Save Journalism: A Call to Action for American Democracy

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
In summary, Dan Rather spoke at the Aspen Institute in Aspen, Colo. on July 28 and addressed challenges to the news industry, particularly the rise of sensationalist media, which he believes is damaging the integrity of journalism and posing a threat to American democracy. He proposed the idea of a commission on media reform to address these issues and make recommendations for preserving journalism jobs and creating new business models. While some may view his concerns as a manifestation of his ego, Rather has been a respected newsman and anchor for decades and believes that government intervention may be necessary to maintain a strong and independent media industry.
  • #36
humanino said:
Because it short-cuts the problem of mis-informed voters watching Fox.

Just a few more messages and I'll really give up to misunderstanding.

Ah, legislatioin to counter the where people chose to get their info. Doesn't sound like a good idea. The intent is flawed is directed towards people getting information in a manner that YOU think they should. Fox viewers are plenty satisfied as to where they get their info.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
This is merely a proposal to clarify what candidate themselves define as their politics and make sure that voters read it. Why anybody would oppose the idea while having democratic intentions is beyond my understanding. I would think this would ensure campaign money well spent, possibly even save money.
 
  • #38
humanino said:
This is merely a proposal to clarify what candidate themselves define as their politics and make sure that voters read it. Why anybody would oppose the idea while having democratic intentions is beyond my understanding. I would think this would ensure campaign money well spent, possibly even save money.

It's been the way it is for more than 200yrs. I don't see fixing something that isn't broken. It's the candidates responsibility to define their politics. It's not the governments place to tell them how to do that.
 
  • #39
drankin said:
It's been the way it is for more than 200yrs. I don't see fixing something that isn't broken.
Sure, the system can not be improved.
 
  • #40
humanino said:
Sure, the system can not be improved.

Improved how? And at what expense? Free speech? I think what you are suggesting would require an Amendment to the Constitution.
 
  • #41
drankin said:
I think what you are suggesting would require an Amendment to the Constitution.
Certainly yes.
 
  • #42
humanino said:
Certainly yes.

Good luck with that. :-p
 
  • #43
drankin said:
Good luck with that. :-p
Thank you :smile:
 
  • #44
humanino said:
This is merely a proposal to clarify what candidate themselves define as their politics and make sure that voters read it. Why anybody would oppose the idea while having democratic intentions is beyond my understanding. I would think this would ensure campaign money well spent, possibly even save money.

And if they define their politics in a manner that whom ever is judging believes is inaccurate? Yet they believe it is?

Who wants to lower taxes? Candidate A or candidate B?
Well apparently they both say they want to lower taxes and they both say that the other wants to raise them.
 
  • #45
TheStatutoryApe said:
Well apparently they both say they want to lower taxes and they both say that the other wants to raise them.
It would be interesting if within a good dozen of the most important question according to them, none would allow us to distinguish two main candidates.
 
  • #46
I do not ever expect voters to completely and fully understand all aspects of political science. I only expect candidates and politicians to try all their best to inform voters and reason honestly on how the system can be improved.

To say the least, this is not a very positive quote.
 
  • #47
humanino said:
Sure, the system can not be improved.
It can not be improved by beginning with a dismissal of the hard earned knowledge of how and why we came to have a representative democracy. The right to vote is essential to liberty; liberty is 'inalienable' - a right that can not be surrendered.
 
  • #48
mheslep said:
The right to vote is essential to liberty; liberty is 'inalienable' - a right that can not be surrendered.
Living in illusion is also a liberty I guess.
 
  • #49
humanino said:
If I were the supreme court, people should pass a qualifying exam to vote.

I'm sure that's never been tried before.
 
  • #51
humanino said:
Read the thread.

Done that already. How about you read the Voting Act of 1964?
 
  • #52
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
I hope you realize I quoted it in #25. Otherwise, no wonder you do not understand what I say. Thanks for paying attention.
 
  • #54
humanino said:
I hope you realize I quoted it in #25. Otherwise, no wonder you do not understand what I say. Thanks for paying attention.

Interesting and inspiring to see so many people quick to step up and defend our Constitution. Liberals and conservatives alike. It's been a good thread.
 
  • #55
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
drankin said:
Interesting and inspiring to see so many people quick to step up and defend our Constitution. Liberals and conservatives alike. It's been a good thread.
How often do russ and Ivan agree ? I must really be a freak.
 
  • #57
humanino said:
How often do russ and Ivan agree ? I must really be a freak.

Apparently the french even like to take their bosses hostage to resolve labour disputes. Admittedly though I find the idea somewhat appealing myself.
 
