|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A truly chilling new poll on American attitudes about the media | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Yesterday IPSOS, the international research firm, published the results of a poll on Americans Attitudes towards the Media and some of the results are really scary.
quote: quote: This is a continuation of what is common in the Christian Cult of Ignorance where the CCoI has created alternative news outlets, alternative school systems, alternative media sources, alternative web browsers, alternative colleges, alternative Accreditation systems all designed to limit the peoples access to anything but those ideas approved by the dogma of the particular cult. It is a massive Authoritative Cult of Avoidance and Willful Ignorance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Freedom of the Press is paramount as a check on government. They should be the truth-seekers for the public.
Freedom to sue the perpetrators of false information is also paramount as a check on the press -- this is how you take care of the real fake news (Faux Noise Netwerk, Alan Jones, etc). As long as false information is given free reign, none of the press can be trusted. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Me, those numbers are actually more positive than I was expecting. Considering that polls have consistently been giving Trump a 40% approval rating and a bit less than 40% lean Republican on the generic Congressional ballot (those numbers may become irrelevant now once the primaries are all over and the actual candidates are set in the elections), I would have expected much worse numbers.
-
Likewise, most Americans (72%) think it should be easier to sue reporters who knowingly publish false information. Notice the phrasing: "knowingly publish false information". And this is a pretty general statement. I'm guessing that any specific proposal to enact such a thing would end up with little support. - I'm not advocating complacency here. I'm just not as worried as perhaps I should be, especially since that same report has this:
First off, the good news. The large majority of Americans, 85%, agree that the Freedom of the press is essential for American democracy. Additionally, two-thirds (68%) say that reporters should be protected from pressure from government or big business interests. Majorities of both Democrats and Republicans agree with these two statements signaling deep support for the concept of freedom of the press. - Again, I don't advocate complacency. The PATRIOT Act was enacted in the aftermath of 9/11, showing that all it takes is one huge catastrophe to create a temporary (although "temproary" may still be a rather long time) acceptance of bad legislation; citizens must always be vigilant and be ready to block such nonsense until the initial panic finally subsides. I don't think the danger here is that US citizens will support restrictions on the press. The danger is that a sudden and temporary panic may cause US citizens to allow dangerous legislation to be enacted without proper thought and debate.
Added by edit:It would be an interesting context to know how these numbers compare historically. Americans have always supported a free press, but Americans have also always had a poor opinion of the existing media outlets. Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.Oh, God! Pride of Man, broken in the dust again! -- Quicksilver Messenger Service
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Freedom to sue the perpetrators of false information is also paramount as a check on the press I am not convinced of the truth of your statement. False information is not the problem. Lying can be overcome by allowing others to tell the truth. Alex Jones' false information was also defamatory and included threats of violence and encouragement of violence by others. And folks acted on that violence. Yes, you ought to be able to sue folks for that kind of thing. Alex should be free to lie about chemtrails and false flag operations to his heart's content, but attacking private citizens is another thing entirely. Of course, it is a problem that people believe nonsense, but the way to fix that stuff isn't through lawsuits, in my opinion. Also, I like the idea that I can identify who the goofy folks are by listening to them defend Pizzagate stories as real or even plausible. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Freedom to sue the perpetrators of false information is also paramount as a check on the press I am not convinced of the truth of your statement. False information is not the problem. Lying can be overcome by allowing others to tell the truth. ... So how has this worked in today's world? Badly -- some people aren't interested in the truth, ignore it when told, and preferring "feel good" fake news. Example: Faith. Apparently Canada has a law against false news, and as a result there is no Faux Noise Nutwerk there. It is easier to overcome lies when they are not given a grandstand to shout from. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But false news would be what the legal system says is false news. And so which platform would get cut down in the US today?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
Historically, in the US whenever restrictions - official or private - have been put in place against free expression, it has more often than not been partisan attacks against movements that I support.
