I think that always bombarding people by the media shouldn't happen.I don't know why the media gets freedom and we get Freedom of Speech that realy doesn't give us much freedom:bugeye:.

I think that always bombarding people by the media shouldn't happen.I don't know why the media gets freedom and we get Freedom of Speech that realy does give us much freedom:bugeye:.

What are you trying to convey, here?

MORE freedom, not less. :)

What freedom of the media are you talking about?

Everything needs limits.

The media has the right to post in a newspaper or on the news almost what ever they want.

I think that always bombarding people by the media shouldn't happen.I don't know why the media gets freedom and we get Freedom of Speech that realy doesn't give us much freedom:bugeye:.

All hail the glorious Chairman Mao...

Someone understands what I'm trying to put out there

Someone understands what I'm trying to put out there

I was being sarcastic more than anything: perhaps you were too, but it was lost on me, at least.

The point is that governments which don't allow freedom of press are much more inefficient than governments that do. For example, in China, a large amount of productivity is lost due to corruption by local officials. Presumably, if there was freedom of press to investigate and report such matters, the government would be much more efficient. In the West, corruption by local officials leads to their dismissal by angry voters, typically.

Of course, if you are a fan of a totalitarian regime, then losing a bit of productivity to corruption is ok, so long as you're the one getting the kickbacks.

Let's ask a more fundamental question. What is freedom the press? Is the press more free when it is constrained by government or the interests of its ownership? What defines a free press? And is it more important to have a free press or the free flow of information? Can you have a free flow of information without a free press?

I think that always bombarding people by the media shouldn't happen.I don't know why the media gets freedom and we get Freedom of Speech that realy doesn't give us much freedom:bugeye:.

My feeling is that in order to call yourself NEWS you should have to meet some sort of criterion. If not then any simulated news show should be prefaced with: The following show is NOT NEWS it is only an Entertainment Program and not meant to be taken seriously.

My feeling is that in order to call yourself NEWS you should have to meet some sort of criterion. If not then any simulated news show should be prefaced with: The following show is NOT NEWS it is only an Entertainment Program and not meant to be taken seriously.

You assume people are too stupid to do this for themselves---is that really the type of world you think you live in? Do you really think you're that much smarter than most of the other people around you?

And, who sets the criteria?

The problem is that first clayton uses the term 'media' and then a few posts later discusses 'news'.

The title itself is: Should freedom of the media be limited

These are two separate issues. News is NOT necessarily considered 'the media' and it should not be.

I don't think there should be total freedom when the form of media itself is restricted in a way that means one person talking prevents another from talking.

I'll try and be more clear:


An example where freedom should be absolute is Newspapers: Potentially infinity newspapers could exist. I don't like what the Statesman Journal has to say about something, nobody is stopping me from getting a press, and starting my own paper.

An example where freedom should not be absolute is Broadcast Media: In any local area, there only about 12 frequencies that can possibly be used to send a signal to a person's TV. Cable and Satellite extend this, but even they have limits. If I don't like what CBS News has to say about something , I cannot go out and start another TV channel. It's impossible.

So, basically, freedom of speech on Broadcast media includes freedom to stop others from speaking. The freedom to deprive another of freedom is not a freedom.

The problem is that first clayton uses the term 'media' and then a few posts later discusses 'news'.

The title itself is: Should freedom of the media be limited

These are two separate issues. News is NOT necessarily considered 'the media' and it should not be.

Well news in certain terms talks on some famous people.