Does America or the west have a free press?

KingBrian2

With the upcoming election in the US approaching I wanted to start a thread on the newsworthiness of the world media we all have to listen to, watch and read on a daily basis. We are bombarded with daily stories and much of the media provides us with poor journalism. Presents as facts falsehoods and in the case of America a country renowned for its freedom we see propaganda everywhere. The refugee crisis, the economy, public representatives & war build up. The news ignores what is really going on and focuses on non stories. Such as appearances and pranks. Can we truly say we live in a world of free press when political elites are backed completely by the media.

Overheal

Media is one of the areas of society where capitalism seems to fail it somewhat.

Major corporations own the majority of the media, and control what is and what isn't shown. And in a lot of cases what is shown is what will drive ratings. While it may be more broadening to cover a crisis in Central Africa or broadcast wartime documentaries, networks have learned that garbage news stories and shows like Pawn Stars are what really sell advertising space. When I was a kid Animal Planet showed animal documentaries. Now they have a long running series called Finding Bigfoot. The Learning Channel used to broadcast open heart surgeries and such - they now air Here Comes Honey Boo Boo and Sixteen and Pregnant.

For the longest time I've had to get my news through comedy shows like The Daily Show, because there is genuine laughability in how the media covers news, and it nails them for it. Which itself, as they are quick to point out, is owned by Viacom and not always free to speak its mind on all subjects in particular, especially when viacom is being litigated against, for instance.




A major problem is journalism is expensive, and risky. Journalists die. Journalists go to jail. Its a safe life for a pundit or a radio show host. And the journalists who often are on the payroll of newspapers and such, have been in decline because of the growth of social media. To get real journalism you pretty much have to go to youtube and watch the lone wolves/eccentrists (like SHARK: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC7K5BrapNSnk6XcXbpqXNg) who videotape cops and ****, and do their own expose's on the cattle industry for instance.

In a lot of ways the press is more free than it ever has been, but controlling interests would rather not advertise these small time competitors when it comes to such things. That's all.

BrokenArrows

The Press is free but it is absolutely not impartial, they are free to make a profit doing whatever they want, they are free to be biased to what makes them the most money.

There is no all powerful government agencies controlling the media.
But the media is a FOR PROFIT business.
So they are quite happy to push click bait headlines to push sales.
They know that "Trump scandal" will be more profitable than "Clintons Detailed Tax Plan".

That is why our media is full of absolute **** because of the push for profit above all else.

Media should be a balance between being profitable and supplying newsworthy articles, but in the world where Kardashians do something stupid or Brad Pitts divorce makes the papers of mass slaughter its never going to happen.

Chips Lovell

The media is a business like any other. If it finds that wardrobe malfunctions, celebrity divorces, misbehaving footballers and populist rabble rousing sells newspapers, then it will churn out more of the same.

There's still lots of good journalism out there, but you'll usually have to pay for it.

Overheal

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

There's still lots of good journalism out there, but you'll usually have to pay for it.

Vice does some great pieces, but they're behind the HBO paywall. But so is Game of Thrones and John Oliver, so..

KingBrian2

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The media is a business like any other. If it finds that wardrobe malfunctions, celebrity divorces, misbehaving footballers and populist rabble rousing sells newspapers, then it will churn out more of the same.

There's still lots of good journalism out there, but you'll usually have to pay for it.

There is a place for all that just not the news. People can watch all about celebrities the rather boring Big Brother and reality tv. Current Affairs and Politics is more important. No problem with people being entertained it is the opinions and editorials that get me. It is sold as truth. Way too much propaganda finding it's way into the newsrooms. Information not relevant to most peoples lives. A politicians sex life does not matter to anyone other than the voters of his constituency.

BoJack Horseman

Yes and no.

Media can and do publish whatever content they want.
However, everyone editorialises or is beholden to someone or something else for the most part.

So everyone has an agenda, but one is mostly free to express it.
Certainly much more so than the alternative hegemonies to the 'West'.

Jimbob1977

Free - yes

Biased - absolutely

Fox News is blatantly Republican, while CNN is staunchly Democrat.

