News covers fake girlfriend, but not 500,000 marching on DC.

No your statement is idiotic. Many things reported can and have hurt people. In fact when Obama took credit for killing Osama...the press released the names of the people who were involved in the takedown. As a result the Muslim doctor who informed our military inside information...was captured...and is in prison for life. They gave this doctor protection until it all went down...then our media exposed him. Obama could not wait to get patted on the back and the media didn't either...and as a result...a man lost his life.
So don't tell me that everything reported should be reported...not if it will put someone in danger.

Do you think the media should release our military secrets if they find them?

 

Well of course they are. I'm pretty sure it's a fact that more people vote for American Idol than they do for President or other elections in this day and age. Typical media BS.

 

So now that YOU HAD YOUR ABORTION you don't think anyone else should.......how hypocritical...


Oh, and please tell the OP that the media(Time) reports on abortion...she thinks no one does....

 

Maybe that's because Manti T'eo is new news....

while "500,000 marching on DC" has been done EVERY year for 30 years....and hasn't meant jack-sh*t?

 

true.....and pathetic.

 

I know your country started as a penal colony so it's hard for you to understand, but here in America, we are founded on freedom--and the press is integral in our methods of checks and balances.

 

How of those 500,000 marchers have adopted a child given up by a woman who didn't want a baby? Probably less than 5%.

So what if it wasn't covered. Its not important news, is it?

 

I'll take that as a joke so as to not display your gross ignorance of Australian politics - we created a fusion of the Westminster system with the conception of the Senate (and initially borrowed your decentralized states system) found in the United States. With the exception of a Bill of Rights we were pretty much as free as you - we were not all convicts. The colonies were made up of law abiding men.

Anyway, now that's out of the way...

The press is not a means to be used as politicians wish to place a check on them, indeed the only way the press can do this is through total freedom of thought and printing. Literally the only alternative to a voluntary press system is one based on government coercion - which will inevitably lead to its abuse like all areas of government intervention. Just look at the system of pork barrel spending in your country (and mine) - Jefferson originally advocated the public maintenance of infrastructure along strict good intentions, but Hamilton won out in the end, now you have a full blown system of government/business collusion with a national bank and all. Do you trust this won't happen to the press? The manipulation of the press is an even bigger temptation!

Sorry if I was a little antagonistic to start with.

 

I prefer the liberty of women having self determination of their own body, but you are 100% correct to see something is wrong with the MSM turning into Entertainment news.

[video=youtube;ueZ6tvqhk8U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueZ6tvqhk8U&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

 

The 1st amendment that guarantees press freedom says nothing about what the press has to report to you. They don't have an obligation to you, they are simply protected from being censored by the government. That's why pornography is legal.

 

Most of the American Main Stream Media is on-board with and biased to a fault regarding pro-infringement of the American Second Amendment as I think most if not all of America's enemies should be. It can truly be a troublesome impediment when a force wishes to control a people.

 

A free press can be an excellent accountability source and tool regarding government abuses/tyranny, after the fact.

Candidate & President Obama and much of what he is about has enjoyed a unique support by most member organizations in this collective in contrast to what the majority of the People valued.

Gas prices and body counts were a mainstay of the press during the Bush administration. Why not these last four years? Vacations and golf were a concern during the previous president's service, why not now. What about Obamacare, what sweeping changes are to come...a penalty for smokers and obese folks? If so where was the Press then...it has no public interest value? The attack on the First Amendment rights of religious organizations and business leader's conscience, not news worthy? C'mon.

The control of information is both prized and pursued when agendas are the goal. It can dictate the conversations of the day or be used to nurture or sway opinions by providing or not providing specific critical information.

Some American government representatives are concerned about commercial outlets like Fox and AM/FM radio personalities expressing opinions absent a progressive liberal counter. Progressive liberal ideas have a limited appeal and typically don't do as well in the open arena of free speech. This is why this particularly ideology needs support through government force of law. Until that time is realized, personal freedom of speech in the free market of ideas and the medium it is shared in will draw and hold its own following.

The internet, at least for the moment, is pretty much a wide-open frontier. As the press would decline its responsibility to report events, happenings and fact I for one am thankful, though it is only an off-switch away from government control, that the internet is accessible for an exchange of information, like this forum, about sides to topics or events the press might choose to ignore.

 

All those things may very well be "newsworthy" - if you believe so then start up a news show. Media organizations can report whatever they want, and refuse to report whatever they want. It should be that way. That's just basic freedom of speech/press.

The internet is amazing. It lets anyone be a news reporter.

The government shouldn't support any news. That leads down a terrible road. If the people demand more conservative or progressive or whatever news then they are welcome to either switch to a news outlet that reports through the lens of their preferred ideology, or they can start their own.

There's no such thing as impartiality: every event by necessity has to be viewed through a worldview.

 

With every freedom comes a responsibility.

Is there room for ethics in your view of the Press?

Would ethics require or even demand an impartial objectivity as it relates to the duty of the Press?

If the answer is yes to either of these questions, I would submit that the Press has a responsibility of true allegiance to and reporting of the facts of any event/story.

Even if your use of the designation "press" is interchangeable with the intellectual possessions some call "opinion/agenda", I believe an opinion can be impartially arrived at and an agenda factually based.

Of course, if one lives without morals/ethics everything is possible and acceptable.

