just bypass just the same as I might bypass what they read. Why should 'you' decide that for me? Posted by StG, Sunday, 3 April 2011 7:49:06 AM
| |
Skip the Murdoch rubbish, and channels 7,9,10; you've filtered down the gutter journalism quite a bit. Especially now the internet provides us online access to the much better news institutes like Reuters and BBC- (not to mention Wikileaks if its a political scandal).
Generally these days watching news requires a certain amount of independent rational thought to analyze and criticize the information: People with a group mentality (eg they are part of "the Left" or "the right"- will simply not be able to handle it. Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 3 April 2011 8:41:44 AM
| |
As to Wikileaks, to the extent Assange put the lives of others at risk, simply so he would be seen as an "Enemy of the State" (rather than a homosexual child molester) yes, I disagree strongly with it. As to any other aspect of Wikileaks, the principle was put in the Spy-cases in England. If Authorities don't want information published, they should ensure it is not available to the Press. The vast bulk of the material in Wikileaks is actually dull and uninteresting, so much so, that no-one is going to trawl through the sludge of boring crud to actually find the few gems inside. Too much chaff, not enough wheat, in fact most are allowing the larger news agencies (who pay people to trawl through it) to describe the juicy bits, which allows the same to restrict information.
As to filtering what is reported, there are filters on what is reported already. Those filters include child pornography, snuff films, overt calls for violence, etc. I cannot see the public benefit in providing some right-wing imbecile with a public platform to do what he did & with the results that were only too predictable. I have little time for "shock jocks" and their ilk, promoting f*wits who seek to gain national & international exposure by doing childish things, which are calculated to draw a violent response (at the cost of the lives of others) is despicable. Doing so purely to lift ratings, sales or advertising should be criminal. It would rate right up there with using explicit child images as page X material to get the rockspider audience to purchase papers. It is exploitative, it harms others who cannot help themselves and it should come under manslaughter. Doing an act which they can be presumed to know will result in the serious wounding or death of another, without taking every reasonable attempt to prevent the same - and which does result in the death of another person - is Negligent Manslaughter or Homicide. Watching the same media 'stalwarts' crying crocodile tears over the deaths they caused almost made me vomit. Posted by Aaron 1975, Sunday, 3 April 2011 8:56:41 AM
| |
Trouble is if you start imposing rules on what is "fair" you will get a whole lot of disagreement on those rulings. Best to avoid the gutter press.
Wikileaks is not the same, it is an organisation that provides the raw data in the form of official documents and lets the viewer/reader decide. WL does not make commentary or draw conclusions. I choose, for the most part, to keep faith in people's ability to sort through spin, bigotry and self-serving agendas. Posted by pelican, Sunday, 3 April 2011 10:18:04 AM
| |
King Hazza, have you any idea how long it took me to clean up the mess you caused?
There I was with my toast and coffee, munching and sipping peacefully, when I read your line “much better news institutes like Reuters and BBC”. The BBC? That was so funny I nearly choked. There I was thinking you were posting a serious comment. Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 3 April 2011 10:36:15 AM
| |
Pelican's right, 'fairness' is of course desirable in media reportage, but who decides what's fair? I can see it being interpreted in much the same way as 'balance' seems to be, whereby (for example) crackpot AGW deniers demand the same media coverage as factual reports based on credible and reputable climate science.