They use words like 'impartial' and 'balanced', but they are the respective Pravdas for their party of choice.

Inquitus

The European press is a lot more fair and balanced than any of the US networks which pro-actively advocate for political parties. I often flick between MSNBC and Fox when I am travelling in the US and it can be highly amusing at times to see 2 takes on the same news with utterly differing conclusions drawn!

RobertKK

Most of the media outlets are pushing certain opinions, trying to influence their patrons.
I stopped buying newspapers years ago as I could come on here and at least see people pushing their opinion - which we all do, but at least we can challenge each other.
The media have made me cynical of them, as most in the media do not want to report news, they want to influence society and not in a balanced way.

Chips Lovell

KingBrian2 wrote: »

There is a place for all that just not the news. People can watch all about celebrities the rather boring Big Brother and reality tv. Current Affairs and Politics is more important. No problem with people being entertained it is the opinions and editorials that get me. It is sold as truth. Way too much propaganda finding it's way into the newsrooms. Information not relevant to most peoples lives. A politicians sex life does not matter to anyone other than the voters of his constituency.

The thing you have to bear in mind is that the kind of news you're looking for isn't being suppressed. It just isn't popular.

There's nothing to stop someone opening a newspaper that aspires to just report the news and doesn't do opinion/editorialising/entertainment etc. That's the definition of a free press.

Harvey Normal

No.

The western press seems to be as controlled as Russia these days. Both are nominally free.

johnnyskeleton

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

misbehaving footballers

On this, its always baffled me why the television news always has a sports section. If you didnt watch the all ireland final, theres sunday game to see the highlights. And if youre not going to watch either of these or look up the scores on the internet, then you probably dont care in the slightest. Likewise with premiership football, which has whole channels showing it non stop if you have a mind to watch them.

Why are these things not only mentioned in the news but have their own 10 minute slot? Surely news should inform people about events that they wouldnt already be aware of or find out on their own bat?

If theres sport in the news, why dont they do an MTV style music news segment?

Ultimately it all comes down to what, as already mentioned, is the commercial aspect of news. They give people what they think people want.

Overheal

That an broadcast networks make *significant* sums of money from broadcasting sports. It is in their interest to call attention to them.

Also the reason I deplore watching football in the US. The game was designed to have a commercial interruption every time a whistle is blown. Alternatively you can go to the game and watch the game interruption free but for $40-$120 a seat to see millionaires throw a ball. /rant

KingBrian2

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

On this, its always baffled me why the television news always has a sports section. If you didnt watch the all ireland final, theres sunday game to see the highlights. And if youre not going to watch either of these or look up the scores on the internet, then you probably dont care in the slightest. Likewise with premiership football, which has whole channels showing it non stop if you have a mind to watch them.

Why are these things not only mentioned in the news but have their own 10 minute slot? Surely news should inform people about events that they wouldnt already be aware of or find out on their own bat?

If theres sport in the news, why dont they do an MTV style music news segment?

Ultimately it all comes down to what, as already mentioned, is the commercial aspect of news. They give people what they think people want.

One aspect I like about Sky they dedicate channels to football, movies or specific genres. The news should do something similar divide it into international & domestic headlines subdivide along weather, politics, stock market and current affairs. People can chose what part of the news they want to see instead of throwing irrelevant and random data at people about events.

At the moment we get sensationalism journalism and story peddlers aimed to induce a reaction from the crowd. This is not necessary IMO.

oscarBravo

How are we defining "free press"?

My understanding of the term is that it means the government doesn't control what the press reports.

So, 1980s-era Pravda: not a free press. The BBC: free press.

Now, this is the point where some people will jump in with their claims about how RTE and BBC are completely state-controlled, but this is the Politics forum, not Conspiracy Theories.

By that definition: yes, the west has a free press. Do other people have different definitions?

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

How are we defining "free press"?

My understanding of the term is that it means the government doesn't control what the press reports.

So, 1980s-era Pravda: not a free press. The BBC: free press.

