free speech,free information

[HardScienceFan]

Our view of this world is largely shaped by the media:television,radio,the Internet,newspapers.These media are increasingly in the hand of large corporations.The largest search engine in Holland is Google,with a market share nearing 95 percent.With the advent of things like 'embedded journalism'
we were told that wars would be reported on with more veracity, authenticity and immediacy.The media feel bound by the limits of good taste and good journalism ,but do they feel bound by other things as well?Are the media giving unbiased reports of the state of affairs worldwide?The case of Fox being not impartial is well documented.The case of e.g. the BBC is also well documented.Some might argue that some recent liberation wars were being reported on with less than total truthfulness,indeed were 'sold' to John Q.Public with insidious and ingenious propaganda elements.I have never started a thread like this,so I don't know how it will develop.My research is still ongoing,sites giving information on Internet,Google and privacy have proven to be a little bit hard to find...I will feed you with snippets of information,food for thought
as things develop,and will try to keep hearsay,rumour,gossip and idle speculation in general out of it.
Food for thought:Internet surfing behaviour has been described by search engine executives as "a map of the brain'.The keeping of data have been defended as being essential for SEO(Search Engine Optimization).For Dutch
television a senior executive of Google kept saying,when pressed for answers regarding this:' our legal department will get back to you on that'.To my knowledge,they haven't

[Rane Longfox]

Does google do news now? I hadn't realised.

It seems to boil down to two different issues - impartial reporting, and keeping records of searches.

The first one is easy - of course news reports aren't impartial. Everyone has some sort of agenda, particularly news corperations, who are often funded by governments or people with particular political views. Newspapers are the easiest example of this - in Britain, there are certain papers that support the Conservatives, and others Labour, it's pretty well documented.

As for google keeping records of searches, I never saw the problem with that. All it tells them is what websites you visit when researching something. Hardly information that can be used for any particular harm, is it. Unless of course, you're searching for somethign illegal, in which case it's actively a good thing.
I heard a story recently of a woman who was found guilty of murdering her husband after google had released her computer's search history to the FBI - it included several searches for ways to kill people, including specific poisons, how to buy and dispose of guns anonymously etc. The husband was poisoned and shot...
It's the same opinion I have about proposed ID cards in the UK - if you're not doing anything wrong, then there's no problem, surely.

[HardScienceFan]

Originally Posted by Rane Longfox

Does google do news now? I hadn't realised.

It seems to boil down to two different issues - impartial reporting, and keeping records of searches.

The first one is easy - of course news reports aren't impartial. Everyone has some sort of agenda, particularly news corperations, who are often funded by governments or people with particular political views. Newspapers are the easiest example of this - in Britain, there are certain papers that support the Conservatives, and others Labour, it's pretty well documented.

As for google keeping records of searches, I never saw the problem with that. All it tells them is what websites you visit when researching something. Hardly information that can be used for any particular harm, is it. Unless of course, you're searching for somethign illegal, in which case it's actively a good thing.
I heard a story recently of a woman who was found guilty of murdering her husband after google had released her computer's search history to the FBI - it included several searches for ways to kill people, including specific poisons, how to buy and dispose of guns anonymously etc. The husband was poisoned and shot...
It's the same opinion I have about proposed ID cards in the UK - if you're not doing anything wrong, then there's no problem, surely.

Thanks for your take on it.
You are of course very right about the UK newspapers.I am certainly no expert on them,but the instances of newspapers where a certain political view is upheld or endorsed are well documented.We have the same thing over here.I am sure most newspapers would readily admit to this.
Would you say that most readers are discerning enough to separate fact from opinion?
BTW,it seems the ingredients for building a functional nuclear bomb are available on the Internet as well.....

[Lenny]

I can provide you a link to a page that tells you how to build a H-bomb, if you want.

I don't know so much about being able to discern between opinion and fact in the papers (to me, if it's an editorial then it's opinion, and the rest of the paper is fact), but online a lot of people can take things very wrongly.

