U.S. Media Is Dangerously Behind The Times, Eh?

[GSPODS]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b3_1190041214&p=1

Above is the link to the uncensored version Canadian TV viewers and the rest of the world were able to see.

American TV viewers were treated to an extended bleep and cut-away from Sally Field because she expressed an opinion not in line with FOX News. Persons have been known to use expletives at awards ceremonies on more than one occasion.

The last time I looked, Freedom Of Speech and Freedom Of Expression were pretty close to that other Constitutional Amendment they love to shove down our throats. Do not believe for a moment the expletive is the reason for the censorship. Now, would anyone care to attempt to convince me that U.S. media is accurate, impartial and unbiased?

This settles it. I'm getting all my news from Boss Hog and Redskin In Canada from now on.

[Irn-Bru]

Now, would anyone care to attempt to convince me that U.S. media is ... impartial and unbiased?

No, and that applies to all networks, no matter what the country of origin. All communication has bias and is persuasive by definition, and the idea that news can be impartial or merely fact-presenting in any sense is a myth. People are going to watch what makes them feel good.

Hence Fox News. Hence Michael Moore.

The last time I looked, Freedom Of Speech and Freedom Of Expression were pretty close to that other Constitutional Amendment they love to shove down our throats.

Constitutional amendments apply as restrictions on the government. What does that have to do with Fox News? If I waltz into your home and teach your children dirty words, can I appeal to the 1st Amendment as you are kicking me off your property?

Do not believe for a moment the expletive is the reason for the censorship.

They may have done it for a number of reasons, but I'm betting that the expletive was one of them. So they are running their news the way they want to. Who cares?

[GSPODS]

Now, would anyone care to attempt to convince me that U.S. media is ... impartial and unbiased?

No, and that applies to all networks, no matter what the country of origin. All communication has bias and is persuasive by definition, and the idea that news can be impartial or merely fact-presenting in any sense is a myth. People are going to watch what makes them feel good.

True Enough.

Hence Fox News. Hence Michael Moore.

Don't Remind Me.

The last time I looked, Freedom Of Speech and Freedom Of Expression were pretty close to that other Constitutional Amendment they love to shove down our throats.

Constitutional amendments apply as restrictions on the government. What does that have to do with Fox News? If I waltz into your home and teach your children dirty words, can I appeal to the 1st Amendment as you are kicking me off your property?

Slightly different scenario. If you waltz into my home that might carry several criminal charges. My children already know dirty words. If, for example, you were my next door neighbor and screaming profanity which my children then learned, I would have no recourse other than possibly disturbing the peace.

Do not believe for a moment the expletive is the reason for the censorship.

They may have done it for a number of reasons, but I'm betting that the expletive was one of them. So they are running their news the way they want to. Who cares?

I'm just stating my own opinion that I would like to have all of the story or none of the story, not selected excerpts. No one else is under any obligation to agree with me, and I'm quite certain anyone involved either directly or indirectly with the media will disagree with me.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. My issue is more with the censorship than with anything else. My children hear profanity at school, at Wal-Mart, on the playground, and sometimes (embarrasing to admit) even at home. Parents can always change the channel or control what their children watch. Adults should have the option to see uncensored news. JMHO

[KazooSkinsFan]

Adults should have the option to see uncensored news. JMHO

That seems to me to be a complete impossibility. OK, if they don't delete words they have to pick the story, the angle, they are always "censoring" just by choosing. I prefer to have free choice and we live in a great time for that. We have the traditional left wing media dominating TV and newspapers. If you want that, the "right" new media like Fox, radio and internet. Then the internet makes it so much easier to get information on other ideologies, like libertarianism. I love it, it's a great age. We have choice like never before.

[Countertrey]

Adults should have the option to see uncensored news.

How, pray tell, do you propose to ensure that? Every time a producer, anchor, reporter, or whom ever, makes a choice about which story to tell, which words to use, which perspective to use, they are censoring. You tell me... how do you do that?

Fox tends to skew it from a right perspective. The others from the left. No matter whom does it, they will add their own color.

It's all censored. All of it.

[Fios]

Yes, all news is definitively censored but you two are engaging in a bit of semantic nonsense. By that standard, your posts are censored, your e-mails are censored and every conversation you have is censored because of the word choices you make. That's not what he meant and I think that's pretty obvious.

[GSPODS]

Apparently it is not all that obvious ...

[Redskin in Canada]

I'm just stating my own opinion that I would like to have all of the story or none of the story, not selected excerpts.

I would like to offer some thoughts. You can call this the "sources paradox":

1) At no time in the history of humankind there were so many widely available diverse sources of information as there are today.

2) At no time in the history of humankind there were so many biased and widely available diverse sources of misinformation as there are today.

Availability of data and information is NOT the problem anymore. The problem lies in the ability to process, rationalise and take action based on the vasts amounts of information (and the ability to identify and filter noise and misinformation).

There is absolutely no substitute to good judgment and the desire to search and revise the facts, the premises and the connections.

Alfred North Whitehead once proposed an educational theory in which the MOST important part of research is not the answer or even the process designed to find it but the nature of the QUESTIONthat was posed and its underlying assumptions.

While most journalists could take a hint from Whitehead, so could the audience.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Yes, all news is definitively censored but you two are engaging in a bit of semantic nonsense. By that standard, your posts are censored, your e-mails are censored and every conversation you have is censored because of the word choices you make. That's not what he meant and I think that's pretty obvious.

Having a bad lid day?

He said "I'm just stating my own opinion that I would like to have all of the story or none of the story, not selected excerpts." That is an impossible standard to meet in any but the most trivial story. Someone is deciding which stories, who to interview, which of their statements to use, etc.

[GSPODS]

Evidently, Ignorance is Bliss. This was a live event. Specifically what was censored was not only language but also an anti-war opinion. If I have to watch the mind-numbing commercials and the shameless self-promotion, I want to see the entire live event. This has nothing at all to do with taped or written reporting, which is almost always edited.

If the President uses foul language or tells someone to go screw themself during a Presidential Address I want to hear that, too. There is a choice of what to read or watch when everyone is reporting the same event at the same time. When a single network is carrying a live event, their version is the only version a person has the option of seeing. If that version is incomplete or edited, we have to seek media sources outside of our own country for the complete, unadulterated event.

It appears that a total of two people actually read and understood the specific issue before responding.

[Countertrey]

Appropos of nothing...

Sally:

"Let's face it: If mothers ruled the world, there would be no ... wars in the first place"

(there is some irony in finding oneself censoring one's own remarks within a thread about the censor's untimely use of the "cough" button):wink:


Ahhhhh.... that explains the peaceful reigns of Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir, and Maggie Thatcher...