Now, this is the point where some people will jump in with their claims about how RTE and BBC are completely state-controlled, but this is the Politics forum, not Conspiracy Theories.

By that definition: yes, the west has a free press. Do other people have different definitions?

State press is just that news that covers what is going on in the country. It is the editorials that push propaganda and that happens in the west as much as the east or south or north.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

State press is just that news that covers what is going on in the country. It is the editorials that push propaganda and that happens in the west as much as the east or south or north.

Sure, but that's not a counter to my point. Editorials can push propaganda, but they're free to push pro- or anti-government propaganda. That's a free press. If the press is required by the government to exercise specific editorial control, that's not a free press.

eyerer

I agree it's free in name, but very biased. Money talks.
I read an article on Sky News about "the Donald".. which shows such bias and unprofessionalism. How about impartial news? We'll attach a horrible photo when we don't like a person and we'll ridicule ridicule them. It seems more Twitter than national press.
I previously stopped reading the BBC news page because I have a different opinion on what I consider news worthy to what they do.

ancapailldorcha

Yes, we have a free press. As OscarBravo has pointed out, this simply means that the government doesn't censor content it dislikes. The issue is that the technology now exists for content providers to know that a huge proportion of their readers are more interested in footballers snorting coke than the antics of the military they pay tax for or how the economy is doing.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

State press is just that news that covers what is going on in the country. It is the editorials that push propaganda and that happens in the west as much as the east or south or north.

By their very definition, opinion pieces can't be propaganda. They are simply one journalists opinion. The problem is people confuse opinion pieces and new articles.

Harvey Normal

By the definitions here Russia has a free press. There are private newspapers after all. And a huge number.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Russia

But Russians think about stuff differently to us. So why?

Suryavarman

Harvey Normal wrote: »

By the definitions here Russia has a free press. There are private newspapers after all. And a huge number.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Russia

But Russians think about stuff differently to us. So why?

I suggest you read through the thread again. I don't think any of this meets any definition of a free press in this thread:

A law signed in 2013 allows the state telecommunications regulator, Roskomnadzor, to block websites that disseminate calls for riots, “extremist” activities, or participation in illegal assemblies. The law continued to be invoked against independent and opposition websites in 2015, as were laws that allow blocking on various other grounds. More than 20,000 websites were being blocked at year’s end, according to the independent watchdog Roskomsvoboda. A 2014 law requires any website, blog, or public social-media account with more than 3,000 daily viewers to register with Roskomnadzor as a media outlet and comply with the regulations accompanying that status, including bans on anonymous authorship and legal responsibility for comments posted by users.

Prosecutors in 2015 continued their practice of charging individuals—including journalists, bloggers, and in one case a librarian—with defamation, extremism, and other criminal offenses designed to limit free speech. In January, jailed journalist and blogger Sergey Reznik, who had written articles on alleged corruption and abuses by officials in Rostov-on-Don, received a three-year prison sentence on new charges of insulting and misleading authorities; his earlier 18-month prison term on similar charges would have expired in May.

Under a 2012 law, civil society organizations, including those advocating for journalists and media freedom, are registered as “foreign agents” if they are found to receive foreign funding and engage in broadly defined “political activity.” A new law signed in May 2015 allows the prosecutor general’s office to designate foreign organizations as “undesirable,” after which anyone working with the blacklisted group can face up to seven years in prison. Dozens of Russian nongovernmental organizations have been labeled as “foreign agents,” leading some to close. Four foreign organizations were deemed “undesirable” during 2015, including the U.S.-based National Endowment for Democracy.

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure, but that's not a counter to my point. Editorials can push propaganda, but they're free to push pro- or anti-government propaganda. That's a free press. If the press is required by the government to exercise specific editorial control, that's not a free press.

If news is run for profit it is inherently going to favour unsubstantiated rumour and gossip not fact. Fact based journalism is no longer printed or consumed. Mogul Murdoch did away with that in the 80's. Editorials don't just change news to suit themselves they get their candidates into office and are part of the decision making process. The gvt consults the media and the media spread propaganda. The media could end a politicians career in a second.