Take blogs on games consoles, for instance (only because I've read my fair share of reports about them ) - many people will take whatever is said in the blog and preach it as if it were the Book itself. If someone says it in a blog, then it must be true and gods help those who do not believe!

Yet then you look at games sites like IGN, 1up, Gamespot, and you see members going crazy at the reporters on the site for being biased, and throwing opinion into reports.

Depending on where you look, you can find both people who believe everything they read on the internet, and those who demand pure facts.

Add in the fact that a lot of sites will sensationalise headlines to get viewers, and it just makes things worse (for example, Gametrailers.com have a little bit of footage at the end of episodes of Bonus Round which give a bit of a clue as to what happens in the next episode. Last weeks ended with Davd Jaffe - director of the original God of War, and one of Sony Entertainment Studios key assests - saying he'd have not put Blu-ray into the PS3. This was instantly seized upon by thousands on the net, and it was reported that Jaffe would make the PS3 better, if he were the one making decisions, by not have put Blu-ray in the PS3. The whole quote, though, which hadn't been heard, was that he'd do that to make it cheaper. In his eyes Blu-ray is the way forward, he would just have it as an add-on to make things cheaper).

I think what I'm trying to say is that a lot of media these days (particularly tabloids - no names mentioned, such as The Daily Mirror or The Sun) will purposely sensationalise things to get views.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Lenny

I don't know so much about being able to discern between opinion and fact in the papers (to me, if it's an editorial then it's opinion, and the rest of the paper is fact), but online a lot of people can take things very wrongly.

Lenny... this is where a discussion we had earlier about literary criticism comes in handy, I think. One of the aspects of such criticism is to detect ways the text manipulates one's response to a thing. Just as an actor putting stress on different words in different readings of the same line can entirely change the meaning of that line, so can the subtlest of alterations in phrasing alter how a person perceives what is being purveyed. Sometimes this is an unconscious bias, sometimes quite deliberate. But the bias is always there. And in the media -- especially when it comes to news reporting -- it is so pervasive that one really has to sift through the way something is reported as well as the "facts" reported, to avoid being influenced by it in either overt or subtle ways. The editorials are seldom any more biased or opinion-based than the actual "reportage" -- they are just more openly so.

[HardScienceFan]

From the Perrspectives site:

On June 15th, 2004 the Google Adwords Team sent me a notification that all of my four-line text ads had been discontinued due to “unacceptable content.” The ads involved included headlines such “The Liberal Resource”, “The Progressive Resource”, “Bill Clinton & More”, “The Real Enron Scandal.” The supporting text included expressions such as “analysis, commentary and satire”, “complete liberal resource center”, “caustic commentary”, and others.


In response, on June 16 I told the Google rep that their decision to drop my ads had to be reversed due both to the specifics of my site and the broader issue at work. First, Perrspectives.com, while admittedly offering left-of-center content, is an independent, “equal opportunity” provider of analysis and commentary. For example, while the offending text cited by Google (“secretive, paranoid and vengeance-filled”) came from a piece harshly critical of President Bush (“The Smallness of King George”), other articles took on Democratic Party orthodoxy (“Identity Politics and the Threat from the Left"), John Kerry and John Edwards (“States’ Blights”), and Ralph Nader (“Unsafe and Any Speed”). Secondly, I noted that any assertions or claims made on the site, even ones using language as admittedly vitriolic as “secretive” and “paranoid”, were thoroughly supported in the text, usually with links to other articles, documentation or quotes.

A small example of censorship.
I do not endorse the site,just cite this as an example.

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

One of the aspects of such criticism is to detect ways the text manipulates one's response to a thing...Sometimes this is an unconscious bias, sometimes quite deliberate. But the bias is always there. And in the media -- especially when it comes to news reporting -- it is so pervasive that one really has to sift through the way something is reported as well as the "facts" reported, to avoid being influenced by it in either overt or subtle ways. The editorials are seldom any more biased or opinion-based than the actual "reportage" -- they are just more openly so.