I'd settle for honesty in the MSM. As the current 'freedom of speech' case involving the horrible Andrew Bolt demonstrates, truth and facticity seem no longer to be criteria for publication. In the past couple of days the Murdoch online media have published at least two articles incorporating blatant lies about the Greens, which have subsequently been edited without acknowledgement of their falsehood, presumably because of the number of complaints. Check out The Punch and you'll see what I mean. I'm all for fearlessly robust media reporting and commentary, but it's got to be factual, not defamatory lies. Posted by morganzola, Sunday, 3 April 2011 10:40:06 AM
| |
pelican:>> I choose, for the most part, to keep faith in people's ability to sort through spin, bigotry and self-serving agendas.<<
An extremely poor decision pelican. spindoc:>> There I was with my toast and coffee, munching and sipping peacefully, when I read your line “much better news institutes like Reuters and BBC”. The BBC? That was so funny I nearly choked.<< I join with you spindoc in your choking with laughter on the news that the "moneys" media is enslaved to facts rather than agendas. Posted by sonofgloin, Sunday, 3 April 2011 10:49:37 AM
| |
Speaking of Andrew Bolt - he was seen harping on this morning's ABC Insiders about the demonisation by those who use terms like "purveyors of hate speech" arguing that it is wholly unfair when people will sometimes just disagree.
Any truth he might have alluded in that statement was lost when he then proceeded to use the same tactics when discussing the Greens or those with a perceived Left agenda. Aren't the Greens or those with different views to Mr Bolt allowed to also express those views. Just goes to demonstrate that perception is largely dictated by one's belief systems and the same latitudes and free passes one gives to their 'side' of politics is not often granted to the other. Mr Bolt is not alone in that human failing. Posted by pelican, Sunday, 3 April 2011 10:52:11 AM
| |
SOG
"An extremely poor decision pelican." The growing support for organisations like Wikileaks and a growing activism around FOI, transparency and accountability feeds me with hope. What is the alternative? Media censorship. :) Posted by pelican, Sunday, 3 April 2011 10:56:37 AM
| |
Go to http://www.globalresearch.ca/ This is a very credible sight that does not colour the truth.3 reactors now in Japan are now in meltdown.One is spewing out plutonium and just a tiny particle will kill you.It should be listed as level 6.Chernobyl was level 7 but these reactors are many more times larger than Chernobyl.
Whole areas of Japan could be unlivable for many decades to come. Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 3 April 2011 11:27:11 AM
| |
Aaron 1975, it seems to me that you have things back the front here. You should be raging against the antics of those reacting to the news rather than those reporting it.
It’s convenient to blame “shock jocks” and tabloid journalists( anyone and everyone but the rioters) some of us have become so conditioned to blaming such persons that its now almost second nature, besides, they wont blow up your train carriage if you offend them –and if they ever question your pedigree you can call it vilification and take them to court. But let’s get real, there are probably hundreds of items in the media each day which one or other group could take offence at. What is noteworthy (if politically impolite) is that certain groups seem to have a propensity to take offence , and feel an entitlement to express that offence through violence. And, I’d hazard a guess, that the same groups that so easily took offence at your cited Koran burning report (and this wasnt the first Koran burning riot) would react the same way to a novel (Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verse) or a cartoon depiction (the Danish cartoons & Southpark which was warned off a skit on Mohammed) or a foreign policy (London & Madrid bombers), they didnt like. I recommend the Time article “Justifying Murder For Those Who Blaspheme “ for those who want further reading –or for those who think it is limited to a isolated fringe] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2058155,00.html Posted by SPQR, Sunday, 3 April 2011 3:01:59 PM
| |
Nice, Arjay. Finally you've posted a link to something which will conclusively be proven to be conspiratorial insane rubbish. If anything, the 'mainstream' media are prone to exaggeration rather than secrecy. (The fact that the author seems unable to stay on one single topic, managing to rave about the Iraq war, some kind of manufactured virus named Synthia and corporate criminals ought to tip you off).