Harvey Normal

Suryavarman wrote: »

I suggest you read through the thread again. I don't think any of this meets any definition of a free press in this thread:

People are arrested for defamation and extremist rhethoric in the west as well.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

If news is run for profit it is inherently going to favour unsubstantiated rumour and gossip not fact. Fact based journalism is no longer printed or consumed. Mogul Murdoch did away with that in the 80's. Editorials don't just change news to suit themselves they get their candidates into office and are part of the decision making process. The gvt consults the media and the media spread propaganda. The media could end a politicians career in a second.

...all of which, with respect, is still orthogonal to the question of whether western governments exercise editorial control over the press.

I'm focusing on the specific question of whether western governments dictate what the press reports. If you're arguing against the idea of a free press, you either need to demonstrate that they do, or make a convincing case for a different definition of "free press" from the one I'm using.

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

...all of which, with respect, is still orthogonal to the question of whether western governments exercise editorial control over the press.

I'm focusing on the specific question of whether western governments dictate what the press reports. If you're arguing against the idea of a free press, you either need to demonstrate that they do, or make a convincing case for a different definition of "free press" from the one I'm using.

The press is not free since the media control the news and report what they want to serve their own financial interests. The for profit motive in the media goes for sensationalism as opposed to reporting on real time events. The media have the resources, the connections with gvt and shares in the stock market. They want to make a killing. A great story will bring them massive viewership. This is not what the job of a journalist should be and they are placing their news team in peril as they are turning the news industry into a joke.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The press is not free since the media control the news...

Imma stop you there.

If the media control the news, how is the press not free?

oik

Yeah America hasa free press. You can print whatever you want. There's just a total absence of journalistic integrity.

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Imma stop you there.

If the media control the news, how is the press not free?

The media's job is to present the news in front of them. To inform the public. Apply context to events unfolding. Speaking to the key people that are making the news with thoughtful and intelligent conversation. Reaching out to other news networks to receive a better understanding of what is going on at a given point in time. This is not happening at the moment. To present as fact a fabrication is not news it is propaganda.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The media's job is to present the news in front of them. To inform the public. Apply context to events unfolding. Speaking to the key people that are making the news with thoughtful and intelligent conversation. Reaching out to other news networks to receive a better understanding of what is going on at a given point in time. This is not happening at the moment. To present as fact a fabrication is not news it is propaganda.

We're still talking orthogonally.

The question is not the honesty of the press, the integrity of the press, or the lack of bias of the press: it's the freedom of the press.

If you want to have a conversation about how you don't like what the press are telling you, fair enough. But this thread is about a binary question: does the west have a free press?

Now, I've presented a definition of a free press. You've neither refuted that definition, or argued that it doesn't apply. You just keep talking on a tangent.

Do we have a free press? That's the question. I've given my answer. What's yours?

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

We're still talking orthogonally.

The question is not the honesty of the press, the integrity of the press, or the lack of bias of the press: it's the freedom of the press.

If you want to have a conversation about how you don't like what the press are telling you, fair enough. But this thread is about a binary question: does the west have a free press?

Now, I've presented a definition of a free press. You've neither refuted that definition, or argued that it doesn't apply. You just keep talking on a tangent.

Do we have a free press? That's the question. I've given my answer. What's yours?

Free press would be balanced news reporting with as little vested interest as possible. That is the true test for a news channel. I'll give you a perfect example of what i'm talking about. Used to watch Bill Maher. It was great at first. Very funny, went after the hypocrisy and lies of past and present gvt, I felt it was balanced in comparison to the faux news and took them to pieces. Since this campaign it changed a lot to becoming heavily pro Clinton. Stopped watching as it was really descending into conservative level of abuse. It stopped being funny, informative and became essentially a mouthpiece for the Dems.

News channels or outlets should not be taking side but they do. Clinton's ability to win an election is predicated on the New York Times, Washington Post & Bill Maher endorsing her. Without the favourable sponsors we would get a very different reaction from the people. Trump's lifeline comes halfheartedly from Fox News who did not even promote him during the GOP debates. The media the so called free press is winning this election for Hillary.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Free press would be balanced news reporting with as little vested interest as possible.

