Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
+1. Star probably even thinks he is objective.
Neutrality is subjective.
No, the media should not have the freedom to publish whatever crap they want - they should be held accountable to publish only truthful facts and objectively neutral articles without bias.
That's one of the silliest statements you've made yet, Star.Quote Originally Posted by Starcraftmazter View Post
No, the media should not have the freedom to publish whatever crap they want - they should be held accountable to publish only truthful facts and objectively neutral articles without bias.
Some people here seem to be confused as to what
freedom of speech means and how it relates to the media.
No, the media should not have the freedom to publish whatever crap they want - they should be held accountable to publish only truthful facts and objectively neutral articles without bias.
Lawyers and academics propose more regulation? It's hardly news
Gerard Henderson March 6, 2012.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...hardly-news-20120305-1ue68.html#ixzz1oHgmfdUn
" According to Finkelstein, members of the council should be appointed by a committee headed by “three senior academics”. Why not butchers, or bakers or candlestick makers? Finkelstein does not say.
However, a hint to his thinking is contained in the report’s introduction. It points out that, since much work had to be done in a short time, it was “necessary to appoint a team to assist with aspects of the report”. It turns out that Finkelstein’s team consisted mainly of left-wing academics and some barristers along with two Monash University law students. Enough said."
It will effect everyone equally so if the ABC get the facts wrong, they can also be pulled up.
No chance at all of everyone being effected equally if the Council is appointed as recommended or is selected and financed by the government.
I suppose that is because I hate propaganda.
It will effect everyone equally so if the ABC get the facts wrong, they can also be pulled up.
We don't know that. It could be run from complaints by the public.
How can a fact be wrong?
No, the government should not have the freedom to tell us whatever crap they want - they should be held accountable to tell us only truthful facts and not spin.
Freedom of speech is when both sides of the debate get an opportunity to air their points.
Why censor one side of the debate and not the other.
If the powerful government is able to stretch the truth (using ABC, SBS, paid advisors eg Tim F, etc) why can't individuals do this as well?
Ever watched media watch?
WikipediaA fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be shown to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.
Neutrality is subjective.
How can you ask that of the media, when you don't even ask truthfulness from your political leaders?
How can gillard take the press to task, when she can't hold herself up as an example?
The truth and diligent carrying out of ones duties, is the the last thing this government should be taking anyone to task for.
That's one of the silliest statements you've made yet, Star.
So you would have us do away with all opinion pieces and commentary it seems.
And, for that matter, what to you would be 'objectively neutral' would be highly biased to someone else. We all have bias.
Why censor one side of the debate and not the other.
If the powerful government is able to stretch the truth (using ABC, SBS, paid advisors eg Tim F, etc) why can't individuals do this as well?
That's irrelevant because she would have nothing to do with taking the press to task.
No group of advisers or consultants appointed by the government can be independent. They know they are there to do the government's bidding. Which in this case is censorship.
Late yesterday, Greg Hywood, the chief executive of Fairfax Media (publisher of The Age), said he had seen no evidence in the report there was a problem needing to be solved.
''Ray Finkelstein draws on a range of polls and reports to say that the standing of the media is low,'' Mr Hywood said.
''But making an argument that the media is not popular is irrelevant. We are not here to be popular. We are here to ask the difficult questions and maintain transparency around the political process, key institutions and the social environment in which we live. His recommendation for a statutory body is not warranted.''
I know you ABC lovers hate News Ltd. But the Fairfax press also slams the report.;
Well actually she would not appoint them. Nor would the government. The government (as opposed to Ms. Gillard) would appoint several people who would then appoint the people who oversee the regulations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?