Hopefully, this will encourage you to think twice before believing your next conspiracy theory, but alas, I doubt it. Some people are just hardwired to look for conspiracies wherever they can. I like to call it 'hyper-cynical naivete'. Which is a good way to lead in to my main point - for everyone's complaints about the 'media' I've yet to hear any better suggestions. Many extol the virtues of the 'independent' online media. There's a lot of great stuff out there, but they're usually corporate products, relying on advertising. There's a good example of reliable online media here: http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/ On the other hand, there are the insane far left, right, or conspiratorial ravings exemplified by articles such as the one Arjay has put forward. The problem, is that everyone seems to think they are equivalent to one another. Few people have the critical reasoning skills necessary to filter things based on their reliability, as opposed to whether it clashes with the preconceptions. This is quite a problem. So whilst I strongly concur with Aaron that there's a responsible duty for reliable journalism, I still think that independent media has a long way to travel before it's as reliable. Those who like to scoff at mainstream media and express their contempt are blowing hot air unless they've got any better suggestions. I for one, think that there are many media outlets doing a fine job - the New York Times is pretty good, The Australian has its moments provided you ignore the hysteria of some of their political commentators. Fairfax has the odd piece of good news. Though I agree, you've got to sort through a lot of crap to find the good stuff. Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Sunday, 3 April 2011 3:23:20 PM
| |
TLTR conspiritorial rubbish? The Japanese prime minister has said Fukushima is virtually out of control.It is you that need a reality check.This whole debacle has been a monumental coverup.Read the articles on http://www.globalresearch.ca/ They are written by specialests in their fields.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 3 April 2011 5:18:00 PM
| |
I am not in favor of censorship, but I am serious about the need the need for some responsibility & ethics. I am not suggesting, even momentarily, that the killings are in any way a reasonable response to the burning of a book (a cr@p one at that, although I've got to say, a whole lot more believe with its eye-for-an-eye return to the old testament that turn-the-other-cheek nonsense).
However, without sensation seeking gutter-press, who exactly cares if some inbred halfwit burns the Torah, the Bible, The Book of Mormon or anything else? It isn't exactly news that the USA contains congenitally gifted, bigoted imbeciles (or is it?), or that over a quarter of the population STILL believes Obama is a Muslim & that the twin towers were blown up in a UN/Communist/Zionist/Martian/etc. conspiracy (choose one or more). I would say not, I mean it isn't exactly a secret that the filter on the gene is way past its best-by-date (you just have to look at the crud getting through). So why was this PARTICULAR idiot given precious bandwidth (I'd have thought he'd stolen enough oxygen), page space or whatever? Did anyone benefit from learning that stupid bigots actually do exist? Has the world benefited in some way I'm not seeing? Or did some journos make a couple of extra bucks risking the lives of others? Knowing full well that equally bigoted nutcases would, ever so predictably, turn some small town hillbilly into a sensation (who cares how many people get killed first)? Posted by Aaron 1975, Sunday, 3 April 2011 7:46:49 PM
| |
Arjay, I've no doubt that the Japanese Government has been less than forthright. However, the lack of information does not therefore mean that the most hysterical, dire possibilities are therefore true.
The tone of your initial post indicated that the situation is already so bad that the people there must already have been poisoned. Don't you see how things like this can create hysteria and do more damage than good? Ask yourself? Why do you believe this website, and not the 'mainstream' sites? You can claim that they are biased due to corporate influence or whatever you wish, but again - that doesn't mean that those who aren't influence by corporate sources or power, are therefore accurate. There are nutjobs aplenty who have no need for power but a powerful desire to spread ridiculous stories. A piece of advice - if you want to be taken seriously, tone down the hyperbole. Aaron - I concur in relation to the Koran burning story. Yes, I think the journalists who wrote this story should be ashamed of themselves - and I think that the newspapers who published it should be as well. Unfortunately, they operate in a system where scaremongering stupid stories like that get a lot of attention, and it's attention that drives advertising dollars and ultimately pays the salaries of these journalists. Were the system to be something else, that would mean that the government is regulating the press to a significant extent, which is unacceptable. You can't trust governments with that kind of power. So, ultimately the only thing we can do is to try and combat these kinds of stories with better quality news and more awareness in the hope that people choose the better options. Which is why, those who spread idiotic stories should be ridiculed rather than censored, and quality news should be recognised for its worth - which requires people to be more discerning in the kinds of news they consume, and also in critically appraising the sources behind that news, the better to reject stories written by corporate stooges, unethical journalists or conspiratorial nutjobs. Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Sunday, 3 April 2011 8:40:04 PM
| |
'I dislike the idiot in America that burned the Koran (basically for being a bigoted idiot pushing his agenda at others expense), however, the blame for what happened and the lives of those killed should be laid at the feet of the gutter "journalists" that caused it to happen.
