AnonymousPerson
@optonline.net
| reply to thinkingbear
Re: It's high time for a "correction"
Who said that the government would be incharge of it. They would simply be offered a tax incentive to mention certain facts that would have otherwise went unmentioned. If they do not want to mention them, then they can simply say no to the tax incentive. No one would be forcing them to take it. |
|
thinkingbear
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Campbell, CA
| reply to AnonymousPerson
Dude, there are only so many minutes available in a news broadcast and you want them to go into detail about how many gang shootings there are in the US every time a bomb goes off in Iraq? And tell us how many people did not live in the area of the blast and how many places did not get bombed? Every time some corporation breaks the law we need to spend a newscast congratulating the other companies who were nice enough actually do what they are supposed to and follow the law? That is just not news, and I doubt most people would to hear it which is why media outlets don't do that already.
Even if that was a good idea, someone still has to decide what is to be aired, how to frame it, what factoids to highlight, how far to go with your 'program'. You really want the government in charge of that? |
|
AnonymousPerson
@optonline.net
| reply to Gilitar
Who said anything about censoring? The program I am suggesting simply requests that the media include certain facts and statistics in their news reports to make things more representative, so when there is a corporate scandal, we hear about all of the other corporations that have done nothing of the sort, and when terrorists blow up bombs in Iraq, we hear about all of the places they did not blow up bombs, how many people did not live within proximity of the blasts and perhaps even some comparisons to how many gang shootings there are a day in the United States.
The US government already uses broadcast licenses to censor information that could jeopardize the lives of American citizens; basically the government says to the media, "you cannot broadcast without a license and you cannot have a license if you publish information deterimental to nation security." I do not know how anyone could imagine that the government would need another avenue to ensure sensitive information is not published, but I do know that there is a gargantuan difference between granting tax exemptions for including information and granting tax exemptions for excluding information. |
|
camstone
join:2003-12-11
Alexandria, VA
| reply to Gilitar
said by Gilitar  :Brilliant.... lets have the government start paying to censor the media.  Three letters... F ... C ... C. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| reply to kapil
said by kapil :The balance of power has shifted a wee bit too far in the favor of corporations, a correction is in order. Why such a drastic overreaction? This corruption was caught and correction is proceeding.
--
Wiki Wiki
First of all, if what I write appears to be too simplified, please excuse me. --Martin |
|
Gilitar
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL | reply to AnonymousPerson
Brilliant.... lets have the government start paying to censor the media.
|
|
AnonymousPerson
@optonline.net
| reply to kapil
I agree, there needs to be a correction. The government can start by shutting down the few companies that monopolize news coverage of the industry through these kind of antics (when was the last time a company was on the news for having honest business practices?). Then they could offer the media tax incentives to make their news coverage more representative of the overall picture rather than focusing on the select portion that boosts their ratings. |
|
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL |  The balance of power has shifted a wee bit too far in the favor of corporations, a correction is in order. |
|
