View Single Post
Old 06-18-2008, 05:58 PM   #12
CanisLupusArctos
Senior Member
 
CanisLupusArctos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 1,049
Thanks: 15
Thanked 472 Times in 107 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee View Post
Where in the Constitution does it say anything remotely close that? The First Amendment guarantees the press freedom to publish information (whether truthful or not--it doesn't specify, nor does it need to) without the government interfering with it or censoring it in any way.

This forum is a form of the press and its users have the freedom of expression on it--although the Webmaster has a right to censor, but is very good about keeping it a medium for the free exchange of information.

The 1A was created to protect both the popular views of the majority AND the unpopular views of the minority. Anyone here is free to discuss the speed limit debate with regard to the recent accident and that discussion should be respected. There is already a thread of everyone sending their condolences to the families involved.

Given that, it is both healthy and beneficial to the Winnipesaukee community for there to be a thread about this. There was no "grieving-period wait" to discuss the politics of 9/11. We continue to discuss the politics of the conflict in Iraq, and do not "wait" a period of time every time a soldier dies. Yes, we all feel terrible about the accident and wish the families the best. But there is more to discuss.

FOX isn't the only biased network. They're just the only network that openly admits bias. For your daily dosage of liberal bias (or worse, subtle bias), be sure to tune into the works of Peter Jennings, Keith Olbermann, and Brian Williams. Newspapers, check out the New York Times, The Boston Globe, USA Today, and The Washington Post. Need I go on?

If you get your news from any one source, you are probably misinformed to a degree.
Sorry, I got the first and second amendments crossed - first amendment "No law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and the second amendment, "...necessary to the security of a free state..."

As for the rest of my point, I don't know what you thought I was trying to say.
Therefore I will summarize:

1) My opening statement was merely an agreement with many others who expressed similar feelings, my intention to be kind to those involved by staying out of the speed limit (etc.) debates that have upset so many others. How did my statement come across as a suggestion that I think tragic news stories need to have a "grieving period wait?"

2) The main idea of my post: I spotted the elements of a story that have the capability to go national in such a manner that it would lose many important local facts along the way. I wanted to offer the fair warning to those here, in case it did.

3) Be prepared to respond to misleading news reports.

4) Why respond? Because whatever gets aired affects the opinions of millions who don't know any better. When what's aired consistently isn't as truthful as it could be, things eventually get screwed up at the political level because the viewers/readers are also voters.

5) I got my Constitutional Amendments crossed, so I'll re-state the idea I was trying to say there: Truth is essential to freedom. There's a reason we have "freedom of the press" in this country, and truth-telling is it. Yes, in order to have free speech we must allow the lies too. Even that is important to freedom because it helps us spot the liars in our society. However, when mainstream media outlets start to deviate from truth, or when they start going for the "sensational stories" instead of "boring but important substance" (economy, war, taxes, congressional votes, etc.,) we can't just sit back and let them. When I say, "we," I mean "individuals" and not "the Government." All the mainstream media outlets are guilty of agenda-pushing and ratings-grabbing. It just so happens that FOX isn't very good at hiding it.
CanisLupusArctos is offline