Close Topic Options

Silencing The Media - Page 2

What about the reporter who, "in the name of truth", describes, in detail, the existence of a new stealth combat unit? Or one who exposes the names of covert agents? That is damage to national security. It might be all truth, but it shouldn't be exposed to the public.

Media Silencing

I take your point, but would suggest that the overwhelming majority of media professionals would not reveal information that would endanger individuals.

For instance, if I interviewed a covert operative, whether they were in an intelligence agency or with the local police command, I would never reveal their identity.

The reasons being:

a) I know by doing this it is either illegal or endanger's their life;

it is unethical and would be a detriment to my reputation;

c) you don't build up many contacts by stabbing them in the back.

And you want good contacts to get good stories. So the media in many respects are self-regulating. We understand the importance of trust because we often rely on it for our bread and butter.

But of course you get examples of bad reporters who might abuse this relationship. There are bad people in every profession.

It also has to be remembered that people who knowingly talk to the media, including undercover agents, often do so for a reason. And they understand the implications of having their information made public. So while the media will not deliberately try to endanger people, at the end of the day the source of the information should also be scrutinised.

One of the things I found disturbing about the Plame case was how quick the government was to pounce on the media and how reluctant it was to punish the source, who was the person who really committed the crime.

Silencing The Media History & Civil Business Politics

My opinion on the matter is this, let the media report the news, presidential qualifications, dubious political activities, which celebrities are sleeping with who, whatever. But there is the possibility of too much information. That guy who was reporting troop movements back during the Gulf War in 1991, I forget his name. If I were in a position of authority, I would've had him arrested and charged with something, maybe not treason, but something close to it. He was putting hundreds, if not thousands of lives in jeopardy by reporting the "truth." Now for this woman held in contempt of court for not revealing her sources, I give her accolades. It's not too often that some person has that kind of integrity.

Page 2 Media Silencing

I agree with you in part Tastanagee except for the treason issue. The media does not have a responsibility to be patriotic in their reporting. This is one of the worst traits of the US media, they often appear to concerned about being patriotic rather than telling it how it is.

War reporting needs to be even more impartial because the first casualty of war is always truth. And the way journalists are embedded with the "good" guys is quite frankly disgraceful and biased reporting.

Media Silencing

I agree that the media does not have to be patriotic in their reporting, if they do, they frankly lose all sense of objectivity and by doing that, they lose credibility. Now, regards to what you said about the US media what I think happen is that we all know how patriotic US citizens are (I actually think is a great attribute that I wish most citizens of other countries have) and maybe sometimes they have a hard time separating that love for their own country to what is their work as a journalist or (as it happened before) they are terrified to the critics they will receive if they sound somewhat impartial about the whole affair. Many journalists have been hardly critized by the public for making certain statements that have not been in harmony with the "American sentiment" per say, so who knows, some journalists may want to be more impartial but they do not want to lose their jobs either.

Silencing The Media

I believe there is definitely an element of that LDS.

In many ways this thirst to be seen as patriotic actually erodes freedom of the press. If a journalist is under pressure to blindly support a war, as a lot of the major networks religiously do to their discredit, then they are censoring the truth or colouring the real story.

Self-censorship erodes the role of a free press. Pressure to be popular and achieve ratings has a similar effect. So in some ways the US press probably loses freedom and objectivity over issues that effect the nation. Whether this is done directly through a Government directive, or indirectly through self-censorship and capitalism, it has the same result.

I think the worst example of biased, patriotic reporting out of the US that we receive in Australia is Foxnews. The mere fact it calls itself a news service is quite amusing.

Silencing Media - Page 2

Going back to the media revealing things that could mean compromising safety of soldiers, I remember a teacher I had in high school was telling us about when he was in the service. CNN had a reporter with some of the troops he was with, and they were filming a secret operation, and they were showing landmarks and such of where the troops were. Now, I don't think that they were necessarily doing that on purpose, but I think it's important that there be certain safety censorship laws to prevent "accidents" like that from happening.

Now, do I believe that media personnel has discovered some conspiracy of the government should they be censored to protect reputations? Absolutely not. If a person, especially a political figure who people are supposed to be counting on, is involved in a lifestyle less than reputable, then it should be exposed for the sake of the members of that country.

As I said before, I think there is a balance. Nothing can ever be completely uncensored or censored.

Silencing Media Politics Business Civil & History - Page 2

There is very little chance of those sort of incidents happening today as the media are so tightly controlled by the military in war time. Especially those embedded reporters, they just parrot whatever they are told. Even the press conferences are a scripted joke. They set up a Hollywood style set for the last Gulf War!

But I remember just recently an Australian journalist/filmaker was taken on a tour of Afghanistan and filmed US troops burning and desecrating a dead body in the direction towards Allah, which is highly disrespectful. And they were filmed making disgraceful remarks about the dead to try and provoke the militants they were fighting. This was all caught on tape and caused a scandal over here and most other parts of the world because it was a basic breach of the Geneva Convention.

But the journalist wasn't told once he could not film, which was strange. He was actually told it was OK, it was part of his tour. Now you can't blame a journalist in this situation for filming something, which the media ought to, when they haven't been briefed otherwise.

Obviously the example Baby Blues raised was a different case but I think the people who handle the media also need to set the boundaries. You can not blame reporters for wanting to report the truth, that is their job. Just like you can not blame the military for trying to conceal information.

Edited: arvhic on 21st Dec, 2005 - 7:33am