"One of the points of having a free press is to 'police' the government -- making sure that people know about the goings on in government."
Really? Yet, nothing about that is mentioned in the defense of the "free press". Thus, press/speech that criticizes the government is treated no better and no worse than free speech that praises the government. No difference. I actually have seen many people demand censorship of news organizations that they perceive to be pro-government, on the idea that such speech should not be allowed at all. I've also seen demands go the other way. I see no difference between them.
"Kind of like what you've just done in making up lies regarding my previous post"
The knee-jerk use of the term "lie" for something someone disagrees with is a perfect example of why there should not be some standard enforced based on someone's subjective view of what is a lie or not.
"When there is no accountability all you will get is uncontrollable vigilantism, "
"No accountability" meaning no censor to control and enforce? Look up the definition of vigilantism: it involves law enforcement and violence. Not free speech.
"Considering the ultra-conservative bias that most of the Slashdotters here have"
Are you really serious? I've seen those on the left whine about right-wing conspiracies modding them down on Slashdot...and I've seen those on the right whine about left-wing conspiracies modding them down on Slashdot. I've also observed much of the modding behavior applied to overtly political comments: it goes equally both ways. Only a "nutjob" could see such bias in Slashdot. I did not brand you as one: your own conspiracy-theory comments did.
"I can handle bias and even the occasional factual errors and omissions, but having laypeople conduct your investigatory journalism for you? The problems are just too numerous: lowering of research and writing standards"
Actually, it is more likely that if "the average Joe" had been presented with the fake Bush AWOL story they dealt with, they probably would have done enough fact-checking to see that the evidence was forged. And only the worst idiot would actually have done with Dan Rather did: insist that the evidence and story were real for TWO WEEKS after someone pointed out that it was a forgery. I would not have done that. Would you?
"And, not coincidentally, this is why blogging does not count as news."
If it's news, it's news. Whether or not it on CNN or in a blog.
"One kid working a deli got killed by an illegal after he raped her. Parents then protested the daily gathering of 200 plus men a couple blocks from their elementary school. Of course Gannett ran one weepy sob story after another story trying to guilt trip everyone into loving their illegals."
Why not? The vast majority of them are law-abiding, and are here only to do productive work. If you are really SO concerned about crime, why not demand to deport native-born Americans? Most of the crime is committed by this group, after all. Even more than that committed by illegal aliens.
"while Yakov's purpose is to ridicule Eastern Europe, Borat's is to ridicule the West."
Smirnoff did plenty of ridicule of the West. That is what made him so funny. If his line was nothing but "Life in USSR sucks and is nothing but a pathetic joke", he'd have gone no-where.
"I'd expect it more like bringing slanderous lies to a wider audience and there's no First Amendment right to that"
Yes there is. See the part about free speech. There's no clause anywhere in there that requires that free speech must past some muster of what someone's objective view of "truth" is.
"This will only succeed in flushing what little integrity there is left in the process."
Hard to do a worse job of that than Dan Rather. And he was one of those with journalistic experience and training: probably one of those few that you think should be able to exercise the privilege of First Amendment rights.
Democracy is about how the people influence government by voting, running for office, or participating in referendums. It is not about whether people argue about space aliens or not.
Totalitarians crack down on the media because totalitarians are very vain: they don't want anyone to say anything bad about them (whether or not anyone is "informed"). In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether anyone is informed or not.
Also, there is a huge degree of subjectivity over whether someone is "informed" vs "uninformed". For one huge example, liberals think conservatives are uninformed and vice-versa. So much that we shouldn't make any government policy to censor media or decisions from one particular subjective view.
Informed people make better decisions than the uninformed. I never argued that they did, despite your uninformed straw-man attack. However, arguing about space aliens, and how the Titanic ( the big ol' newspapers) re=arranging their deck chairs has absolutely nothing to do with democracy.
"And when newspapers stop funding their own research and turn to those space alien conspiracy nut cases for their material, the public is no longer informed."
But those who believe in the space alien stuff will consider themselves even more informed. This has nothing to do with democracy.
"Yes, you can get some real information out of people... but you'll have to wade through pure crap to get to it."
There was never a time that Sturgeon's Law did not apply.
"It is that the news organizations are now no better trained in journalism or research than your average TV watcher."
Yeah. It's not like a trained experienced proper journalist would knowingly air and stand behind a story based on faked documents on a major network news show!
"And every fool with an agenda (space aliens, government cover-ups, etc) will be spewing their own brand of "information".
