How can we regulate the news media

Perhaps you are using the wrong media. These topics are discussed frequently by guests on NPR.Regular media is about snagging eyeballs to generate ad revenue. To some extent, the news is about getting your television on the right channel for prime time viewing. Why is it so surprising that the news is sensation only.

I don't want the government to have this kind of power over the press.We need enough information about these things to be able to discuss policy publicly. I think that means knowing something about the perpetrator and his health and mental state, the size and extent of the event, the reaction of law enforcement, etc. Yes, there is the stuff of lesser value, like the interviews with survivors and the families of the fallen, but some family members seem to want to express their feelings.Perhaps I need a little more persuading that there is some kind of copy cat effect playing a significant role.

Coyote, right on cue. Let's see if you hang around to discuss this... We have those already.We have centuries of jurisprudence on the limits of the first amendment. Does Congress truly make "no laws" abridging the freedom of speech, or infringing on the freedom of the press? Of course not. What would be the state interest that was furthered by such a restriction? We know what limiting gun magazine size is supposed to do.

I don't understand your logic. You are pointing out that Obama signed the NDAA. Why is that an indication or an example of why Obama would prefer even more press coverage?I don't want the government controlling the press because I want stories like this to be published. I have no idea what your point is.

I find your reasoning convoluted and silly. It's not because there is not a point to make about the NDAA. It is your attempt to squeeze it into being the topic here that I find forced.

Please be a little more careful with your reporting. I did not say this. At some point, you are actually going to want to accuse someone of fascism. I wonder what terms will be left to use.

I had not heard Ventura's talk and I'm not going to defend anything he says. Further, I don't believe NPR's job is to counter whatever sensationalism is found in other media. They are responsible for only their own reporting.Another poster sent me the following link. This would be an example of another source of information about gun control and the Sandy Hook shooting event.On the Media: Listen | WNYC Studios | Podcasts I'm not going to bother with this. You don't listen to NPR, yet you've already made up your mind about what is covered there without having done so. Further, I'm not bothered by the fact that you don't like discussion of gun control. The question is whether there is coverage without sensationalism.Something funny is going on with the way your apostrophes register on my browser. I don't see that same problem with everyone else's messages.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Your proposal was for the government to tax news based on content. That power would result in discouraging certain content. I don't want the government to have control over news reporting, particularly when the thing I want reported on most is the government.I apologize for not providing more detail, but I thought the rationale behind the first amendment was quite basic and well understood.

I read the Ventura article and I have watched Fox News. I haven't commented on Fox News without having watched it. On the other hand, commenting without listening is exactly what you did regarding NPR. No your comment does not stand. It's simply uninformed. The discussion is out there. You choose not to hear it.

Are you kidding me? Have you heard of "fighting words doctrine", "clear and present danger", Supreme Court decisions on obscenity, campaign finance, time, manner and place restrictions on speech, ""imminent lawless action", The Pentagon Papers. The Sedition Act of 1918. Are you seriously questioning this issue or just seeing what sticks?

A profit that would be considered unpredictable based on content. Complete revisionist nonsense.For all but the last few years, the second amendment was interpreted as not applying to state regulation of guns at all, and as being limited to weapons that were suitable for use by the Militia. In fact none of the bill of rights applied to state legislatures prior to the late 19th century despite the passage of the 14th Amendment in the mid 1860s.And of course beside the point. We have government regulation of advertising despite the fact that such regulations affect speech. But generally speaking the response to bad speech is more speech except in a few circumstances.

How old are you?

Seriously. Why would I or anyone else even care about that question? The original question was whether media even discusses whether news coverage ought to include sensational details that might ultimately be harmful. If your rebuttal is that there is never such a discussion in the media without an opposing view point being aired, that's not a question of even the least bit interest to me. There is no serious question about this. In fact there never was. But by now, this is so much of a settled issue that we can use the question to identify an agenda. The fact that you think there is yet a serious question about whether Obama was born in Hawaii says something about you and nothing at all about the president's bona fides. No, not even the first amendment applied to the states during most of the nineteenth century. During the nineteenth century, we had state churches despite the Establishment Clause. In some cases, the state church was the Anglican church. Prior to the civil war there was the burning of books by southern state governments with impunity. Freedom of speech was first applied to states by the Supreme Court in a 1925 case.Even now there are portions of the bill of rights that are not applied to the states. (Fifth amendment right to indictment by grand jury and the right to a jury trial in civil trials in state courts) In other words, the tax would be applied due to the content of the coverage including sensationalism. That's a content based restriction of news coverage by the government. No thanks. The question was whether the student's believed they had a valid opinion about the war in Viet Nam that Nixon was wrong. Nothing you've presented suggest that either the student's did not have that opinion, or that it was the liberal media that caused the student's to have that impression.One might also note that Viet Nam essential destroyed LBJ and his prospects for election. Anti- Viet Nam sentiment wasn't just about the media hating Republicans.Further, I think the weight of history suggests that the US involvement in Viet Nam was a mistake. Nothing worth 59000 American lives was accomplished.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.