Disagree that everything must be looked at with a "worldview" in mind. I believe in the sovereignty of the individual, community and nation, in that order.

 

Unless it's a woman.

 

More than fifty percent of the aborted human beings are female. Abortion is totally sexist.

 

No Cady, for both male and female, sovereignty for each.

Your charge would best apply to those who willfully condemn innocent victims to death, in spite of their sovereign right to his or her life.

 

Which would mean that a fetus, rather than the woman, would exercise authority over her body.

- - - Updated - - -

Sex-selective abortion is not an issue in the U.S. It is primarily a problem in China, where the government regulates women's reproduction.

 

But then IYO sex selection abortion should be ok, right?

 

It certainly would seem that way right?

But the fact is...for every pro-abort here...sex selection should not be an issue...as all abortion is ok. Well "all" ...no two pro-aborts think the same...some say viability matters and some don't, some say there should be restrictions others say no restrictions, some say the unborn is a human...some deny it, some say its a person some say it isn't....some (few) say all abortion should be legal. They are all over the board on this.

You are right...it is sexist, both the killing of the unborn and what it does to the FATHER, whose child is being slaughtered and can do nothing.
And also PP's target against minorities and certain races.

 

Are you telling me what my opinion is?

 

Dix said,

Agree....totally and would like to expand on this.

With abortion today it is still taboo. It has always been considered immoral. There are some pro-choicers who are sure to make it known that they...WOULD NEVER GET AN ABORTION BECAUSE ITS IMMORAL....but they believe in allowing a woman to kill anyway if that is her choice.
Today woman don't talk about the abortions they have.

Wouldn't you think that if abortion was legal and considered moral...that more than just one woman who had had an abortion would be here debating it? We don't even have ONE to go against what I claim is the truth because I know this topic on a personal level.

Women do not want to admit it. People know abortion is immoral and don't want to be associated with anything remotely connected with it. That is why pro-choicers don't like the label pro-abort.

This issue is all about morality....and the lack of morality...the belief in God the denial of one.

It is not only a political battle but a theological one as well. If man is made in the image of God then set morals exist. The denial of God, well the consequences…are profound implications for society and for us.

Theological...........What constitutes a human being?
Gen1:27 God created man in his own image…male and female
He created animals after their own kind…but we were created in Gods image. Our process was personal. To God we have intrinsic value and exceptional worth and His image is stamped on each one of us. Did any of you see Lincoln the movie? Lincoln desire for the 13th Amendment was passionate. The connection to Jefferson's statement..."All men are created equal"....CREATED BY GOD WITH RIGHTS. Where did this notion come from? The Bible. His reasoning...the basis for the right to life comes from a creator as a reflection of Himself. If on the other hand you are not created by God then you are a mere animal with no worth.

Political-antigod...linking to abortion today...society today.

Darwin theorized that man is not a divine creation…just time chance and a little luck. Man living in a meaningless universe living a meaningless life. He also said that we were just forms of animals….just a little bit higher. He also said some races were better than others that survival of the fittest was normal and natural in fact a necessity. The death of the weak was good for society. (wow how many people on this forum state that we are overpopulated? that handicapped should not be born) It was Hitler that ran with Darwins theories of natural selection to their logical conclusions. Hitlers political philosophies were based on Darwinian logic. One of the central planks of Nazism was evolutionary social theory that all life is evolving upward and that natural selection could and should be actively aided by instating political measures to eradicate less evolved human beings. Animals preserve themselves through survival of the fittest and so should the arian race. Sanger...through her eugenics work believed this as well. She targeted the feeble, minorities...the misfits of society. It all fits together...but the underlying thing that pops out is the belief in God...and this affects world views and ones morality.

It was the nazis that maintained that they owed it to progress... to eliminate that which is second rate or inferior. (The pro-choicers think this about the unborn) What is weak or diseased should be left behind so that the stronger has a right to survive. Faulty logic. This led to the murderous prosecution of all people deemed inferior. And today the unborn are looked at as inferior...just the way Hitler did, the German people did, Darwin did, Sanger did. Twisted people and perverted logic.

If God did not create us in His image and in his likeness then the powerful get to decide who is human and who is subhuman. The pro-death community..our government, organizations like PP and those who support them and the legality of abortion, pro-choice church communities decide and are deciding the fate of living human beings in the womb. Over 7 million Jews and gypsies, and catholics and homosexuals and disabled persons were deemed inferior and expenable by the nazis. They were the pro-choicers of their day...only the subhuman could not speak. They were murdered in Hitlers Germany. And today since 1973 over sixty million have been slaughtered in THEIR HUMAN MOTHERS OVENS. The human holocaust continues.

Today the battle for the sanctity of ALL human life remains the defining battle for this generation and it will continue in future generations. This has to do with God and the rejection of God....and the morality of believers against nonbelievers.

Science is clear on life in the womb....but even pro-aborts reject this....again goes back to God and the rejection, the denial that He exists.

It is very easy for us to judge that generation in Germany. And I suspect future generations will judge us for the stance America took on abortion...I know God will.

Everything can be considered acceptable and permissible without God....

 

If you are consistent with you position on its a womans right to kill on demand...you should not have a say....anything should go.

 

Barring a medical condition, any parent who insists upon a baby of one gender shouldn't be a parent at all. Those who have a history of sex-linked genetic diseases in their families might want an abortion for that reason, and it's perfectly logical.