"Do you have any actual proof that he stole it [Soviet-area fish-out-of-water-in-the-US idea] from Yokav? Of course not, so don't say it with such certainty."
One would have to assume that Cohen knew of Smiroff's act.
"You found Yavok funny? And funnier than Borat? I mean, wow. Just... wow."
Absolutely, and I find nothing funny about Borat at all.
No, the title is NOT off topic. I'm referring to Yakov Smirnoff. If anyone should sue "Borat", it might be Yakov. Sasha Cohen stole the basic Soviet-area fish-out-of-water-in-the-US idea from Smirnoff. However, it must be pointed out, that Cohen did not steal from Yakov the idea that it should be funny.
"1) copyright is a monopoly that monopoly should not be tweaked so as to cut off competition from other labels/artists"
The payola issue is not copyright related.
". By payola making radio stations who play only big-label stuff (and not indie/local) more profitable, you squeeze out the other labels from promotion."
How is this any different from a big beer company paying for its ads, which ends up pushing out the little garage microbrew?
"payola n, Illegal promotion of music where record companies pay radio stations to play their songs."
I've always wondered why this is illegal/scandalous. Ad agencies and companies pay stations to play commercials, so what is so different about someone paying them to play certain music?
"people's sense of morality ("I don't want to steal from artists") "
This is about possible copyright infringement, not theft. Morality about stealing is hardly relevant. Not any more so than mentioning that people don't want to rape the artists.
"You have to figure out a way for people to stop hurting each other and stop stepping on each other's feelings, then nobody will use guns and weapons! Like that's ever gonna happen..."
Slashdot Mirror
"One of the points of having a free press is to 'police' the government -- making sure that people know about the goings on in government."
Really? Yet, nothing about that is mentioned in the defense of the "free press". Thus, press/speech that criticizes the government is treated no better and no worse than free speech that praises the government. No difference. I actually have seen many people demand censorship of news organizations that they perceive to be pro-government, on the idea that such speech should not be allowed at all. I've also seen demands go the other way. I see no difference between them.
How better to teach about viruses than to have an actual virus found at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus entry?
"Kind of like what you've just done in making up lies regarding my previous post"
The knee-jerk use of the term "lie" for something someone disagrees with is a perfect example of why there should not be some standard enforced based on someone's subjective view of what is a lie or not.
"When there is no accountability all you will get is uncontrollable vigilantism, "
"No accountability" meaning no censor to control and enforce? Look up the definition of vigilantism: it involves law enforcement and violence. Not free speech.
"Considering the ultra-conservative bias that most of the Slashdotters here have"
Are you really serious? I've seen those on the left whine about right-wing conspiracies modding them down on Slashdot...and I've seen those on the right whine about left-wing conspiracies modding them down on Slashdot. I've also observed much of the modding behavior applied to overtly political comments: it goes equally both ways. Only a "nutjob" could see such bias in Slashdot. I did not brand you as one: your own conspiracy-theory comments did.
"I can handle bias and even the occasional factual errors and omissions, but having laypeople conduct your investigatory journalism for you? The problems are just too numerous: lowering of research and writing standards"
Actually, it is more likely that if "the average Joe" had been presented with the fake Bush AWOL story they dealt with, they probably would have done enough fact-checking to see that the evidence was forged. And only the worst idiot would actually have done with Dan Rather did: insist that the evidence and story were real for TWO WEEKS after someone pointed out that it was a forgery. I would not have done that. Would you?
"And, not coincidentally, this is why blogging does not count as news."
If it's news, it's news. Whether or not it on CNN or in a blog.
"many of which are in tiny markets where they hold near monopolies (as most local newspapers are)."
Can you identify such markets? Most all that I have checked out have several newspapers, and there is thus no monopoly.
"One kid working a deli got killed by an illegal after he raped her. Parents then protested the daily gathering of 200 plus men a couple blocks from their elementary school. Of course Gannett ran one weepy sob story after another story trying to guilt trip everyone into loving their illegals."
Why not? The vast majority of them are law-abiding, and are here only to do productive work. If you are really SO concerned about crime, why not demand to deport native-born Americans? Most of the crime is committed by this group, after all. Even more than that committed by illegal aliens.
"while Yakov's purpose is to ridicule Eastern Europe, Borat's is to ridicule the West."
Smirnoff did plenty of ridicule of the West. That is what made him so funny. If his line was nothing but "Life in USSR sucks and is nothing but a pathetic joke", he'd have gone no-where.
