Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8857 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2018 2:31 AM
198 online now:
Heathen, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie, Tangle (5 members, 193 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 837,098 Year: 11,921/29,783 Month: 943/1,642 Week: 51/306 Day: 6/45 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   A truly chilling new poll on American attitudes about the media
jar
Member
Posts: 30717
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 1 of 18 (837782)
08-09-2018 8:14 AM


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:
Some of the limits of public support for freedom of the press are made stark with a quarter of Americans (26%) saying they agree “the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior,” including a plurality of Republicans (43%). Likewise, most Americans (72%) think “it should be easier to sue reporters who knowingly publish false information.”

quote:
Returning to President Trump’s views on the press, almost a third of the American people (29%) agree with the idea that “the news media is the enemy of the American people,” including a plurality of Republicans (48%).

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.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2018 9:02 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2018 9:06 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 08-10-2018 12:25 AM jar has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 18 (837784)
08-09-2018 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
08-09-2018 8:14 AM


Freedom
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.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 08-09-2018 8:14 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by NoNukes, posted 08-09-2018 9:22 AM RAZD has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6500
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 3 of 18 (837785)
08-09-2018 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
08-09-2018 8:14 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 08-09-2018 8:14 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 08-09-2018 12:56 PM Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 08-09-2018 4:52 PM Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10870
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 4 of 18 (837786)
08-09-2018 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by RAZD
08-09-2018 9:02 AM


Re: Freedom
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2018 9:02 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2018 10:51 AM NoNukes has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 5 of 18 (837793)
08-09-2018 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by NoNukes
08-09-2018 9:22 AM


Re: Freedom
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.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NoNukes, posted 08-09-2018 9:22 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 08-09-2018 11:23 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 8 by caffeine, posted 08-09-2018 12:35 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 11 by NoNukes, posted 08-09-2018 5:50 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30717
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 6 of 18 (837795)
08-09-2018 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
08-09-2018 10:51 AM


Re: Freedom
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?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2018 10:51 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2018 11:38 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6500
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 7 of 18 (837796)
08-09-2018 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
08-09-2018 11:23 AM


Re: Freedom
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 08-09-2018 11:23 AM jar has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1456
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 8 of 18 (837798)
08-09-2018 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
08-09-2018 10:51 AM


Re: Freedom
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:
A defamatory statement—in this case, a potential libel—is a false statement that undermines the reputation of the person about whom the statement is made. In a court of law, the fact-finder cannot just accept the writer or publisher’s assertion that a statement is true. In England in particular, a libel claimant can require the writer and publisher to prove truth, which in the case of your book, would be extremely difficult to do for many of the claims you make. We have no reason to doubt the veracity of what you say, but we believe the risk is high that those implicated in the premise of the book—that Putin has a close circle of criminal oligarchs at his disposal and has spent his career cultivating this circle—would be motivated to sue and could afford to do so. Even if the Press was ultimately successful in defending such a lawsuit, the disruption and expense would be more than we could afford, given our charitable and academic mission.

President Putin has never been convicted for the crimes or activities which are outlined in the book, and we cannot be sure that any of the other named individuals or organisations have either. That the allegations may have been published elsewhere is no defence; re-publication of a libellous statement is still libel if it cannot be proven to be true.

We did consider asking an expert outside lawyer to thoroughly review the manuscript and provide detailed suggestions about how it could be rewritten. However, this would cost in the tens of thousands of dollars. Moreover, given the controversial subject matter of the book, and its basic premise that Putin's power is founded on his links to organised crime, we are not convinced that there is a way to rewrite the book that would give us the necessary comfort.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2018 10:51 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14232
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 9 of 18 (837800)
08-09-2018 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
08-09-2018 9:06 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2018 9:06 AM Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


(3)
Message 10 of 18 (837829)
08-09-2018 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
08-09-2018 9:06 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2018 9:06 AM Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10870
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 11 of 18 (837831)
08-09-2018 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
08-09-2018 10:51 AM


Re: Freedom

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2018 10:51 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10870
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 12 of 18 (837850)
08-10-2018 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
08-09-2018 8:14 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 08-09-2018 8:14 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 08-10-2018 6:42 AM NoNukes has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30717
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 13 of 18 (837857)
08-10-2018 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by NoNukes
08-10-2018 12:25 AM


what is true in the fantasy world
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.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 08-10-2018 12:25 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NoNukes, posted 08-10-2018 8:35 AM jar has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10870
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 14 of 18 (837869)
08-10-2018 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
08-10-2018 6:42 AM


Re: what is true in the fantasy world
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 08-10-2018 6:42 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 08-10-2018 8:52 AM NoNukes has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30717
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 15 of 18 (837872)
08-10-2018 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by NoNukes
08-10-2018 8:35 AM


Re: what is true in the fantasy world
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


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NoNukes, posted 08-10-2018 8:35 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NoNukes, posted 08-10-2018 9:04 AM jar has responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018