AWKWARD ZOMBIE

SaintCrazy wrote:Isn't there some kind of quality control we can put on these newscasts? Because so many of them are really, really dumb, and most countries agree that American news is a joke.

A British newsreporter did a show about American news and how it's very uncontrolled (there's another, better word but I can't remember it). Some radio hosts were saying how all Muslims were terrorists and the like, and no one could (legally) stop them. When the British journalist tried to bring up the topic of the government monitoring the news there was a lot of opposition, saying that it'd become a dictatorship and that the government would try and hide stuff from the public. An example of a completely "unbiased" news station is Fox News according to one American interviewed.

Free speech is one thing, blatant misinformation and bias are another.

Radio is always full of the extreme side of people, and they have more free reign than news stations because they aren't usually bossed by people. FOX, CNN, MSNBC, all of the stations are based. Middle ground stations usually don't gather as much viewers for saying something that people of either side would disagree with, and they'd lose viewers, and that means less cheddar.
FOX just gets more flak than the rest because it is complained about/less subtle than the urges most times.

FOX gets complained about more often because they're essentially the propaganda arm of the republican party.

I was trying to remain neutral. Same could be said for some stuff on MSNBC.

It's not nearly the same. Fox News and the rest of the right wing media machine seem more closely tied to the republican party than MSNBC or CNN are to any political party. In lockstep, almost.

D-vid wrote:It's sad that America is a country where you can compare a lightly alcoholic beverage to deadly weapons because there really IS that much of a demand for said deadly weapons by way too many people for the dumbest reasons.

The sad fact is that the NYT is right, but it's not only America; wherever something is illegal (or just tightly regulated, as the NYT theorizes with gun), people will try to find a way around it. What's bad about America and its gun fetish is that even ridiculously simple things that could have a big impact on gun violence, such as outlawing the ability for a person to own assault weapons like AR-15s, would be met with heavy opposition. A person doesn't need an assault weapon to defend their home or hunt deer, but they still believe that it's perfectly reasonable to own one.

SaintCrazy wrote:When the British journalist tried to bring up the topic of the government monitoring the news there was a lot of opposition.

I would rather have newsgroups internally regulate themselves and impose higher standards. I don't believe that allowing a government institution to monitor the news would be a good decision for the United States.

On the subject of the news I wouldn't necessarily be against a law requiring news organizations not to knowingly or negligently present and disseminate incorrect information they are able to validate, which surprisingly isn't a crime although it's possible for them to be sued for things like libel and slander in some cases. Like, it wouldn't be a crime to report that a study says eggs may be bad for you, then run a story countering that one because that's contentious information, but running stories they know aren't true or presenting nonfacts as facts and so on might be closely watched? On the basis that, say, maybe organizations wishing to do so could register with the government as a trusted news source or something that has its facts checked and is held accountable for certain things that could hurt people. I don't know. Just a thought. It is unsettling to me that it's actually not at all illegal for the news to just straight-up lie to us and claim "free speech" later though, knowing they have the trust of the country.

Yeah, that would make sense, but "register with the government" would set off flags in people's heads. Maybe news organizations could sign some manner of official government agreement to provide truthful information (within the abilities of a news organization) or face certain criminal charges. Signing a contractual agreement with the government sounds better to the public than registering with it.

You also have to be the station to give the news FIRST, as soon as possible. A lot of wrongly reported stuff is due to this, they hear something which can gain a huge amount of views, and rush to report it before anyone else.

I think that trying to compete with Internet news outlets in getting the scoop first has damaged American newsgroups significantly in the credibility and accuracy departments.

And apparently the shooter's brother lives next door to Katie. What a miserably small world this is.

Gun control arguments go all over the place. I believe that legal gun control can only have a limited effect, what's more important is changing the culture of guns. I respect people's rights to own a gun. Respect mine to stay the hell away from it. Stop and ask if you need a gun or are just trying to make some crude statement. The deterrent argument is asinine. The guy apparently killed himself with a gun. You can't put fear into a creature like that.

Yeah getting rid of the horrendous gun culture in the states would help immensely.

Changing the culture surrounding guns in the United States isn't going to be easy when there's so much media portrayal of firearms in a positive light as if they're super problem solvers. Try and change that, you'd get harassed for censorship. The best thing I can think of is an education campaign, but I can't elaborate on the what it could cover because it's hard to come up with something that doesn't sound condescending.

Tis easier to give freedoms than to take them away.