Freedom of the Press

Durgan · February 10, 2006

Freedom of the Press up to probably the arrival of the internet on the scene meant that those who controlled newspapers could broadcast selected information to a mass audience. The subject matter was almost exclusively in control of those who controlled the press. The press made the story with the appropiate bias and the public were duly informed about what was important for them to know. This system developed into a mass indocrination of the masses with few exceptions. Feedback consisted of a tightly controlled letter to the editor section of a few lines at most.

Today, the newspapers have an electronic feedback to the stories printed. This at first look appears to be a sound method of getting reactions and comments on news stories.

In pratice little has changed.

The Globe and Mail has a feedback system which is tightly controlled as to content, with no formatting so the story appears in one big glob. This system is not too bad except it is still censored and the poor formatting probably discourages wide reading. This is not as bad as Al Jazeera where there is almost no censoring, but all the text is in small letters with no formatting.

The Toronto Star is even worse. Only selected stories are allowed to be commented on, and the owners even go so far as to select which stories they will reproduce. About two line is accepted as if the peasants have nothing intelligent to dispense. Patronizing to say the least.

I haven't looked at the National Post or the Sun papers.

My point is Freedom of the Press only exists in the public's imagination. The press is tightly controlled by a few, and it is still the main news media for the masses, other than the entertainment of TV dispensed by a buglecaller. Radio is slighly better than TV, but there is a select number of people broadcasting their form of propaganda. My thrust is mainly about newspapers, but other media is mentioned, since they are associated somewhat.

Internet forums offer a new media for dispensing information. Depending upon the forum there is sometimes a new look at a story contrary to the newspaper view. I have no real way of determining if these forums have any real effect on the thinking of the masses, or the babblings are just an outlet for the emotions of the author. The thrust of this is I feel the masses are being controlled still by a select few as to what to think to a large degree. Almost all forum threads are started from some news story in a newspaper.

I will admit the new methods are slowly making the expression "Freedom of the Press" more meaningful for the masses for better or worse. There is a long way to go before it has real meaning.

The purpose of bring this topic up is the term Freedom of the Press is breing spouted often in regards to the Muslim uproar over a few innocuos cartoons. The implication being that what is being seen is still tightly controlled. Most people would not have seen the cartoons except for the internet.

This Freedon of the Press babble reminds me of the term the Traditions of the Royal Navy. The reply to the comment attributed to Winston Churchill was something along these lines, delivered in a shouting manner; Traditions of the Royal Navy, I will tell you what the traditions of the Royal Navy were, They were, " Press gangs, Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash."

Durgan.

"There never was a man as great as the average dog believes his master to be." Bob Edwards 1917.

Michael Hardner · February 10, 2006

The subject matter was almost exclusively in control of those who controlled the press. The press made the story with the appropiate bias and the public were duly informed about what was important for them to know.

It seems to me from your post that you think 'Freedom of the Press' means the press is open for people to print their opinions. Not so. It means that the press can print whatever it wants, with a few exceptions.

Freedom of the Press even means they can ignore you and whatever story you think is important. That's their right, their freedom. There's nothing stopping you from talking about your pet causes but nothing forces them to care about them either.

Durgan · February 12, 2006

It seems to me from your post that you think 'Freedom of the Press' means the press is open for people to print their opinions. Not so. It means that the press can print whatever it wants, with a few exceptions.
Freedom of the Press even means they can ignore you and whatever story you think is important. That's their right, their freedom. There's nothing stopping you from talking about your pet causes but nothing forces them to care about them either.

If that is all you got out of my effort, I wasted my time.

Durgan.

"One kind of hypocrite is the man who,after thanking the Lord for his dinner, proceeds to find fault with the cook." Bob Edwards 1916.

Michael Hardner · February 12, 2006

I'm sorry but your point is not at all clear.

Read this:

The purpose of bring this topic up is the term Freedom of the Press is breing spouted often in regards to the Muslim uproar over a few innocuos cartoons. The implication being that what is being seen is still tightly controlled. Most people would not have seen the cartoons except for the internet.

What is your point ?

geoffrey · February 12, 2006

If you don't like the papers or news media, start your own. Thats freedom of press.

Enjoy!

Stop whining about those that run businesses selling news. Seriously, start your freakin' paper if you don't like whats being said, I don't understand why you feel entitled for the world to hear your opinion without paying anythign for that. These newspapers and news media companies require huge amounts of investment to begin and then the editorial staff get to control their share of whats presented.

What are you proposing with this rant or is there no proposed solution?

Durgan · February 12, 2006

I'm sorry but your point is not at all clear.
Read this:

The purpose of bring this topic up is the term Freedom of the Press is breing spouted often in regards to the Muslim uproar over a few innocuos cartoons. The implication being that what is being seen is still tightly controlled. Most people would not have seen the cartoons except for the internet.

What is your point ?

Two major events are taking place over the last few days. Emerson ratting to the CPC and Muslim cartoons.

If one had to rely on the Press only to inform the public about these events, most would be in the dark. The stories and reaction to the events would simply not be present. In other word the press (media) has a captive audience and dispenses a canned, filtered interpretation to the public. With feedback the real mood of the public can be of some interest; in fact, of major interest.

My view is the cartoons were totally innocuous, also Emerson's ratting is simply not being accepted by the public. This is only ascertained by internet comments and from the newspapers through feedback. The press without feed back could slant the story anyway they wanted to without the true feelings of the public being known. This has been the practice for years until the internet arrived on the scene. My point to some degree is to point out that Freedom of the Press nonsense meant in practice subjecting the public to what I would call an appropriate politically correct story.

I can remember for years, I would read the newspaper and my immediate reaction to a story would be bullshit, and I felt I was being abused. This story telling would be caused by omission, or downright bias.

When Glass in the NY Times was caught publishing phony stories for over five years, the NY Times felt nobody would believe anything they wrote again. Upon doing a survey they found it made little difference because only 37% of the people believed what they wrote anyway. Al Jazeera is believed by 67% of its readers. That my son is Freedom of the Press.

Durgan.

"Some men spoil a good story by sticking to the facts." Bob Edwards 1919.

geoffrey · February 12, 2006

Right, Al Jazeera is a symbol of freedom for us all.

It also helps that no one that lives there can watch Al Jazeera on TV (because they don't have one) and many can't read. And its funded by the emir of Qatar, why the hell would you get the impression that state owned and controlled media is more free than privately held media?

Our press is way more free than anything that comes out of the Middle-East. Just because you don't agree with their viewpoints doesn't mean they aren't free.