Happy World Press Freedom Day

[richlevy]

On the recommendation of the Economic and Social Council, the General Assembly, on 20 December 1993, declared 3 May as World Press Freedom Day (decision 48/432). This action stemmed from the General Conference of UNESCO, which, by a 1991 resolution on "Promotion of press freedom in the world," had recognized that a free, pluralistic and independent press was an essential component of any democratic society. The General Conference had invited the UNESCO Director-General to transmit to the General Assembly the wish of UNESCO member states to have 3 May declared "International Press Freedom Day," LThat date was chosen to commendorate the WIndhoek Declaration on Promoting an Independent and Pluralistic African Press, adopted on 3 May 1991 by the Seminar on Promoting an Independent and Pluralistic African Press, organized by UNESCO and the United Nations in Windhoek, Namibia.

It's sort of amazing that an industry that started out as something which looked more like a farmers almanac or one of the free newspapers with recipes that you find in the supermarket could become so vital to democracy. Of course the British seemed to understand this because in 1690 they suppressed the first recorded newspaper in America.

280 years later Woodward and Bernstein helped bring down an adminstration.

Of course, now that we have television, less people are getting their news from print. Unfortunately, cable networks and cable companies have a much greater freedom in refusing advertisers since they are not technically broadcasters. This includes political or issue ads which promote 'uncomfortable' or 'controversial' ideas.

I don't think this is a good idea.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Knowledge to the people = power to the people.
I think the biggest challange to the press, is keeping editorials and news, separated and clearly labeled.

[ScottSolomon]

I think the biggest problem with the news is actually maintaining some degree of objectivity, criticality, and journalistic integrity - especially when it comes to the goverment. They seemed to be pretty critical with Clinton and Gore, I wonder why Bush is getting carte blanche.

[Whit]

     Perhaps it's because if they fail to go into graphic detail about anything Clinton did wrong or mention in passing anything Bush does wrong we can expect to hear cries of, "Foul! Damn that liberal media! It's EVIL!!!" for a few weeks?
     Not that I'm saying this because I think that's been used as a lame cop-out for years or anything. Oh wait, yes I am.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I wonder why Bush is getting carte blanche.

WAR = GOOD
BLOWJOB = BAD
And that's sick!

[smoothmoniker]

[MUTANT GEN-X CYNICISM SUPER POWERS ACTIVATE]

Them's the nuts - Mass Media is a bottom line corporation with the stated goal of selling papers, gaining viewers, getting hits, etc. Why do they report what they report? I think the equation looks something like this:

"President Gets BJ in Oval Office" = more papers sold
"A roundtable discussion of the proposed Universal Healthcare program" = less papers sold

"US Troops Storm Baghdad, People cheer in streets" = more viewers
"How is Augustine's 'Just Warfare' theory understood by President Bush as supporting preemptive action?"= fewer viewers

"Those communist whores should be shipped to France! We'll never play their records again" = more redneck listeners
"Following in the proud, open minded traditions of Country Music, here's the latest from The Dixie Chicks" = fewer redneck listeners

CNN/NY Times/Slate = high numbers of like-minded viewers.
FOX/Washington Post/Drudge = high numbers of opposing like-minded viewers.

To assume that there is anything more significant than bottom line economics is to give too much credit to the beast.

[/MUTANT GEN-X CYCNICISM POWERS DE-ACTIVATE]

[xoxoxoBruce]

I remember when TV news had no sponsors. It was a service of the station/network. Then it became business, like print media. All downhill ever since.

[elSicomoro]

Free press sucks. That's what allows people to start thinking independently and what not...and we just can't have that.

[Griff]

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. - Kierkegaard

[ScottSolomon]

great post griff. I should go read some Kierkegaard.

[Archer]

but it boils down to two things:

$$

and

people being lazy


Money drives companies (unless you're not-for-profit), a company has to, at very least, break even (and even then it will fail eventually), else the company will fold.

People are lazy (or too distracted by other things) to really care about what is important any more. Tag lines, hooks, blurbs, and slogans have replaced good news stories. I can't entirely blame that on the media though . . . people won't watch good in depth reporting (nor read it much anymore), and if the news "company" wants to stay in business . . . then they better report what the people will watch.

Look at the Lacy Peterson nonsence (or Chandra Levey two years ago), is it sad? sure; does it deserve updated coverage on the hour . . . every hour? no. Yet, that's what people want to see . . . it's what neilson says they will not turn the channel for . . . kinda like slowing down to see a particularly greusome accident . . . most people want to see the suffering of others (and shit that goes boom), not real news . . .

ok . . . /pseudo rant

[xoxoxoBruce]

ok . . . /pseudo rant

But dead on target!