I got into a heated argument with my brother on whether our press is free and fair.

My argument was that if you look at how those in the media act and now they donate to political candidates it paints a VERY one sided picture. I argued that we have a press who by and large act as a political propaganda outlet for one major party.

Question:
In your opinion does America have a free and fair press?

Choices:
Yes
No
We did but I’m not so sure now

 

I voted yes, because it's not the government that is dictating what they report. There is nothing preventing conservative stations from starting up. Having said that, the legacy news stations are far from fair.

The answer is no. This is obvious to anyone not compromised by the brain eating amoeba of Leftism.

Yes-ish.

Free? For sure. I don't think any party controls any media. That doesn't mean that outlets don't have their own preferences.

Fair - I am less sure of that. There isn't much truly neutral media, and some is more biased than others. If it is mildly biased, and you know it is biased, you can adjust for that mentally. If you are a low information sort, that is bad because you don't realize the biases many outlets have. (And just because you agree with a media source doesn't mean they aren't biased. It can mean that your biases align with theirs.)

Much of the more mainstream media tends left, and that is troubling.

I feel that anybody who believes we have a free and fair press is not paying attention (ie - low information voter, etc).

I was so focused on work that I was one. SF has opened my eyes to many things over the years. I'm still not as learned as most of you, but at least I'm now aware.

The right to free press still exists. But it has an expensive membership fee, to reach "the masses."

Is it free? Yes, you can't be jailed for reporting facts.

Is it fair? No, because of its price tag.

The question also worth asking, is if there is a better system?

It is a personal issue as well as national for me.
If I have to ever plink a few deserving folks,
will the headline be:
"Innocent would be victim successfully defends himself from violent attack"!
Nope.
This will be the headline:
"Ex-cop shoots people, more guns found in his home"!
Are both headlines accurate? They are! But the "free press" here is in the form of if it bleeds, it leads type of reporting.
Often times, its not about a situation or event but the words chosen to report it.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Yes-ish.

Free? For sure. I don't think any party controls any media. That doesn't mean that outlets don't have their own preferences.

Fair - I am less sure of that. There isn't much truly neutral media, and some is more biased than others. If it is mildly biased, and you know it is biased, you can adjust for that mentally. If you are a low information sort, that is bad because you don't realize the biases many outlets have. (And just because you agree with a media source doesn't mean they aren't biased. It can mean that your biases align with theirs.)

Much of the more mainstream media tends left, and that is troubling.

Yeah, that's pretty much where I am on this.
Biased? Of course! Everyone presents information in a light most favorable to themselves and to align with their own world view.

However, I would argue that there is a big moral distinction between a liberty bias and an equality bias. (This is not the same as a partisan bias, although it overlaps)
A liberty bias would favor freedom for all. Equality before the law and an equal playing field.
The other bias, the leftist/progressive/socialist bias is in favor of equality. But by equality they mean equalizing outcomes. An equality bias favors redistribution of wealth or the product of labor. I consider that theft. Therefore, I consider my bias moral, and their bias immoral.

Is my bias morally superior? I think so. But of course, the socialists would argue that they have to take my stuff because it's not fair that someone might have less and blah, blah, blah...

I picked option #3 only because it's not completely a free and fair press, but it is still more free here than in most of the world.

They can be, and are, bought. And then there's Operation Mockingbird: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

Depends on your definition of what "free" is. Sure the press is "free" to print just about anything it wants, but when the press limits its print to only a narrow partisan bias, then it is not longer "free".

I'm probably thinking about this incorrectly.

While the press may be free in the legal sense, I don't think they are completely free in the socio-political-economic sense.

They should report the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. What we find is severely biased, either because of their (the owners, mgmt, employees) desire but also likely because of what their audience (sponsors, advertisers, public, etc) desires.

In this sense, they are not free. They, their content, their actions are beholden to their customers.

Free, yes. Fair, no.

It has ever been so.

I think they are free to be what they want - but the majority of them are run by liberals and staffed by liberals and therefore are not very openminded or middleground in their reporting.

They aren't run by the gov or by an industry. They just choose to have the liberal slant instead of staying balanced.

"Legacy" news is trying so hard to keep up with the internet and it's ability to spread information (true or false) at such a quick pace with a HUGE audience, that they keep failing over and over again to report "news".

If you ask me if traditional Print / Broadcast "press" is free and fair; I give that a NO. The internet has little if any ethics either. All of it is completely sensationalized.

I hope that it'll swing back to a "factual account of the happenings of the day" sometime in my lifetime.

quote:

Originally posted by Pilken:
"Legacy" news is trying so hard to keep up with the internet and it's ability to spread information (true or false) at such a quick pace with a HUGE audience, that they keep failing over and over again to report "news".

If you ask me if traditional Print / Broadcast "press" is free and fair; I give that a NO. The internet has little if any ethics either. All of it is completely sensationalized.

I hope that it'll swing back to a "factual account of the happenings of the day" sometime in my lifetime.

Don't hold your breath....

flashguy

I can't believe anyone seriously thinks the press is "fair".
Even if you are a person who hates Trump and likes the fact that he is constantly attacked with baseless innuendo and namecalling, I think the would still have to recognize that it is just blatant propaganda, even if they don't admit it openly.

Free? Yes.
Fair? No.

It is arguably impossible to seat an impartial jury, following a high profile case in which a defendant is tried and convicted by the "media experts". It is unfathomable that the freedom of the press is allowed to supersede due process of law.

most importantly perhaps, the press is a business. and worse, it's entertainment.

Free, yes. Fair, no.