That kind of colors my opinion.Oh, God! Pride of Man, broken in the dust again! -- Quicksilver Messenger Service
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1053 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
So how has this worked in today's world? Badly -- some people aren't interested in the truth, ignore it when told, and preferring "feel good" fake news. Example: Faith. Apparently Canada has a law against false news, and as a result there is no Faux Noise Nutwerk there. It is easier to overcome lies when they are not given a grandstand to shout from. And how does it work in the real world when you make it too easy to sue journalists for lying? Organisations with large legal budgets shut down criticism from those who do not have the funds to defend themselves against lawsuits; while publishers who do have the budgets refuse to publish things they think will subject them to lawsuits as a cost-saving measure. Case in point, the below was from an Executive Publisher at Cambridge University Press explaining why they had decided not to publish research on Vladimir Putin's links to organised crime (as quoted in The Economist)
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Bear in mind that Faith and people like her automatically characterise anything that object to as false and are quite keen to label it intentional. Even if it happens to be true.
So let’s be careful about what the figures mean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Chiroptera writes: Notice the phrasing: "knowingly publish false information". And this is a pretty general statement. I'm guessing that any specific proposal to enact such a thing would end up with little support. It should be unnecessary for journalism as a whole. Legitimate media outlets will fire or suspend journalists for purposefully pushing false stories. Journalists can even be fired for mistakenly reporting false news (e.g. Dan Rather). Again, this is at legitimate media outlets. The best way to determine if a media outlet is legit is to see how they handle stories that turn out to be false.
I don't think the danger here is that US citizens will support restrictions on the press. The danger is that a sudden and temporary panic may cause US citizens to allow dangerous legislation to be enacted without proper thought and debate. "Hoisted by one's own petard" comes to mind. What happens when people's favorite commentators over at Fox News start getting sued and jailed for reporting nonsense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So how has this worked in today's world? Badly -- some people aren't interested in the truth, ignore it when told, and preferring "feel good" fake news. Example: Faith. Apparently Canada has a law against false news, and as a result there is no Faux Noise Nutwerk there. Yes, that is the downside of having a First Amendment. However the upside is an order of magnitude greater. I cannot agree with you on this point. Besides "but it fools Faith" cannot be the standard for deciding whether the system works. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Freedom to sue the perpetrators of false information is also paramount as a check on the press False Reports Inc reports that Trump won the Nobel Prize for Physics. Faith buys that, hook line and sinker, but you know better because you immediately wrote to the Prize committee who issued a strong denial which was not reported by False. Who gets to sue? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
NoNukes writes: False Reports Inc reports that Trump won the Nobel Prize for Physics. Faith buys that, hook line and sinker, but you know better because you immediately wrote to the Prize committee who issued a strong denial which was not reported by False. Who gets to sue? Anyone can sue, that is the easy part. It is the courts though that decide whether or not to even hear the case. In the US Judges are a political entity. They are elected or appointed by politicians. As the Cult of Ignorance and Fantasy grows and more of our citizenry become divorced from reality and evidence based decision making the whole concept of truth and falsehood becomes a matter of what a majority believes is true or false rather than what is supported by the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Anyone can sue, that is the easy part. If the answer were easy, I would not have asked. The problem is that suing requires that you have an injury or you don't have standing. If you don't believe the lies, then there is no injury. In theory, if you are the subject matter of the lies, you have an injury, but in this case, the lie is that Trump did something positive, so he cannot sue. Finally, the buffoons who believe the lies are not going to sue. They desperately want the lies to keep coming. In false advertising situations, the government can sue in the name of the public, but allowing that in this situation is a clear violation of the first amendment. Do we really want the government to have the ability to police news agencies? I just don't see a plausible way to make this stuff work. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
NoNukes writes: The problem is that suing requires that you have an injury or you don't have standing. But it is the courts that decide standing and as more and more Judges are elected/appointed that are not evidence/reality based decision makers but rather fantasy/dogma based decision makers what constitutes "standing" may well change to the point many of us will find it unrecognizable. We have seen this in the fairly recent past, during the attempts to find juries to try the Klan over lynchings and other violence and in the general spoils system of politics that was the norm at least up until the Garfield Presidency and that actually lead to his assassination. Look at where the greatest support for shutting down media organizations and suing over false news came from in the poll.
NoNukes writes: Finally, the buffoons who believe the lies are not going to sue. They desperately want the lies to keep coming. But it is exactly those buffoons who will sue the reporter and news source that publishes that Trump did not win the Nobel Prize for Physics and that the Prize committee issued a strong denial that he had done so. It is that False News that will be the topic. Remember, we are living in an age when Federal Budget Requests may NOT use the terms evidence based as justification for policy or funding. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024