  • #58
humanino said:
How often do russ and Ivan agree ? I must really be a freak.

Not at all. You just don't understand this aspect of our value system. It's not like the idea is ludicrous on the face of things, but it does threaten some of our core values. We take the right to vote without qualifications very seriously here.

Now if I and I alone could say who could vote, and who couldn't, that would be another matter. :biggrin:
 
  • #59
humanino said:
How often do russ and Ivan agree ? I must really be a freak.

Nah, honey...you're just French. And we all love you :smile:.
 
  • #60
Thanks for your support :smile:

I need to rethink, since
Ivan Seeking said:
We take the right to vote without qualifications very seriously here.
might appeal to me too after all. Note that, I want everybody to vote, I just want to everybody to know too.

I did not mean to kill the conversation either. To "how to save journalism" I answered "dismiss it". Maybe there are better ideas !
 
  • #61
drankin said:
Interesting and inspiring to see so many people quick to step up and defend our Constitution. Liberals and conservatives alike. It's been a good thread.

I agree, but I thought this thread was about saving journalism? The last 2.3 pages have been regarding voting laws.

But anyways, I noticed the other day that I had become so disillusioned with standard news sources, that I now routinely seek out only two agencies for most of my information: The Daily Show on Comedy Central, and Al Jazeera.

I thought that was very strange.
 
  • #62
I think government or an independent body should at least try to raise the Journalism degree/education standards and making sure that only good journalists get graduated and work in this field.
 
  • #63
humanino said:
Thanks for your support :smile:

I need to rethink, sincemight appeal to me too after all. Note that, I want everybody to vote, I just want to everybody to know too.

I did not mean to kill the conversation either. To "how to save journalism" I answered "dismiss it". Maybe there are better ideas !

No problem. None of these are easy questions - how best to preserve a democracy; what is in the best interest of the country; how to maintain an informed electorate - but you ran into a philosophical wall on this one. :biggrin:
 
  • #64
rootX said:
I think government or an independent body should at least try to raise the Journalism degree/education standards and making sure that only good journalists get graduated and work in this field.

There's a start...

I'm just not so sure about the "government" deciding what a "free press" qualification is.
 
  • #65
humanino said:
Thanks for your support :smile:

I need to rethink, since

Ivan Seeking said:
We take the right to vote without qualifications very seriously here.
might appeal to me too after all. Note that, I want everybody to vote, I just want to everybody to know too.

I did not mean to kill the conversation either. To "how to save journalism" I answered "dismiss it". Maybe there are better ideas !

I think you should stick to your initial assessment. I went to http://www.foxnews.com/index.html"to see if perhaps I should expand my sources of information. After about 10 minutes on each site, I decided Al Jazeera seems to have much higher journalistic standards than the other two. About that time, the movie Idiocracy started on the television. The first 10 minutes reminded me of what I had just seen on CNN and Fox.

Americans should not be allowed to vote at all. Any of us.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #66
i completely agree with Ivan Seeking. i think that's why the news is so biased; because if it were nothing but the bare facts, people would find it boring and not watch. so they inster bias and emotion. its all about them ratings.(unfortunately...)
 
  • #67
russ_watters said:
3. He wants to preserve democracy via preserving media integrity by creating a government media advisory board? What a vicious cycle of wrongness!


seriously?! that reminds me of orwell's 1892. and i don't like it.at all.
 
  • #68
thomasxc said:
seriously?! that reminds me of orwell's 1892. and i don't like it.at all.

...umm...might you mean 1984?
 
  • #69
im sorry. yes.thats what i mean.
 
  • #70
thomasxc said:
i completely agree with Ivan Seeking. i think that's why the news is so biased; because if it were nothing but the bare facts, people would find it boring and not watch. so they inster bias and emotion. its all about them ratings.(unfortunately...)

I was recently talking with someone about a related issue. I made the comment that PBS is probably the best single source of news on television. He responded by saying that he does like that station, but he gets bored watching it because all they do is talk.

Note that PBS is supported in part by federal funds.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News Why Do Americans Support Right Wing Media Outlets Like Fox News?
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
51
Views
7K
Three new books to read about expertise vs. democracy
    • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?
    • General Discussion
10
Replies
325
Views
31K
What is the true impact of free trade agreements on the American economy?
    • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
9K
News What Role Does Fox News Play in the Spread of Misinformation?
    • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
3K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
News The lie of media liberal bias continued.
    • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
4K
News Renaissance and reaction to Islam.
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
ECONOMICS: It's stupid to be afraid (Lee Kuan Yew to Der Spiegel)
    • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
3K
News Obama Inaugural Address: Summary & Analysis
    • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top