Since the seminar blog is rather... lacking to say the least in comparison to the ToK blog. I thought I'd kick it off with an interesting video I had found. (Seriously though seniors who took ToK last year should add something, cause people like me have no idea what to do.)
For this I have an interesting video which is about 10 minutes, so set aside a bit of time before you watch it.
Here
The major question it brings up, should news organizations be held legally responsible to tell the truth? or would this impede on their rights as independent organizations?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
83 times... ouch... and Fox was completely vindicated... ouch again. There are many sides to this issue that are both good and bad. I think that news organizations ought to be morally obligated to tell the truth in order to prevent a society such as the one in George Orwell's 1984. However, this pressure on the news could eventually evolve into something that violates the 1st amendment to the bill of rights, depending on who determines what the truth is. Finally, as with the case in the video, there are serious financial issues involved with "censoring-ish" newscasts, which would indeed violate their rights as independent organizations. The question is, should news corporations be considered businesses that exist for (and need) publicity and profit or organizations that should be able to tell the truth and take on any burdens that may result because of it?
*Note* Orwell was talking about the government controlling all news.
Even though it isn't nice we do have free press so they can say what they want to make all the money they want. Just remeber that when you watch the news. There are no qualifications for a news story, the news castors don't even have to know much about the topic. Remember that when you watch the news.
And please don't vote based on news or polls.
James, you stay up later than me, thats 11:57 our time.
Nice
I think that news organizations should be ethically obligated to report only the truth, but unfortunately they are actual businesses, so when a sponsor say no they must react to save their money. It's ethical law in conflict with good business practice, which is a horrible thing to have occurred, but it does occur. My guess would be many, many more times than we would like to think. Basically the law cannot touch them (Them being these compromised new agencies) without falling into the same ballpark as what Orwell depicted, but the law also has some obligation to keep the general public from being lied to. Until the law develops in such a way as to protect us from those lies and also not fall into Orwell's ballpark, we must simply listen to Kyle and take the mainstream news media with several boxes of salt and several internet searches for corroborating evidence. At the very least.
-David
but when you say "serious financial issues involved with 'censoring-ish' newscasts" you need to understand that the FDA had approved of this drug under some type of 'agreement' like many other dangerous substances given out on a widespread scale. Which gives lawyers falsified government evidence to sue the broadcasters for reporting that their 'safe' hormone is indeed dangerous.
But doesn't that counteract the whole not responsible for telling the truth problem in the first place? I mean they could by FDA records just be lying that it is dangerous and in reality be telling the truth... I suppose that would cut into their advertising dollars if a large company refused them business.
So I suppose the real question is should the FDA be fixed so it can no longer pass unsafe products and falsifying experiments? (that have never been able to be repeated with their 'safe' result)
but I suppose the resounding answer to that is 'duh'. Of course these issues aren't brought up because people are paid by these companies making a fortune off their products so there never arises a situation under which it can be openly stated.
"Those reports are false!"
*one cash donation later*
"We all need to trust in the FDA, look how many times they proved it's safe"
What a twisted world we live in~
James Rogers
James, you're right. The key to this whole thing is the FDA. They are the first stepping stone in this whole business, and if we cannot trust a Federal Bureau to safely and without bribe or bias look at every new process that our food under goes, then who can we trust? Because of cases like this, of which many more have been revealed of late, it seems that while by and large the FDA is doing okay, there are major issues that must be addressed here.
-David
well then, I guess if you can't trust something like the FDA, then you can't trust the government, which means you can't really trust anything. So, what can we do about it?
As individuals we can do what any other individuals can do: we can go to the corrupt media, send letters to our congressmen, arrange protests in front of major FDA buildings and testing centers, arrange sit-in protests of FDA buildings, appear in front of our city councils, or if it can be arranged a state council or maybe the senate or something. We can pass around petitions and camp out in front of government installations. Generally be really annoying until someone higher up takes notice, weighs voter response, and does something. That’s what we CAN do, the question is, given our current time constraints, money constraints, and mental constraints (because I don't know about you but I don't think I could spare the processing time for all of that) what WILL we do?
-David
I think that most of us are content with living our lives under an authority that we deem as "trustworthy," "impartial," and "beneficial." We as human beings with limited resources probably won't actually take action unless we are personally affected by an issue. This is something that we all need to surpass if we want any change for the better to occur (if we all just be passive, nothing would happen). Do you think the reporters that got fired would have done anything if they weren't the ones that got put on the job?
hey, its Kellan here
this is my first post on this issue, and i'd like to go back to the original question of whether a news organization should be legally required to report the news.
I feel that, when the story concerns an individuals health, in any way, and lying could potentially cause harm, the news company should be required by law to tell the truth. while this may indeed violate some of their rights as independent organizations, i feel it is more important to keep the lives of the public safe than allow a corrupt company to make money.
Post a Comment