You hit the nail on the head here JD. Again, it boils down to personal responsibility. Even with "journalistic integrity" etc. bias will always come into play, as you said, consciously or unconsciously. It is our personal responsibility to be the eternal skeptic. Not believe the first thing you read, but to try to practice SOME form of objectivity, fact verification, source checking etc.

Newspapers are the prime example of this...every large urban centre usually has more than one newspaper, and it is usually pretty clear what end of the political spectrum they tend to represent. It is our personal responsibility to multi-source, i.e. read both or multiple accounts of the story you are reviewing, try to get to the original text of an interview, or try to do some spot checking of reported fact.

Here comes Heinlein again (I love taking a beating for him):

What are the facts? Again and again and again — what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" — what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!

I fear there are too many of us today that believe "It must be true because I read it somewhere once".

[HardScienceFan]

Now here's food for thought:for a unbiased insight into Arabic-speaking nations,or Islamic countries,would you need to watch Al-Jazeera?
Are "Western" media truthfully reporting on what's happening in those countries?
Are conflicts worldwide equally reported on,or just those conflicts that happen to be thought of as "newsworthy"?E.g. Africa is rife with conflict that isn't
always,or let's say,SELDOM,reported on.
Or have we gotte a bit used to 'rebels','insurgents',government troops',etc.
Would some wars provoke public outcry sooner,if more atrocities were shown?
Remember,cluster bombs,landmines,child soldiers:it's still happening......

[TTBRAHWTMG]

The global conflicts are the MOST difficult areas for the responsible conduct I'm describing. Language barriers, cultural barriers, etc. all come into play. Sheer distances and danger make it impossible for personal verification. But there are things you CAN do. Your comment regarding Al Jazeera might have been tongue in cheek, but you can balance some of your western reporting by comparing the two, and expecting that reality is somewhere between.

You can also review varying english speaking countries reporting on an issue and try to filter out tendencies as best you can. How Canada, U.S., England, and Australia, (just as examples) report on events are all different, and are skewed by culture, societal fabric and composition, prevailing political tendencies, etc. The more you compare these varying reports, and glean the commonalities and differences between them, the more you will recognize the bias of each and be more effective at filtering it out.

Secondly, getting to know members of the local community of the same or similar culture as the region you are interested in, and listening to their take on things can have a dramatic impact on your own opinions. The more openly you listen, the more you build trust, the more honest the opinions you hear from these individuals become. The more you educate yourself about their history, their religion, etc. the better the framework for reviewing their opinions and the more you are able to recognize THEIR bias. The more you test opinions, other's and your own, through debate and discussion, the more informed your own opinions become.

We ALL experience personal bias, it is inevitable and unavoidable...but the more we can fight our own individual bias and attempt to build our OWN opinion based on as many facts as you can obtain...the better off we all are...and I would argue, while not without bias, the more responsible is that personal opinion that has been formed.

PS...While there is WAY more western reporting available regarding the middle east, this is to be expected (British and U.S. soldiers are fighting and dying in Iraq; many NATO countries have soldiers stationed in Afghanistan and several NATO countries actually have soldiers fighting and dying there). Having said that, there IS plenty of reporting being done on Africa these days. For those individuals that are so inclined, there are mountains of reporting available on the conditions and conflicts on that continent. There is not as much being DONE in these countries because not enough individuals care.

[HardScienceFan]

Valid points,TT.
There are people who had an unbiased attitude towards other cultures, religions,or peoples,or were,in any case largely ignorant of them.
It is not unconceivable that their attitude changed towards a more biased one,because of the facts(or fallacies) they received from the media.
I only wish to point out the possibility of the media changing their (style of)
reporting,because this suits certain parties and facilitates their (possibly hidden) agendas.
Media coverage has certainly increased in the case of Zimbabwe,where the opposition is being intimidated.....

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

It is not unconceivable that their attitude changed towards a more biased one,because of the facts(or fallacies) they received from the media.

