Media censorship and cover up
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=105552
Printed Date: December 02 2024 at 08:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Media censorship and cover up
Posted By: Blacksword
Subject: Media censorship and cover up
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 03:34
|
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE RESPONDING: ....committed by establshment figures in order to protect the establishment, or the crimes of politcally sensitive groups like North African or Middle Eastern migrants so as to not upset 'community cohesion' ?? Or do you think the media has a responsibility to society to always be honest and open with the pubic regardless if the stories cause outrage or upset? ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Replies:
Posted By: TeleStrat
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 03:57
| "...the media has a responsibility to society to always be honest and open with the pubic regardless if the stories cause outrage or upset." |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 03:58
|
when police and officials is not doing their jobs, who do we put our trust on, the 4th state power the press and journalist. -------------  
|
Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 04:16
|
TeleStrat wrote:Posted By: TeleStrat
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 04:21
^  I copied and pasted that from the original post
|
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 04:28
Im open with my pubic hairs (  )-------------
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 05:23
|
I answered "Sometimes it may be appropriate" In 1993 the IRA bombed Bishopsgate in the City of London, resulting in severe damage to many buildings and one fatality. The celebrated "contempt" court cases against the publisher and editor of Punch following the bombing over the disclosure that MI5 could have prevented it over-shadowed a different level of implicit media censorship/cover-up that occurred. The IRA's stated aim of the bombing was to strengthen their case in the peace process and thus was part of their propaganda terror campaign, whereas the British government's response was to take a harder line in the negotiations, pressing for a total cease-fire. To do that they down-played the extent of the damage caused and The City presented a "business as usual" face to the rest of the world in the aftermath of the bombing. At the time http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/24/newsid_2523000/2523345.stm" rel="nofollow - the damage was estimated at £1billion but was later revised to £350million (reported as the total repair costs). Many of the buildings that should have been demolished were shored-up to look as if they had not been as badly damaged as was first thought (there was even talk of demolishing the Nat West Tower at the time but that was quickly refuted) and I suspect that the media were complicit in this apparent cover-up (it is hard to imagine that they weren't). Here the censoring was not about 'National Security' (as in the case against Punch) but part of the battle against IRA propaganda. Also, we should remember that The Media is not apolitical, and nor are its owners, editors and journalists. Everyone has an agenda. There is also the matter of accountability and responsibility to consider, in some cases uncensored reporting is irresponsible and can be of more harm than good. ------------- What? |
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 06:05
|
Voted sometimes, but I mean incidentally. Horrid details don't need no exposure. However, I think that the ethnicity of the persons involved should ALWAYS be mentioned, if only to neutralize today's culture of political correctness. I shun the news more often these days because I think the media are used rather to influence than to inform.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 06:59
 It won't let me edit it either!Sorry but we're stuck with pubic.. The PUBLIC will be outraged..  ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: TeleStrat
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 08:05
|
^ Well, the PUBLIC will have to get over it and move on.
|
Posted By: JD
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 08:28
|
That's taking a genital approach...uh, gentle approach. ------------- Thank you for supporting independently produced music |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 10:39
|
------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 10:44
damn right.. I mean if one can not trust the cut throat world of big media journalism to get it out first regardless of how or what it upsets or outrages..who can one trust to be so open and honest. The day the media starts being responsible is the day someone has forced them to be, and that means the government is dictating what and when they can report it. hah.------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: TeleStrat
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 11:00
|
I would like to see the news reported in a straight forward middle of the road manner but that will never happen. The mainstream media leans so far to the left that they need to be propped up to keep from falling over. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: January 18 2016 at 07:15
I tend to agree, although I would argue it's not just left leaning media that's the problem. All media leans one way or another, while all claiming to be impartial. The BBC has an unambiguous liberal bias and is gushingly pro-monarchy, while claiming to be unbiased and neutral. Fox claims to be unbiased but is obviously right wing and pro-republican. MSNBC are complete Obamanoids. I think the point is this, we all choose a news source that fits our own political compass, because we like to hear our own views fed back to us by journalists in print, because we think that validates our beliefs. If news was just a dispassionate listing of events with no "angle" no one would pay any attention to it. IMO. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 18 2016 at 08:08
 I was wondering just how Fox and the media group formally known as "News International" could ever be regarded as leaning too far to the left. The only way I can see that is if they leant so far right they looped around a full 180°  ------------- What? |
Posted By: TeleStrat
Date Posted: January 18 2016 at 08:26
|
^^ I stopped watching the network news (CBS, NBC, ABC) a long time ago. Rather than reporting the news they report their opinions of the news. I only watch cable news now and I watch all three of the main networks. As you said, Fox is conservative and MSNBC is liberal so I try to listen to what both sides are saying. I am a registered Independent so I don't root for either side and I have issues with both extremes.
|
Posted By: TeleStrat
Date Posted: January 18 2016 at 08:30
My comment about leaning to the left was referring to the network news programs that I mentioned in my next post (CBS, NBC, ABC).
|
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: January 18 2016 at 09:19
The traditional political compass everyone (in this country, at least) is taught is a lie. Right wing and left wing are both authoritarian at their core and share a common desire to shove their particular twisted morals down everyone's throats via government force. The politicians, and those who control them, invented the lie, the schools pound it into everyone heads, and the media makes sure people are angry-at/frightened-of trivial nonsense while the real problems go unreported. There's more to say, but frankly, I get tired as sh*t of explaining how things actually are. Let's just say political parties work like NFL teams. They divide people along trivial lines and the more passion there is surrounding these divisions the stronger the shield (central govt) grows. Anyway, more Snowdens and Assanges are sorely needed. -------------  Time always wins. |