LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 04-04-2019, 12:01 PM   #1
slackwarenewbee
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2010
Posts: 78

Rep: Reputation: 1
Should US Media Fear Mongering/Agitation Be Regulated


For example should there be new rules dividing what should

be openly labeled as news reporting or opinion?

But the basic question holds should the US media outlets be

regulated as a business for profit like any other?

Should the fear mongering be identified as harmful to

viewers?
 
Old 04-04-2019, 12:23 PM   #2
RandomTroll
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2010
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,191

Rep: Reputation: 196Reputation: 196
It may be harmful, but we've had all kinds of harmful speech in the past. Early newspapers used to publish outrageous lies. Lynchers used to distribute postcards with pictures of their lynchings. We'll have to learn to live with it.
 
Old 04-04-2019, 12:30 PM   #3
sevendogsbsd
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2017
Distribution: FreeBSD
Posts: 768

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Interesting point. I have 2 forms of media I use: the Internet and TV news. Everything we read on the Internet is true so that one is good (kidding)

As for the TV media, I believe that is the most dangerous because we really have no idea whether what we are seeing is true. What media organization/channel do we trust? We see what appear to be credible human beings speaking on a certain subject but whether we are being spoonfed or not is simply a guess.

Very good point OP.
 
Old 04-04-2019, 12:43 PM   #4
freemedia2018
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2019
Distribution: various automated remasters
Posts: 107
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackwarenewbee View Post
Should the fear mongering be identified as harmful to

viewers?
Should a government whose military conducts psychological operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare regulate a media that similarly manipulates the public? Great question.

The government is chosen by large corporations, the media is owned by large corporations. Another question would be-- how could such a government be relied on to regulate "fear mongering" when it is notably guilty of the doing exactly the same for its own purposes? Asking the government to regulate the fear mongering in media would be like asking a cigarette company to regulate the nutritional value in snack food.
 
Old 04-04-2019, 01:54 PM   #5
slackwarenewbee
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2010
Posts: 78

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
Looks like I messed up the question again.

Should the US media be regulated? Y/N?

Things to be REGULATED FOR:

Fear mongering.Using disturbing language to add fuel to the emotional fire.

Whipping up a frenzy.Agitating.Old way of saying it.

Think we need to add civility/respect for others to the 'common grounds'.

Being out in public.People have things to do.Leave them alone. Very disrespectful to just

pop up on them and start doing bizarre stuff.

Back to the media.I guess people do CHOOSE to watch a channel or look at a website.

It seems like there is not a reputable outlet for unbiased or reliable news anymore.

CBS website seems disjointed and unable to organize their page logically.

PBS does not have hour by hour news.

We need 'Plain Folks News Network'.News coverage rolled back to 80's level reporting.

Hold the agendas and whipping up hysteria.Have some respect for the viewer.
 
Old 04-04-2019, 05:44 PM   #6
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,133

Rep: Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137
I am vehemently against public censorship whatever name one uses to disguise it, like "regulated". How can people get a feel for what is real if distasteful things are covered up or "regulated"? I think it is better to "give them enough rope to hang themselves".

Last edited by enorbet; 04-04-2019 at 05:45 PM.
 
Old 04-04-2019, 05:51 PM   #7
slackwarenewbee
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2010
Posts: 78

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
Enorbet Could you send me a PM?Could you tell me what happened to Slackware?I have 10 year

old paid for disk set.Then Slackware kind of lost me somewhere along the line.

Sorry everybody.Needed to get that out of the way.

Enorbet Please? Forgot my manners.

Last edited by slackwarenewbee; 04-04-2019 at 06:03 PM.
 
Old 04-04-2019, 05:57 PM   #8
slackwarenewbee
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2010
Posts: 78

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
I am for guidelines labeling what it it is and warnings.

Protecting the public.The media can still say what they were going to

say.

The same way adult content has a layer in front of it.

I think the media needs to be called on the 'non news' aspects of some

of what they are doing.

They are basically 'slipping something else in' along with news.

People would protest against food or medication being giving to them unkowingly.

Now it is time for the government to extend the rules to mind or mood affecting elements.

'Hey.You're messing with my mind!' in essence.

Last edited by slackwarenewbee; 04-04-2019 at 06:04 PM.
 