Two problems with that: one, who's going to pay for it, and how do you make sure that whoever pays for it isn't a vested interest? And two, how do you prevent vested interests from setting up their own press outlets?

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Two problems with that: one, who's going to pay for it, and how do you make sure that whoever pays for it isn't a vested interest? And two, how do you prevent vested interests from setting up their own press outlets?

Shouldn't be too hard to have a national news network dedicated solely towards public announcements and Gvt data. Congress TV serves that duty already all be it with limited viewership.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Shouldn't be too hard to have a national news network dedicated solely towards public announcements and Gvt data. Congress TV serves that duty already all be it with limited viewership.

OK, so Congress TV fulfills your requirement. So the USA has a free press by that definition?

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, so Congress TV fulfills your requirement. So the USA has a free press by that definition?

The electorate don't follow Congress TV do they. A channel dedicated to reporting real time news as it happens.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The electorate don't follow Congress TV do they.

Is there something stopping them from doing so?

A channel dedicated to reporting real time news as it happens.

There are several channels dedicated to reporting real time news as it happens.

InTheTrees

Its like "The Emperor has no clothes"...

How long does one have to remain "balanced" in the face of a nonsense candidate?

CMOTDibbler

Harvey Normal wrote: »

People are arrested for defamation and extremist rhethoric in the west as well.

People aren't arrested for defamation. It's a civil offence.

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is there something stopping them from doing so? There are several channels dedicated to reporting real time news as it happens.

It has been proven that most Americans source their news from corporate media outlets so they are not being informed of the decisions their leaders are making. Some are even calling for Internet voting instead of the current system. Either way how can the voters make informed decision in a climate such as we have now in which gossip and rumour is presented as news. The public are made to care more about Bill and Trump's sex lives then their current policies. Taxation, immigration, foreign policy, role of government, etc. Before you go on to say Trump is useless. It is the media that focus relentlessly on his personal life. It also goes into this Imperial Presidency instead of the primacy of Congress.

CMOTDibbler

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It has been proven that most Americans source their news from corporate media outlets so they are not being informed of the decisions their leaders are making. Some are even calling for Internet voting instead of the current system. Either way how can the voters make informed decision in a climate such as we have now in which gossip and rumour is presented as news.

Proven where?

Gossip and rumour being presented as news is a surefire way of getting sued. I'd like to see what you're basing that comment on too.

Harvey Normal

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Proven where?

Gossip and rumour being presented as news is a surefire way of getting sued. I'd like to see what you're basing that comment on too.

The US doesn't have much in the way of defamation laws.

But the press while free of government isn't free of corporate or cultural biases. Faith in the media has, in the US, dropped to 32% from a post watergate high of 76%, just 14% for self declared republicans

CMOTDibbler

Harvey Normal wrote: »

The US doesn't have much in the way of defamation laws.

But the press while free of government isn't free of corporate or cultural biases. Faith in the media has, in the US, dropped to 32% from a post watergate high of 76%, just 14% for self declared republicans

All this has already been said.

Press freedom is the topic under discussion and if anything, the press has even more freedom in the US than in Europe for example; based on libel laws there.

Whether people believe the press or not is a completely different question.

KingBrian2

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Proven where?

Gossip and rumour being presented as news is a surefire way of getting sued. I'd like to see what you're basing that comment on too.

Here is just one example of fiction presented as fact. http://www.gallup.com/poll/8623/americans-still-think-iraq-had-weapons-mass-destruction-before-war.aspx

oscarBravo

I still maintain that as long as the government isn't dictating what the press publish, then we have a free press. It seems that that's not good enough however, and people want to complain about how the press tell them different things than what they want to hear. I don't think that's a discussion about a free press, but let's roll with it.

If you're unhappy that what's reported in the press is dictated by corporate or cultural biases, what do you propose? Should the press be prevented from publishing biased stories? Who decides what they're allowed to publish, and how exactly does this contribute to freedom of the press?