Absolutely. In MANY cases I would say they have. Many individuals abdicate the responsibilities I described in the earlier post, listen to "news" from one source, and form their opinion solely based on that input. While you mention "fallacies", I imagine the majority of individual journalists are trying to present objective news. We all have our tastes, our predispositions, or our "glasses of perception" that we see through. No one can completely avoid personal bias. In addition, though, you have the business of media and its impact.

The business end of it are providing news to make money. To sell papers and the advertising in those papers. To gain listeners to their news station, so they can command more money for advertising. To gain viewers to their news programs, so that they can get more money from channels or networks, who are willing to pay more because they can demand more, again for advertisement. So the pressure mounts to adjust editorial control in the manner in which they believe would appeal to more audience. Additional objectivity is lost.

It agains fall back to the individuals that make up that demand. These papers flock to one end of the spectrum because of both the natural bias of the individuals that make up the group, and to a lesser, but still meaningful degree, due to the study of, and the conscious targetting of a particular audience. They are partially serving up what they are financially betting people will respond to. We, as a collection of individuals decide what that is. We do it through our individual choices. We want to hear about Iraq...they will give you plenty of Iraq...we want to hear about Britney Spears...they will give you plenty of Britney too, trust me. They'll even make it sound like important legitimate news to help sell it! Until more people are interested in Zimbabwe, or what ever your personal interests are, they are not going to sell it.

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

I only wish to point out the possibility of the media changing their (style of) reporting,because this suits certain parties and facilitates their (possibly hidden) agendas.

The media will change their style when we change our demand. Suits which parties? Facilitates what hidden agendas? I don't understand this part. There is no hidden agenda of the media...there is a very open agenda...figure out what we are interested in knowing about...report on those things from within the confines of their personal biases, although as individuals probably as objectively as they can...and to some extent, as collective organizations, adjust the content and the style in which they present the information in a way that they believe it will appeal. Find out what they want to buy, and sell it to them.

[HardScienceFan]

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

The business end of it are providing news to make money. To sell papers and the advertising in those papers. To gain listeners to their news station, so they can command more money for advertising. To gain viewers to their news programs, so that they can get more money from channels or networks, who are willing to pay more because they can demand more, again for advertisement. So the pressure mounts to adjust editorial control in the manner in which they believe would appeal to more audience. Additional objectivity is lost.





The media will change their style when we change our demand. Suits which parties? Facilitates what hidden agendas? I don't understand this part. There is no hidden agenda of the media...there is a very open agenda...figure out what we are interested in knowing about...report on those things from within the confines of their personal biases, although as individuals probably as objectively as they can...and to some extent, as collective organizations, adjust the content and the style in which they present the information in a way that they believe it will appeal. Find out what they want to buy, and sell it to them.

Uhhm,my humble opinion:news is just that: news.It shouldn't have 'appeal'.
I am trying to find out if there is possible bias in the gathering of news,the editorial treatment of it,the broadcasting and presentation of it,the treatment of possible feedback on the news,e.g. of people pointing out inaccuracies,outright falsehood,editorial prejudice,etc.To me it's fascinating that everybody is reasoning from a Western perspective,I've never proceeded from this Western bias.Remember,there are people living in Zimbabwe,Russia,China,Iran......You think the media are all free over there?
true journalism should be financially independent,pluriform,with no de facto or de jure censorship,possibly only bound by the limits of good taste,but then again,what is 'good taste'?

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

Uhhm,my humble opinion:news is just that: news.It shouldn't have 'appeal'.
I am trying to find out if there is possible bias in the gathering of news,the editorial treatment of it,the broadcasting and presentation of it,the treatment of possible feedback on the news,e.g. of people pointing out inaccuracies,outright falsehood,editorial prejudice,etc.To me it's fascinating that everybody is reasoning from a Western perspective,I've never proceeded from this Western bias.Remember,there are people living in Zimbabwe,Russia,China,Iran......You think the media are all free over there?
true journalism should be financially independent,pluriform,with no de facto or de jure censorship,possibly only bound by the limits of good taste,but then again,what is 'good taste'?

