What if Fox News was the only source of News

[warpus]

Because, just like with 2nd amendment and guns, we have the 1st amendment which specifically singles out the press. They should enjoy protections and freedoms beyond the norm for the rest of society. The press isn't a carton of juice...

Yeah, but the press gets exempt from a bunch of things because they're supposed to be doing an important job for the citizens and the country. Fox News isn't doing this job very well. They lie, they distort, the have an agenda, and they've basically redefined what it means to be a journalist... and not in a good way.

They have these protections for a reason, but they're totally abusing them bigtime. It hurts the whole country.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is really no different than what William Randolph Hearst did at the turn of the 19th Century. Or what other tabloids in the US have done since.

We need to be extremely careful legislating the ethics of any media, no matter how despicable they may happen to be. It could quite easily lead to censorship of those who merely present an unpopular POV.

British press laws are 'just crazy', say shocked Americans

The new rules left American commentators “horrified and shocked” at what they considered to be a “crazy idea”.

They said that the “shameful compromise” would never be allowed in the USA because it breaches the First Amendment.

The Kremlin-funded broadcaster Russia Today described the guidelines as a “threat to press freedom”.

But the changes in the law have left many dismayed.

Jill Stewart, the political commentator and managing editor of the leading liberal newspaper the LA Weekly, said she was “shocked and horrified”.

“Of course the hacking scandal has been just shocking and terrible but I was really shocked to hear this come through in the last 24 hours,” she told BBC Radio Five Live.

She said that she was worried about who would decide whether journalists had broken the rules.

“I think the journalists in America and Americans in general are going to be horrified and shocked by this because we have the First Amendment here and this would never ever see the light of day.

“You would not have the government or politicians who you are covering, politicians who are doing terrible things some times, who you are writing about, deciding whether you have broken the rules.

“In the United States this would be considered a crazy idea – a bad thing.”

John O’Sullivan, the British editor-at-large of the New York-based opinion magazine National Review, said it was a “shameful compromise”.

Under a headline: 1771–2013: The Era of the Free Press in Britain, he said: “It is a serious attack on freedom by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, and a cowardly retreat in the face of that attack by Prime Minister David Cameron and the Tories.”

He said that the motives behind the attack were all too obvious – the uncovering of “grave public scandals” that have “embarrassed the politicians and the establishment”.

The Kremlin controlled Russia Today reports the news under the headline: 'Freedom of press under pressure: UK to launch media regulator'.

The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development were among those expressing concerns about media freedom, warning that the phone hacking scandal should not be used as an excuse to rein in all print media.

The 57-nation Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) urged Britain not to abandon a tradition of press self-regulation regarded around the world as best practice.

The reaction came after the cross-party agreement was attacked by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the international body that polices human rights.
Britain, with its long running democracy, is often held up as a beacon of liberty.

 

[Chiteng]

Ben Franklin lied to people and called it news to make money?


Exactly, the press isn't a carton of juice. It's a lot more important.

The most important requirement for a successful democracy is an informed electorate. This is the reason freedom of the press is important, which should be considered when people with completely different interests claim to be part of the press to abuse the privileges that come with it. If you accept this, the term "press" becomes an empty word, and the constitutionally guaranteed protection of the press loses its legitimacy.

Just calling yourself news and journalism doesn't make you "the press" in the sense of what is ought to be protected by the constitution. That is only another part of the larger point I was getting at originally. The press as a whole is the victim of an identity theft by entertainers and political agitators. For money, and for the legal privileges you are so ready to give them.

To repeat my position: should Fox News be taken off the airwaves in a violation of their freedom of speech? No.

Should action be taken against broadcasts with the intention to disinform the public while seeking legal privilege and credibility from calling themselves news? I think it should.

I suggest you know little about Franklin. Possibly you could read up on him =)
He had a political agenda btw

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I suggest you know little about Franklin. Possibly you could read up on him =)
He had a political agenda btw

You're replying to this comment: Ben Franklin lied to people and called it news to make money?

I admit to know very little about Sparky, so please tell me this story. Especially interested in the bolded part.

 

[Leoreth]

I suggest you know little about Franklin. Possibly you could read up on him =)
He had a political agenda btw

You're right, I don't know very much about Franklin. My time for reading up on stuff is limited and focused on other things at the moment, sadly. You see, so far I saw no point in acquiring detailed information about particularly the political/public life of this person, but now I realize how this decision led to my utter humiliation in this discussion.

Why don't you do me the favor and explain what you were getting at, or at least make a vague mention of it so I don't have to spend the next week stacking up on biographies?

See, I already helped you along with this question: Did Benjamin Franklin lie to people and then called it news to make money?

 

[Borachio]

Isn't it this story?

The story:
Another great American hero to whom many seem to attribute mutant superpowers is Ben Franklin, the scientist and statesman whose inventions included bifocal spectacles, the urinary catheter and freedom. He was particularly interested in electricity, and faced with intense skepticism from his colleagues about his theory that lightning is electricity, legend has it that he conducted an experiment to prove them wrong.



Franklin, with a knowing wink, went out into a raging thunderstorm and released a kite with a lightning rod affixed to the top and a metal key attached to the string. When the kite had annoyed the face of God to the point that he threw a bolt of lightning at it, the charge passed down the string and into the key, and when Franklin touched the key, it let off a spark of static, which somehow allowed him to discover electricity.

The truth:
It's certainly true that Franklin at least proposed a kite experiment. Less certain, however, is whether or not he ever actually got around to performing it, and some sources suggest he did not. What is certain is that the experiment had nothing to do with lightning. If someone flew a kite into a storm, and it was struck by lightning, there's a good chance that person would be utterly destroyed. In fact, everyone in the vicinity would at the least suffer from hairless-scalp syndrome.


Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_1610...taught-in-history-class_p2.html#ixzz2fX1JXUtQ

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That is a story.

Now all we need to establish is: Did Ben come up with that story, call it news and made a lot of money from it?

 

[Leoreth]

Oh, so it was Benjamin Franklin who invented freedom. No wonder that I don't know about this, seeing as I am a godless lefty with a desire to destroy the freedom of the press.