' and of course you could not blame the murderers who commited the crime in the name of Allah. That would be to contrary to your dogma. btw the public funded national broadcasters give far to much platform to left wing nuts who peddle their gw faith. At least the other rags spend their own money. Posted by runner, Sunday, 3 April 2011 11:07:48 PM
| |
Should have read on a bit runner, I have no time to waste on the equally bigoted followers of "Allah" or their predictable responses to stories of this kind. It would be like blaming rain for being wet, they are hard wired to respond hysterically to whatever they are told to respond hysterically to & short of frontal lobotomy (5.56/7.62mm preferred), ain't nothin' gonna change that.
However, providing those that pull their strings with ammunition like this, purely to make money? With absolutely no regard for the lives that will be lost by innocents? That is FUBAR. Posted by Aaron 1975, Monday, 4 April 2011 10:57:13 AM
| |
TLTR see http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/03/three-raging-nuclear-meltdowns-progress Now Dr Kaku was also on our corportate media saying this.You seem to imply that only nut jobs read this site and only the credible media is a Corporate or Govt one. So is Dr Kaku your "nut job" or a credible scientist who knows what he is talking about?
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 4 April 2011 12:21:04 PM
| |
Well....:) The Responsibly of Journalism is to in-fact tell the truth of an event to which a story can be told for all in the best interests of humanity its self. True this doesn't always goes to plan, thanks to those that love nothing more than to be sensationalists, that brings about the worst in all that just want to be......well.....the rest is not that hard to figure out. Now days, bull makes money, causes ratings, and feeds the almighty hunger/monsters of what the new god is called, THE MEDIA!
Humans can be convinced of absolutely anything....... except me of course:) Anything Religious Concerning A Deity Will Always cause a sensation (: to put it lightly :) and one of the cruelness mind inflictions ever to be put on man as a way of controlling one-another. Until a GOD can be proven, science/and evolution is the path to avoid humans from fighting. Up until now, that's all the worldly religions have caused, and to continue on this primitive delusion that was nothing more than man wondering about what he/she saw when animal instinct was no longer our bondage. These old books should be look at as Dangerous to the evolving one,s we have become. The bottom line is.......Some are evolved.....and some are simply not. LEAP Posted by Quantumleap, Monday, 4 April 2011 6:36:39 PM
| |
Quantumleap, Monday, 4 April 2011 6:36:39 PM
"Until a GOD can be proven, science/and evolution is the path to avoid humans from fighting." All violence comes from religion? Now I've heard it all. How's the food in LALA-Land? Posted by StG, Monday, 4 April 2011 7:05:15 PM
| |
The growth of the news media in size and importance has led to tremendous improvements in the methods of gathering and presenting the news. But the cost of operating a news organisation has also increased greatly and therefore it should not come as a surprise that the news tends to feature the visually exciting or emotionally moving stories to draw large readerships (or viewers - as in TV news programs) , even if this means omitting issues that are more sober but perhaps significant also.
