Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
Yes. I believe they do. They are too intrusive and manipulative. They need to be controlled.
For once I agree with you. I don't want the media controlled of course. but the press use supposed "freedom of the press" to harass people, and that needs to stop. Of course, if you were referring to censorship, then we're in disagreement, but free press doesn't mean they have the right to hound people day and night for a story and the hopes of a gaff photo.
Yea, they need to be controlled a little bit, not entirely.
I think something akin to a press restraining order should be allowed. Where individuals who are not facing any legal charges can make publishing unauthorized photographs and recordings of them illegal while within the confines of their personal property or the personal property of another individual (at which point that individual's consent would be required.). That way the press can right whatever they want, but the cameras can be kept away. This would even mean that stars (rather than stalking reporters) could make the big bucks off of their own photos and such. Maybe the details need to be ironed out, but I'd certainly be in favor of something akin to that. Protecting privacy is something the government definitely SHOULD be doing.
Yea because although we aren't doing anything wrong, the press can just come and write an article on us making all these claims and accusations against us and we can't do anything about it.
This definitely has something to do with the media being privatized.
Woah woah woah. I would never support an exclusively government run media. That's just asking for propaganda.
No it doesn't. At all.
It has more to do with the quality of education that people get. When they can be distracted by flashy things instead of reality, there's a problem.
Don't care. If they want to waste resources trying to get photos of some movie star in a bikini or a compromising position, so be it. If in fact that waste of resources actually funds real investigative journalism, so be that too.
I'm more worried that our press isn't intrusive enough, rather than whether it is "too" intrusive. We don't get very incisive questions of our leaders, of our own media, of opinion makers, and of research conclusions. This is the problem. Not whether the media harasses celebrities.
Better than what we have now.
Yeah total government control would not be good, but the media is a joke anyway. All they do are the same stories every night because that is all people want to hear: bad news.
Lesse'…
Option 1- government-run media system where nothing but propaganda about how great, wonderful, and helpful the government is, and how the leaders are helping us despite the fact we're all starving, remniscent of China, Cuba, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union.
Option 2- a free press as the Constitution guarantees, with certain limits in the form of legal press restraining orders.
I think you know which option I prefer.
Good, everyday news doesn't sell newspapers.
The only media that harasses celebrities anyway is those stupid tabloids- or the tabloid sections of papers. Let's just boycott the gossip sections. ^.^
You're forgetting that the internet is replacing newspapers. And a lot of the news compilers like HuffPo, indeed, even the supposedly legitimate news organisations like CNN, use gossipy whispers and the glossy photos surrounding celebrities to drive traffic. Traffic which then pays for actual reporting. Newspapers and news magazines are losing because they are trying to compete in this immediacy world. They should be simply doubling down on the reporting and doing more difficult stories (Economist does this for example). Selling better content to consumers who still want it will still be a viable market in the future.
Pravda would be better than what we have now?
Again I refer you to the first amendment of the Constitution.
Keeping that in mind, I say to you that journalism is dead in the world of today.
For that we have no one else to blame but ourselves. We readers and viewers and listeners have flocked to the news that has the most sensationalistic impact and have ignored the real news.
We have to change, then news will change.
Until then, well all you will get is wether or not Britney Spears is wearing underwear today . . . ad infinitum.
Just my not-so-humble opinion.
The press has no limits whatsoever.
Well, the media is a form of education to people. It's the root of the problem.
I'd definitely watch that news story then if I heard that about Britney Spears.
You had your chance a couple years ago.
And that is Constitutional.
Oh yes, definitely.
Of course, I think that if you're going to become a celebrity and do things that you shouldn't, you really deserve whatever you get. ^.^