So the media comes under scrutiny quite a bit, mainly because of its tendency to 'spin' or give opinions to and about the facts


I often hear the cry 'why doesnt the news report,,,,,etc?' , which indicates a feeling that the media has an OBLIGATION to inform of (all) happenings

but I also hear that the media CAUSES,, behaviors and attitudes


I wonder where is the balance and consistency?

Where is the line between the 'obligation' to show whats happening, and INCITING of public emotions by doing so?


As a for instance, I recall Obama being considered 'divisive' for speaking out about the relations between cops and the citizens in their communities, I remember vividly the implication that his statements and the media coverage of certain events was somehow a 'catalyst' for any of the negative events that happened after


yet, some of the same people do not see a similar 'invoking/divisive' comparison when Trump speaks about banning muslims, or hyperpolicing Mexicans for their legal status,,,etc,,,


I wonder, if Muslim extremists numbers rise and retaliation occurs, or if relations with Mexico become severed or harmful,

will those actions be seen as strictly their choice of behavior, or will the POTUS receive the blame for their reactions?

when is speaking out, by public figures or the media, just telling it 'like it is' as opposed to being 'divisive'


is freedom of speech and press a danger because of the catalyst words provide towards actions, or is it a necessity because of the spotlight it shines on things that people may otherwise not know are happening in the world?


it is a right for a reason, I want to see it stay that way

what do you think? do you support the reigns being pulled on that right or do you feel its too important to tamper with?

of course, as with anything, I would hope to see more COMMON Sense used in reporting, like considering consequences and impacts

its stupid to put others in danger by making ALL information public ALL The time or trying to make it public the fastest,, some things should be kept on hold until the hot water cools down,, so to speak

There is no real "obligation" to show what's happening.


Anything reported "incites" emotions.

Other than that, seems the line may lie in the intentions of the producer of "media."

Do they want you to "know" or do they want you to "do?"
Do they want to "inform" or do they want you to "believe?"
How would a "reasonable" (legal definition) person respond to the information?


Some people are going to see those actions as the responsibility of the individuals choosing the behavior.
Others are going to blame who they think is "really" responsible.
Some are going to blame who they think is "really" responsible and find all sorts of media proof or anecdotal to justify the belief.

No matter what the media says.

And then people are going to go on the internet, and find groups of like minded people, and talk about it.
Or they're going to go to random discussion boards and forums and argue about it with those of a different belief.

Then some people who rely on random discussion boards and forums for meaningful social interaction are going to start thinking "all" people of similar cant believe the same, only have the same information.


Never and always.


There is no balance and consistency.
Only struggle to try and find one.
And as soon as you do, you have the option of withdrawing into your own little world and not facing reality anymore, or continuing to struggle and argue and fight.


They've always been a danger.
That's why they need protection.
Things that aren't dangerous don't need protecting, because no one gives a crap and ignores it.

They are never a necessity except from your subjective perspective, peace of mind, yourself.


You can't really "change" a right as implied in what you've said here.
You can only suppress or abridge them.
Rights are not granted by government or any ruling body.


I think rights are kinda absolutes.
Once you start "reigns being pulled" it's just a slippery slope to being tyrannical in your abridging them.

I mean the constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

That's pretty clear. But it's not followed.

I don't "support" any reigns being pulled. But I don't actively oppose the reigns that are pulled. You don't see me with a rifle in a bell tower demanding all speech laws being rescinded, risking my life for it. So obviously I don't feel it's "too important" to tamper with.


There's the rub.
Who decides exactly which information should be withheld?
Why can they be trusted with that power?
What is an acceptable level of danger?
Ingredient information on the side of drain cleaner means suicidal people can know what will cause them harm, or for people to poison others.
But not putting the information there can be dangerous if kids don't know it's poison.

Telling some people there is a DUI checkpoint on a certain route, maybe they drink less or not at all, sober up a little before driving home, knowing they'll have to go through the checkpoint.
Other people they may take the information, drink more, knowing a different route and feeling more secure.

Other than that, the more you try to control information, the more regular and related information becomes disinformation.
Disinformation leads to imbalance and inconsistency very quickly.

Topic: Spotlight, Catalyst, or both?

Did someone say "Cat"?

Freedom of speech and expression is one of the fundamentals of the United States, which is BOTH absolutely necessary, AND extraordinarily dangerous at the same time.

Something that took me a long while to recognize, is that there are a number of aspects of life, which it is very important that we NOT try to tame, and put into a comfortable cage. Our fundamental freedoms are one of them. They are equally destroyed if we try to corral them into quiet channels, OR if we allow everyone to run rampant and irresponsibly across each other.

The criticisms of Obama were and are simultaneously important parts of the formation of policy, AND vile abuses of Freedom of Speech and the Press, because not all of the criticisms have been even slightly honest.