Flow and control of information is one of my biggest areas of interest.

The press is as free as is achievable here. Any of the major media outlets can generate whatever story they like tomorrow. You can go out tomorrow with your own money and start your own little newspaper and write whatever you want. This assumes, of course, both the major media outlet and you: stay within “the limits of good taste”, in other words, your country’s equivalent of the Canadian Standards Act; that you don’t encroach upon a private citizen’s rights; and that the major outlets follow basic ethical codes of conduct. These codes of conduct almost always include the requirement of truth, the striving for objectivity, the citation of sources, seperation between factorial and editorials, etc.

The “limits of good taste” are already defined. Some of these are critical in that they protect the rights of citizens, some because they reinforce the minimum standard of decency for a community; many others are fluffy ridiculousness that could be discarded. We could debate each limit by reviewing the applicable Standards Act if you wish. We, in the form of our chosen lawmakers, define what that code is.

How do you achieve financial independence though? What do you mean by this? Independence of the press, by definition, requires that it not be controlled or owned by the government. Once you have private ownership you have stakeholders. Once you have stakeholders you have bias. There is no avoiding this inevitability. The core of the problem is that for you to be ABLE to research the articles for your paper, to write your paper, to generate copies of it, and to distribute them, all of these things are going to cost resources. To cover those expenses, you are going to need an output that generates revenue, or give up your independence to the state. To generate that revenue you are going to have to find someone that wants to buy your output. You are going to have to find an appeal to that potential customer. You can't get around it. This works both at the individual and corporate level. The individual reporter, with ethical code in hand, will still gravitate to "the great story", the one that they think will appeal to the reader or viewer. They may be trying to invoke different appeals in different readers through various vehicles such as shock value, star power, appeal to special interest group, appeal to their own personal interest, appeal to a sense of righteousness, or in rarer cases even pursuit of a reputation for objectivity.

In the western system, for every major media outlet there are at least a dozen media “watch dog” agencies. These agencies hail from both ends of the political spectrum; from various religious groups; various ethnic groups; and from numerous different “special interest groups”. These groups review every word produced and are quick to raise alarm bells if they see or read anything that portrays their interests in a negative light. Pick any major western media outlet and a give me a day, and I will give you links to numerous “watch dog sights”, or interest groups’ internal blogs. The opportunity for outright falsehoods to go completely undetected is virtually impossible in this day and age. It actually sounds like this is what you are proposing actually...the creation of a "watch dog" group.

Inaccuracies do happen more often than desirable, usually due to sloppy reporting, lack of fact verification, even occasional gross bias, etc. These are almost always picked up by one of these agencies. In some cases a public retraction is required. In more severe cases there are laws, fines. In extreme cases of violation of a private citizen’s rights there can be tort law brought into play.

I don’t understand your offence at a western media bias. In my opinion the western media system works better than any other in existence today, and allows for the greatest independence of the media source. If you disagree, what existing system can you point to that has greater independence for the media, or any of the other goals you wish to achieve? If your idea of a better system doesn’t exist today, how does it work in practicality, and in what ways does it differ from a reference that is in existence today?

If you really want to focus in on the inevitable biases that are present so that you can discern your own opinion…pick a news story and multi source it and compare. If your interest is in internal biases...you’re from Holland…how many different papers are available at your store or newsstand that are not international? Pick a story of national importance and source each of those papers, or their internet extensions if they exist (cheaper and faster). Compare how they report on each of those stories. You will soon see the biases emerge. If you are talking a global issue, and are interested in bias at that level…choose a world event and source national online news sources from several western countries and compare those…the national biases will emerge…and then throw in Al Jazeera or a relevant English media outlet from the region in question…for example that Kenyan paper I was talking about…and review how the reporting on the incident compare. The biases will emerge.