CMOTDibbler

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Here is just one example of fiction presented as fact. http://www.gallup.com/poll/8623/americans-still-think-iraq-had-weapons-mass-destruction-before-war.aspx

I'm sorry. What's that got to do with the question I asked?

Where is it 'proven' that most americans source their news from corporate media outlets?

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just would like to see the evidence. After all, I believe your point is to not take anything in the media as gospel and I agree with that. Which is why I'm asking you to back up your assertion.

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

I still maintain that as long as the government isn't dictating what the press publish, then we have a free press. It seems that that's not good enough however, and people want to complain about how the press tell them different things than what they want to hear. I don't think that's a discussion about a free press, but let's roll with it.

If you're unhappy that what's reported in the press is dictated by corporate or cultural biases, what do you propose? Should the press be prevented from publishing biased stories? Who decides what they're allowed to publish, and how exactly does this contribute to freedom of the press?

A separation is needed and people need to be informed about matters that impact us all. Take it out of the corp sector and allow matters of state to take control like in Florida the issuing of hurricane warnings. Now that is a public good. I don’t see why that can’t apply to current affairs like trade deals and foreign policy. A case in point would be America backs Israel totally and media coverage of the Palestinians is blanketly presented in a hostile manner.

KingBrian2

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm sorry. What's that got to do with the question I asked?

Where is it 'proven' that most americans source their news from corporate media outlets?

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just would like to see the evidence. After all, I believe your point is to not take anything in the media as gospel and I agree with that. Which is why I'm asking you to back up your assertion.

The evidence I would present would be stats that show would this. link.https://www.statista.com/statistics/530119/tv-networks-viewers-usa/

Top four most watched news outlets are for profit corporations that are responsible to their shareholder and not the public at large and I don't see that as good for news coverage. The more news channels from various parts of the world the better I say. Verify reports with other news channels.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

A separation is needed...

What needs to be separated from what?

...and people need to be informed about matters that impact us all.

People are being informed. What aren't people finding out about?

Take it out of the corp sector and allow matters of state to take control like in Florida the issuing of hurricane warnings. Now that is a public good. I don’t see why that can’t apply to current affairs like trade deals and foreign policy.

You're arguing that the government should control the dissemination of information about foreign policy. How does that work? Is there a law preventing privately-owned media from reporting on these things? Is privately-controlled media required to report, without comment, on exactly what they've been told by the government?

This is a free press, how?

A case in point would be America backs Israel totally and media coverage of the Palestinians is blanketly presented in a hostile manner.

You think that a state-controlled press would present government policy in a more balanced way?

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

What needs to be separated from what? People are being informed. What aren't people finding out about? You're arguing that the government should control the dissemination of information about foreign policy. How does that work? Is there a law preventing privately-owned media from reporting on these things? Is privately-controlled media required to report, without comment, on exactly what they've been told by the government?

This is a free press, how? You think that a state-controlled press would present government policy in a more balanced way?

The amount of misinformation and propaganda emanating from the private sector is huge in America and yes I do believe a gvt media side by side with the private sector can co exist. In other countries the gvt have a stake in the dissemination of news and private media operators can print in reason what they want. Freedom is not being taken away when the gvt give out public announcements or relevant news is updated.

CMOTDibbler

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The evidence I would present would be stats that show would this. link.https://www.statista.com/statistics/530119/tv-networks-viewers-usa/

Top four most watched news outlets are for profit corporations that are responsible to their shareholder and not the public at large and I don't see that as good for news coverage. The more news channels from various parts of the world the better I say. Verify reports with other news channels.

And how do you know that isn't happening? I asked my question in a specific way. You've answered it with a different statistic. You can't say that americans only get their news from one source on the basis of which sources get the most viewers/readers/listeners.

The reality is that there are numerous news outlets. The average American, I suspect will read at least one newspaper a week, listen to radio shows, watch television and surf many different websites.

There is no evidence that the average american only gets their news from just one source.