We see the same thing happening both to, and from, the Trump White House. Part of this is due to simple ignorance and the clumsy and hasty way that many things are said, but part of it is also a very dangerous ongoing effort of one sector of the country to entirely suppress another.

The greatest danger to America right now, is not our differences of opinion, it is the growing idea that differences of opinion can and should be IGNORED, or even actively SUPPRESSED by those in power.

I'm a fix-it guy, and I know from decades of direct experience, that while we may not come up with the correct response to a problem right away, that if we choose to ignore the problem, or worse, force a bad solution to "work," that the whole system will come crashing down as a result.

In short, if all you do is "make that squeak go away," you will continue to allow the reason for the "squeak," to chew away at the most vital part of the American "machinery."

GREED
Those in power try to stay in power. Its all about making money or getting fame. Controversy sells.

In school we are taught to stay aware of current events. People use the media as a tool in their business dealings. Properly reading the trends and happenings allows for sound business decisions and they make money.

UNJUSTIFIED CONCERN
Rally forth and make yourself heard. Join a cause and fight for what you believe in.

It seems most people have a need to help the underdog. They see or hear about something that registers as 'not right' and they seek out all information on the subject so that they may join in the fight to change it. People drive the coverage the media gives.

AGENDA
Those in power try to stay in power. Media coverage is not the only tool used by the powerful to get the people to react as they want. Advertising is a huge tool that drives the "Sheeple Effect". Most people don't even realize they are being manipulated.

"We deeply apologize for any misunderstanding, as it was absolutely not our intent to offend anyone," the Red Cross wrote on its website.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/28/health/red-cross-apologizes-for-pool-safety-poster-trnd/index.html - CNN.com

That was 'run' during the POTUS campaign about the time when Trump was coming under fire for racism.

On Facebook, where I saw the article in my news feed there were hundreds of comments. Here is what I wrote:


"The 5 Worst/Recent Mass Murders in the USA (with a Firearm) Came from Democrats" (I can't find the original link)

My response, which was removed from the comments:


I'm to the point where all I ever read is just the headlines and move on. Not only are the NEWS topics slanted to an agenda, I've noticed that the headlines are worded to illicit a reaction. Hatred, bigotry, murder and mistrust are the essence that people are being bombarded with by today's media. When you read the comments of an article. It is clear the people are being steered. Hatred, bigotry and mistrust is perpetuated into their daily lives. People lose interest in atrocities in favor of the new and improved atrocity. NEWS is no longer factual like when Cronkite delivered the stories. The media and the journalist are giving information based on opinions to illicit a meme. It is the new shepherd of the sheeple.
I don't watch TV. I don't listen to the radio. I don't watch the NEWS videos with sound. I read the NEWS online. I see the headlines and comments people write. It sickens me. People are reactive to the point it is predictable. I actually feel sorry for the deluded masses.

The media no longer reports the actual NEWS. Everything is slanted to an agenda. The propagation of hatred and bigotry is captured in the headlines and fleshed out in the articles and comments. This media blitz of hatred fuels the stressed out population to actions.
Are those actions the result of a strategy?
Are the sheeple being redirected from the real issues?
The few that can still see the real issues are being ruled by the mindless masses that have been convinced by the planners.
Instant gratification, delusions of grandeur and a sense of helplessness distorts their senses and cause them to take actions that are extreme.
Television and the internet now teaches our children. Shows like The Simpsons influence the parents. Everyone seems to think their voice must be heard and their ideals must be rallied.

that leads to another question

what is 'news' then? what qualifies?


I consider news to be any factual information about whats happening in and around the world.

and 'news' comes in many different categories

political
social
health
science
business
entertainment

NEWS is supposed to be information from

North
East
West
South

Not supposition, opinions and schemes

In the old days, men like William Randolph Hearst
(and all the news barons) would indeed resort to
'making' the news when none presented itself.

They have never gotten past that I think.

I watched a newscast one night that really made me sick.
The reporter had a set list of questions, but when the
person being interviewed gave an answer that did not fit
with the reporter's agenda, the reporter totally ignored
all replies until the interview became one-sided..
goosebumps I tell you.

Just wrong.
Preconceived news..no thank you.

so I get whey the slant of political affiliation regarding shootings seems like a scheme instead of news

I am still unclear about a report of a company taking responsibility for its base (which , in my book, is almost always news,, even a person taking responsibility in the public eye is rare, but a COMPANY/ORGANIZATION,,,? almost unheard of)

is in the same category

thats another form of slant I can do without as well Soufie

I love npr because they so often give at least two 'sides'

If you want fair and balanced you should watch Bill O'Reilly on Fox News , than stay tuned for Tucker Carlson. All points are covered.

Fair and balanced isnt yelling over dissenting opinions and only having one side of an argument

fair and balanced rarely comes from company sponsored sources, as they have an underlining objective of keeping with the bias of the sponsors customers


like I said NPR,, publicly sponsored,,,much less 'agenda' and bias