Opinion: Restrict Freedom of the Press

Watch
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
This is something I've been mulling over for a few weeks now. Those who know me are probably aware that I am (generally) very pro free speech. For the most part, people should be free to voice their opinions about things regardless of how offensive, hateful and wacky they may be. However, I am far less libertarian when it comes to matters of slander and libel. It's one thing to state one's opinion and be offensive, but another to mislead and to lie, especially when in a position of power.

The Fourth Estate in particular has a responsibility to truthfulness above that of the ordinary citizenry on the street or on Twitter. It exists in a place of trust and authority (well, more or less). So to see newspapers and news networks grooming the masses with partisan coverage, half-truths, disputable descriptions and 'soft' defamation is something that's incredibly troubling to me, and I believe troubling to an increasing number of people nowadays.

Adhering to laws of libel and slander as they currently stand is simply not enough. Journalists, as dispensers of news media, must be forced into non-partisan, political neutrality and must be forbidden from arguing any sort of point. They must state only who, what, where, and when accurately and in the most unbiased terms possible. Implementing this would admittedly be difficult, however. How does one objectively enforce neutrality? I have some ideas. For example, vocabulary like "far-right/left" or other political labels and politically charged words should be prohibited entirely, articles routinely fact-checked by an authority, and any content that would potentially violate these standards redacted from publication.

Another method is through the use of fear. Make examples and sacrifice a right-wing paper and a left-wing paper on the proverbial alter. Punish those who show too much partisanship and the others will begin to regulate themselves.

It's a working idea.
1
reply
Violet Femme
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
(Original post by Dandaman1)
For example, vocabulary like "far-right/left" or other political labels and politically charged words should be prohibited entirely,
You are anti-free speech.

must be forced into non-partisan, political neutrality and must be forbidden from arguing any sort of point
articles routinely fact-checked by an authority, and any content that would potentially violate these standards redacted from publication.
You are authoritarian.
2
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
Adhering to laws of libel and slander as they currently stand is simply not enough. Journalists, as dispensers of news media, must be forced into non-partisan, political neutrality and must be forbidden from arguing any sort of point. They must state only who, what, where, and when accurately and in the most unbiased terms possible. Implementing this would admittedly be difficult, however. How does one objectively enforce neutrality? I have some ideas. For example, vocabulary like "far-right/left" or other political labels and politically charged words should be prohibited entirely, articles routinely fact-checked by an authority, and any content that would potentially violate these standards redacted from publication.

Most journalists contravening such code of ethics would strenuously deny the charge, particularly at the BBC. They are simply not professional enough to cloak their perfectly legitimate personal views, of course those of us who don't read the Guardian can tell them from the distance. It's what they choose to talk about, the choice of guests, everything they say and that they don't, it's like a perfect match for the Guardianista front page of the day. On most days, anyway.

Couldn't be enforced on a private news agency, though. They'd be at it all the time on what is partizan or not and if their audiences don't mind them being partial... so be it.
0
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by Violet Femme)
You are anti-free speech.





You are authoritarian.
This is as it pertains to NEWSpapers. Forcing newspapers, in theory, to stop writing biased articles on factual news does not seem very anti-free speech or authoritarian to me. If a newspaper does not wish to follow this, they can relinquish status as newspaper and call themselves an opinion magazine.
0
reply
Joleee
Badges: 19
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
we have thousands and thousands of problems in the world with no easy solutions and propaganda is one of them. even if we could control the press in the UK, what's to stop people from reading news sources from other countries? are we going to police the internet now? does this not smell too much like North Korea?

re policed language, no. heck no. i fully agree propagated language is a serious problem, but in the spirit of free speech and freedom of the press this is a terrible, terrible idea which i hope is self explanatory. way too far left.

imho we cannot put the burden on the press. the press is a business and ultimately they will look after themselves, which means giving readers what they want otherwise you don't stay in business. which means readers are the problem.

ergo, my solution is we put the burden on society. first -- we teach reading comprehension in schools beyond grade 4, so kids can identify the narrative, emotive language and tone, and identify holes in the story in adult themed literature; because clearly we don't have enough adults reading closely and questioning what they read. instead we have adults reading everything they agree with and which fuels their emotions (usually negative) because being angry and outraged is more fun than considering the issues. news stories that confirm your own beliefs and fuels emotions you already have feels good in the moment -- it makes you feel like you're not crazy, you're not alone, and by god you are right. it fuels your ego basically, which is unlike questioning your beliefs because then you might be wrong.

secondly, we need everyone (or the majority) to boycott newspapers until they start presenting stories that are fact based with no emotive language. but, unfortunately this will never happen, given my reasons above (our fuelled ego). but the school solution is workable i think; it's just going to take the majority of us to demand it. but how if we don't care?
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
Don't often invite people to watch a vid but this one is a gem and related to the topic so here goes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU7eXja2HxI

John Sununu and CNN host. What is interesting is that most journalists guilty of political manipulation go nuts when you point it out to them, it's as if they really don't get it. And they probably don't, let's be that generous about them.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you think receiving Teacher Assessed Grades will impact your future?

I'm worried it will negatively impact me getting into university/college (71)
37.57%
I'm worried that I’m not academically prepared for the next stage in my educational journey (19)
10.05%
I'm worried it will impact my future career (12)
6.35%
I'm worried that my grades will be seen as ‘lesser’ because I didn’t take exams (47)
24.87%
I don’t think that receiving these grades will impact my future (25)
13.23%
I think that receiving these grades will affect me in another way (let us know in the discussion!) (15)
7.94%

Watched Threads

View All