Therefore I agree that news organisations have the enormous responsibility of helping people understand today's complex and fast-changing world. The obligation of the media to keep the public informed through full, fair, and accurate reporting has never been greater. However, inevitably, journalists, newspaper editors, like anyone else, will be guilty of some measure of bias, often unconscious, to interpret facts according to their own values. It's shaped by their background, training, and prior experiences. This problem occurs in all occupations and it becomes particularly acute when the subject matter often involves issues of deep human and moral concern. How can this problem be resolved? The first step is to recognise that subjectivity and objectivity are not two neat and separate categories; they're really matters of degree. Total objectivity is probably impossible to achieve but a self-conscious effort to be as objective as possible will produce vastly less biased reporting than not making this attempt. The pursuit of objectivity doesn't necessarily mean that journalists can't express personal opinions or value judgments. It means that these judgments should be clearly labeled as such. It would be perfectly legitimate, therefore, for a reporter to give as objective an account as possible of a story, and then to add a subjective judgement - provided that the judgement was presented as a matter of personal opinion. Posted by Lexi, Monday, 4 April 2011 7:36:22 PM
| |
STG...Dont upset yourself; Lexi,s presentationals are truly delightful when the KEY words of decencies, in-fact are the true fine art,s of all things resembling Responsible Journalism.
My above was just an example of junk Journalism, and thanks for the reactional demonstration:) However some of which are my own belief's. A truly nice bite....I think its called trolling........however that's whats flooding the world, and may I sound my discussed tone, to they know just what strings to pluck. See to be a sensationalist, is not practising the..... "Freedoms of Speech, that imposes a Duty of Responsible Journalism" P/S The non-realists are the worst offenders:) LEAP Posted by Quantumleap, Monday, 4 April 2011 9:15:49 PM
| |
Sorry I'm late:
SpinDoc- are you actually implying that the BBC is a worse news/info outlet than Fox, The Daily Telegraph, The Australian, and Channel 7,8,10? Exactly- my point still stands. Aaron, the reason we permit news of 'inflammatory' events is because we need to be aware these social groups exist so we can figure out how to address tensions, concerns and try to mediate or act accordingly to allieviate the problems. Not publishing these important things is just sticking our heads in the sand saying "la la I can't hear you" and hope that if we don't see it it won't exist (much like the ignored terrorist tensions from past Middle East policy that eventually lead to 911- after the act millions and millions of people began to independently start researching and critiqing- which is what an enlightened 21st century society does). Wikileaks: -Julian Assange is neither gay, a pedophile, or even a rapist: His charge was having voluntary sex without a condom- an offense the alleged victims (one a member of the political party in power at the moment) were, strangely, holding parties at the time (source SMH). -Who is Assange endangering? -boring information? Proof of Saudis lobbying the US to invade Iran, Clinton stealing data on UN members, the US government conspiring to harm the EU economy as punishment for refusing to reduce their GM quality and labelling regulations to accomodate US imports, and several US commanders saying Afghanistan is unwinnable- and their treatment of Bradley Manning- are things I imagine lots of people find rather important. Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 11:11:17 AM
|
I have any intention of protecting the right of self-satisfied, smug, gutter-trash journalists to give a public platform to right-wing ratbags (with the entirely predictable & horrible results) or to those seeking, reprehensibly, to make a quid off sensationalized youtube vision of children fighting (which will also have terrible consequences, albeit, not to the "journalists"). Yes, we all have a right to say what we think, within fairly reasonable limits. What right does ANYONE have to report (a) stupidity; (b) child-exploitation; & (c) things that will get other people killed (quite predictably).
Those with the responsibility to provide the public with information also have a responsibility to ensure that information is presented fairly and accurately. They also have an obligation to ignore hate-speech, pornography & that which is illegal (such as that involving children), for the good of society. The balancing of these obligations, little thing called ethics, is a big part of becoming a Journalist (although everyone tends to forget this in favor of free-speech when the "journalists" want to make a point). I dislike the idiot in America that burned the Koran (basically for being a bigoted idiot pushing his agenda at others expense), however, the blame for what happened and the lives of those killed should be laid at the feet of the gutter "journalists" that caused it to happen.
There has to be limits to what one can say is "fair", burning paper to make an imbecilic statement? Bigotry, yes - also irrelevant. Giving someone a publicity platform to do so, to make a point at the expense of others? Purely for headlines/ratings/sales? No, that is reprehensible and I'd like to register my disgust.