I went through this process just last night, on a story regarding Turkey and a group of between 200,000 and 300,000 secularists who were protesting the expected rise of a new Islamic government. The number of protesters varied depending on which source you want to believe. There was remarkable little difference in the actual facts other then that 'number present' discrepancy. The cited quotes were the same in all of the articles including Al Jazeera, the immediately relevant background details of the history and current political environment was pretty much all the same…but the differences in the optional background information, the filler, the connotation, the flavour, or the bias were very evident and interesting. Each nation's reporting had differences in these qualitative choices. They were small, yet significant differences. Once you actually have these biases visible right in front of you, you can walk away pretty confident in your facts stripped of the various biases, and form your own opinion based on those facts (of course, those facts have now been subjected to your own bias...your never going to get away from bias, we are human beings).

As far as non-western countries, there are many with little freedom of press, many more again that pay lip service to it. I have recently read a first person account written by a Kenyan reporter, and he describes what it has been like to “freely” report the news over the course of each of the past three regimes. I can give you a link if you’d like. It is the Western media outlets and and Western countries that work to change the conditions for journalists in those restricted countries, freedom of the press being one of the fundamental freedoms that western society believe individuals should be allowed access to. The problem is the lack of voice for interest groups to express THEIR bias. Western countries attempt to affect that change with their foreign policy tools: they use the UN; direct government to government communication; control of the flow of non-humanitary financial aid; political pressure; restriction of trade; the veiled or even open threat of force; and in worst case scenarios the occasional use of force.

There is often SOME news coming out of virtually every nation, even those under these restricted conditions, mainly due to western foreign correspondents, and local individual efforts. Name a country that has no, or little freedom of press, and I’ll take you to links that show steps that western countries have taken to attempt to help them gain that freedom, to gain that expression of their bias. They have met with varying degrees of success over the years…in some cases there are no visible results…in some rare cases apparently even worsening the situation…but I can still find you evidence of the effort.

If you are interested in witnessing these biases...pick a few "world headlines" and we can collect stories from various news sources and compare them...the distinct flavour of each nation, and even each media outlet within each nation, will quickly become evident. If you want to take it a step further, we can try to gain insight into the cause of those biases after they are recognized by studying the source further.

No, the problem isn’t our current media system in the West, or the way that it is set up...the problem is in the way the collective of individual choices within our society choose to utilize that system. The system of Western media is not sick…we the consumers of it, are.


Added: Yikes...I wrote an essay!

[HardScienceFan]

As always TT,thanks for a thorough response.The dictums of good journalism
proscribe impartiality,mentioning of sources when wise,research,perhaps peer review,editorial review,and control of the language involved.I can't agree with you on methodological grounds that comparing different journalistic efforts will almost automatically lead to the truth.On philosophical,ethical and even political grounds I argue that the media everywhere shouldn't be entrepreneurial,shouldn't have a corporate structure.A EU study has in fact recommended that "opinion-makers" should be financially independent.

1. In view of the democratic, social and cultural significance of the media, merger control and other competition policy instruments are not sufficient in themselves to guarantee media pluralism. Therefore, merger control at the European, as well as national level, should be complemented, where appropriate, with specific measures to protect and promote media pluralism.

May I point out that Google censors sites with "content not compliant with local laws".If you're not familiar with those local laws,how are you to know
censorship has taken place?
Don't forget that censorship,be it repressive or oppresssive,can be cloaked in other terms.A hypothetical example:
A violently anti-Putin piece is censored by the Russian media for containing pornographic,offensive language,that is deemed "unworthy of basic journalistic principles in Russia".Can anyone tell with certainty what the censor actually is doing?????
I wouldn't call Western "consumers" of news "sick".

PS Perhaps the increasing role of the Internet in journalism already point so a certain discontent regarding the "conventional" media.I guess some people feel that their voice is not heard via the "conventional" media,or not heard regularly enough....

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

On philosophical, ethical and even political grounds I argue that the media everywhere shouldn't be entrepreneurial; shouldn't have a corporate structure. An EU study has in fact recommended that "opinion-makers" should be financially independent.