Old 04-04-2019, 06:25 PM   #9
scasey
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2013
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA
Distribution: CentOS 7.6
Posts: 2,760

Rep: Reputation: 950Reputation: 950Reputation: 950Reputation: 950Reputation: 950Reputation: 950Reputation: 950Reputation: 950
This one is easy:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-- First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
 
Old 04-04-2019, 07:16 PM   #10
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,210

Rep: Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081
Quote:
Originally Posted by scasey View Post
This one is easy:
But you forget this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
 
Old 04-04-2019, 07:22 PM   #11
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,210

Rep: Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081
I've posted this before in another thread, however, it applies here as well, give it a good read through, perhaps a few, pay close attention to his remarks about the press:
Thomas Jefferson second inaugural address March 4, 1805.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau2.asp
 
Old 04-04-2019, 07:54 PM   #12
slackwarenewbee
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2010
Posts: 78

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
From the Jefferson speech.

'have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved and provided by the laws of the

several States against falsehood and defamation;'

I would say the current media has learned to 'play the game' and pull all kinds of stunts

outside of those laws.

Looked at Fox News online/The Nation.About 10 stories heavily weighted to murder and abduction.

That creates the 'falsehood' there are lots of murders in the country.There are going to be some and it serves a purpose knowing about them.This is a lousy example.

But the part about WHAT STORIES they chose to show is true.There are hundreds of stories on the digital 'news wire' available to them.

They can 'shape' the impression the viewer gets.

CNN loads up on investigations and slurring the president.Gives you the impression EVERYBODY is against him.

It is just old fashioned 'Yellow Journalism' teched up to a website.Whoop dee doo.
 
Old 04-04-2019, 07:56 PM   #13
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,210

Rep: Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081
slackwarenewbee, quote tags are your friend, they are up there ^.
 
Old 04-04-2019, 09:53 PM   #14
jefro
Moderator
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,929

Rep: Reputation: 2838Reputation: 2838Reputation: 2838Reputation: 2838Reputation: 2838Reputation: 2838Reputation: 2838Reputation: 2838Reputation: 2838Reputation: 2838Reputation: 2838
It's all opinion unless it's your house that's burning down. Then it's real.
 
Old 04-04-2019, 10:14 PM   #15
frankbell
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Ubuntu MATE, Mageia, and whatever VMs I happen to be playing with
Posts: 14,726
Blog Entries: 24

Rep: Reputation: 4115Reputation: 4115Reputation: 4115Reputation: 4115Reputation: 4115Reputation: 4115Reputation: 4115Reputation: 4115Reputation: 4115Reputation: 4115Reputation: 4115
I shall not wade into the details of this thread for reasons.

I shall say, though, that I gave up on broadcast news--all broadcast news--a long time ago, not because it is necessarily biased (though one prominent "news" network most certainly is), but because it is vapid and superficial. The only news "source" that I find more vapid and superficial than broadcast news is "social" media.

I get my news by subscribing to my local rag and several respected periodicals and by reading newspaper websites, lots of newspaper websites, from all around the country and from all over the spectrum, as well as by reading a very few bloggers who I have found through years of usage to be upright (I read lots of bloggers, but the "very few" are the ones who have proven themselves conscientious). That doesn't mean they are always correct, but that they are always trying to be correct.

News is a living thing. It is not a sin if a journalist gets it wrong the first time, because additional facts may come to light. What matters is whether the journalist is trying to get it right all the time.

Also, as an aside, if the journalist disagrees with your or my position, that doesn't mean he or she is wrong (unless it's Dav--never mind). You or I may be wrong.

[TIRADE MODE]
And, no, I don't believe regulation is the answer.

An informed and knowledgeable citizenry that doesn't fall for garbage is the answer.

And that's what we here in the States most certainly do not have.
[/TIRADE MODE]
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Why Internet Advertising Needs to Be Regulated LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-15-2016 08:20 AM
LXer: Taking command why none should fear the command line LXer Syndicated Linux News 1 09-20-2010 03:53 PM
LXer: Should We Fear the (Microsoft) Geeks, Bearing Gifts? LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 07-30-2008 02:20 PM
Windows regulated shutdown software. phantom_cyph General 17 03-13-2007 06:02 AM
Best Open Source DIstribution for Regulated Businesses Jeffmrg Linux - Enterprise 13 11-01-2004 02:51 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration