|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| May 20th, 2003 08:48 AM | ||
| Alxcipher | A judicial body to preserve the "integrity" of the media? Just whose construction of integrity are we talking about here? At least in the US you have a right of free speech, in Australia we only have an implied right of 'freedom of political communication' which I think upholds 'integrity' a lot more than any judiciary. Especially where the judicature is as loaded as the US with party politics and allegiances. Your media is already judged by the judiciary to an extent, look at defamation laws etc. Ideals espoused through journalism should be any ideas that the author wants to convey so long as they are a part of the story and make it subjective as all hell. Objectivity is such a stupid word. Viva Gonzo. | |
| May 20th, 2003 04:30 AM | ||
| Pub Lover |
Quote:
|
|
| May 19th, 2003 11:40 PM | ||
| Sethomas |
To one side, at least we're not the UK. To the other, at least we're not Germany. :/ I personally think that there should be an arbitrary body established with some judicial oomph in it that would be entrusted with preserving the integrity of the media. The first problem would be, of course, that a truly arbitrary body is nearly impossible in any political environment. The second problem I can think of is the case of material that comes close to being slander, but should be spoken all the same. What comes to mind is the post-11.09.01 media dissenters that attempted to connect the attacks to US sources, even the Bush administration. Such speculation being presumably untrue, it verges on the line of slander, yet much of it still was insightful enough that it damn well should have been said. The media might be scared into brushing under the carpet a few details out of the ordinary that might have made for a safe story only in a truly liberal environment, i.e. half a story is more dangerous than a full one. I'm sure there are remedies for these, but it's a pipedream nonetheless. |
|
| May 19th, 2003 10:22 PM | ||
| theapportioner |
A bit on journalism What is the journalistic ideal, in your opinion? Should it be of a professional elite whose ethics counterbalance and shield against the conflicts of interest from corporatization, government, etc.? Should journalists see themselves as experts akin to medical doctors, as a group that prides itself on fairness and accuracy, to a quasi-religious level? How would it be policed, or should policing itself be sufficient? Or should journalism be the domain for all? After all it is much closer to popular free speech than medicine, and the United States' tradition of the democratic, rabblerousing sort of journalism dates back to the colonial era. It could be much more subversive than a more 'professional' ideal of journalism, at the risk of destroying the sense of objective 'trust', although the case of the NYTimes, and many more previous, has shown that even the most highly regarded media outlets are susceptible to corruption. Is the answer then, more democracy or more ethics? Or both? |
|