"I'd expect it more like bringing slanderous lies to a wider audience and there's no First Amendment right to that"
Yes there is. See the part about free speech. There's no clause anywhere in there that requires that free speech must past some muster of what someone's objective view of "truth" is.
"This will only succeed in flushing what little integrity there is left in the process."
Hard to do a worse job of that than Dan Rather. And he was one of those with journalistic experience and training: probably one of those few that you think should be able to exercise the privilege of First Amendment rights.
Democracy is about how the people influence government by voting, running for office, or participating in referendums. It is not about whether people argue about space aliens or not.
Totalitarians crack down on the media because totalitarians are very vain: they don't want anyone to say anything bad about them (whether or not anyone is "informed"). In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether anyone is informed or not.
Also, there is a huge degree of subjectivity over whether someone is "informed" vs "uninformed". For one huge example, liberals think conservatives are uninformed and vice-versa. So much that we shouldn't make any government policy to censor media or decisions from one particular subjective view.
Informed people make better decisions than the uninformed. I never argued that they did, despite your uninformed straw-man attack. However, arguing about space aliens, and how the Titanic ( the big ol' newspapers) re=arranging their deck chairs has absolutely nothing to do with democracy.
"And when newspapers stop funding their own research and turn to those space alien conspiracy nut cases for their material, the public is no longer informed."
But those who believe in the space alien stuff will consider themselves even more informed. This has nothing to do with democracy.
"Exactly right. The first thing that crossed my mind was that this is some kind of vigilantism."
How can exercise of First Amendment rights (in the form of amateur journalism) be equated with amateur police?
"Yes, you can get some real information out of people ... but you'll have to wade through pure crap to get to it."
There was never a time that Sturgeon's Law did not apply.
"It is that the news organizations are now no better trained in journalism or research than your average TV watcher."
Yeah. It's not like a trained experienced proper journalist would knowingly air and stand behind a story based on faked documents on a major network news show!
"And every fool with an agenda (space aliens, government cover-ups, etc) will be spewing their own brand of "information".
So? Welcome to freedom of the press!
This thread has already gone sowth.
"And, does that mean that we're still talking about having to check sources.... and all of that old stodgy professional behavior?"
The old style media was so >good at that, right?
"Does any one say What is so interesting about these guys ? Those guys are Turkish equvalent of American redneck"
Does it help explain it that American rednecks themselves are also giants of American comedy?
"Do you have any actual proof that he stole it [Soviet-area fish-out-of-water-in-the-US idea] from Yokav? Of course not, so don't say it with such certainty."
One would have to assume that Cohen knew of Smiroff's act.
"You found Yavok funny? And funnier than Borat? I mean, wow. Just... wow."
Absolutely, and I find nothing funny about Borat at all.
No, the title is NOT off topic. I'm referring to Yakov Smirnoff. If anyone should sue "Borat", it might be Yakov. Sasha Cohen stole the basic Soviet-area fish-out-of-water-in-the-US idea from Smirnoff. However, it must be pointed out, that Cohen did not steal from Yakov the idea that it should be funny.
"1) copyright is a monopoly that monopoly should not be tweaked so as to cut off competition from other labels/artists"
The payola issue is not copyright related.
". By payola making radio stations who play only big-label stuff (and not indie/local) more profitable, you squeeze out the other labels from promotion."
How is this any different from a big beer company paying for its ads, which ends up pushing out the little garage microbrew?
"His lawyer has warned to a bloodbath if the sentence is carried out."
And that would be different from the current situation, how?
I've had it. For a very long time. The reason? I can't get TV stations unless I have cable. This applies to the big 3 networks as well.
"payola n, Illegal promotion of music where record companies pay radio stations to play their songs."
I've always wondered why this is illegal/scandalous. Ad agencies and companies pay stations to play commercials, so what is so different about someone paying them to play certain music?
"people's sense of morality ("I don't want to steal from artists") "
This is about possible copyright infringement, not theft. Morality about stealing is hardly relevant. Not any more so than mentioning that people don't want to rape the artists.
"You have to figure out a way for people to stop hurting each other and stop stepping on each other's feelings, then nobody will use guns and weapons! Like that's ever gonna happen..."
Mandatory lobotomies. Demand it now. For peace.
Hippies? No idea. However, I saw the name of the link and declined to click it, just like I don't click on links to Sean Hannity or Free Republic.