Again there is no such thing as financially independent, merely a difference in who one is financially dependent on. Production of mass media costs resources. “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” If the media source is not financially dependent on individual or corporate resources, then it is dependent on government resources. I don’t see how this can PROMOTE journalistic integrity or objectivity.

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

In view of the democratic, social and cultural significance of the media, merger control and other competition policy instruments are not sufficient in themselves to guarantee media pluralism. Therefore, merger control at the European, as well as national level, should be complemented, where appropriate, with specific measures to protect and promote media pluralism.

These kinds of vague statements concern me. It is exactly competition policy and merger control that assures media pluralism. In what western country are there not healthy examples of media plurality? What does “where appropriate” mean? What does “specific measures” mean?

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

May I point out that Google censors sites with "content not compliant with local laws". If you're not familiar with those local laws, how are you to know censorship has taken place?

In short, by educating yourself on what laws the media outlet is subject to. While not exclusively, I do use Google regularly, and don’t run into this “content not compliant”. What information is it that you are seeking that you cannot gain access too? If it is outside your national standards act, you can review and debate those standards. I’m sorry, but you’re going to need to convince enough like minded individuals in your community that access to that information is required…you’re going to need to affect change to your laws.

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

A violently anti-Putin piece is censored by the Russian media for containing pornographic,offensive language,that is deemed "unworthy of basic journalistic principles in Russia".Can anyone tell with certainty what the censor actually is doing?????

I discussed at length in my last post what western media and western countries are doing to help promote independence of media in non-western countries. If you’re specifically interested in these efforts in Russia, I can give you numerous links. This is one country in which western influence has had some marginal success, and media outlets have much greater independence today, then say 20 years ago.

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

I wouldn't call Western "consumers" of news "sick".

Oh, but we are! Far too many individuals accept opinion as fact, without practicing any form of objective scrutiny. From our state of relative stability, relative security, and relative freedom, so many have become complacent, and abdicated their personal responsibilities. This affects the behaviour and attitude of the individual, and in turn the society we live in, and in turn our governments.

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

PS Perhaps the increasing role of the Internet in journalism already point so a certain discontent regarding the "conventional" media.I guess some people feel that their voice is not heard via the "conventional" media,or not heard regularly enough....

The internet is a great tool, however it also promotes that disturbing trend I mentioned of individuals in our society absorbing opinion as fact. “Conventional media” as you refer to it, at least is subjected to much scrutiny and is forced to operate within defined laws and ethical boundaries. This cannot be said of many independent “news” outlets on-line. It is a great service to us all to be exposed to so many individuals’ opinions…as long as we recognize them as that…opinions. Too often these editorials are disguised as factorials, and the reader does not exercise his responsibility, and accepts them as such.

I ask you though, with the plethora of opinion articles already flooding our traditional media outlets…what opinions are you not seeing or reading that you wish you could? What does your "voice" crave that is not getting heard? I would argue that in Western media there is a vast amount of material available that voices virtually any opinion on virtually any topic.


If you are talking about some non-verifiable opinions that have growing popularity, such as: we have never stepped foot on the moon; that 911 was a CIA plot; your next door neighbour was abducted by an alien; that George Bush and Tony Blair get together for secret cult meetings and wring their hands plotting how to destroy the world; etc...due to the ethical codes of our mass media, these types of opinions are not publishable as factorials. This is because they don't stand up to scrutiny...they are opinion, and in many cases even puposeful fiction, and again, too many individuals openly accept these as fact because "they read it somewhere". The DaVinci code is a perfect example of this. Brown weaves an interesting story, the "conspiracy" nature of the story intrigues, or at least intrigued me to the point where I started searching out verification of certains assertions. Unfortunately for my excitement level, they would not stand up to scrutiny. Incredibly, there are many that would accept his fictional opinion as fact, with no further scrutiny whatsoever. The unregulated internet will provide you with plenty of these though. We are free to review these opinions as much as we like.


Might it be that your opinions ARE being heard, but you are frustrated that the stated opinions won't stand up to scrutiny, or that they do not resonate with as many people as you might like?