Quote:
|
Originally Posted by samcol
A free press means a press free of government control. This is the only way that all of the truth has the possiblity of being brought forward. If a website has say 70% disinfo and lies, but 30% of the material was spot on and not being covered by anyone else, then it would be a diservice to the people to have the government restrict it because of it's track record. It's the job of the consumer to discern the information not the government. People know when they smell BS that's why they are going to the internet now instead of mainstream news.
|
Don't get me wrong - I'm not, nor would I EVER advocate government censorship of anything. What I'm saying is that under the current journalism system, you can at least have an idea who the reliable sources are. Yes, every source makes mistakes, but the networks, and (reputable) newspapers TRY to get it right. And if they don't it's pretty freakin' embarassing to them.
The net will turn all that on its head. I could go start a website tomorrow and write all sorts of lies about Bush. I can't be held accountable for it if I hide my real identity. If you didn't have alternate sources, you wouldn't be able to determine whether my stuff was false or not because you couldn't determine who I am or my track record for accuracy. Now, if ALL of journalism turns that way, we end up with total information anarchy. Again, it's not something the government needs to or should step in and stop, but it is a potential problem
Quote:
|
The real disaster would be the truth not getting out due to governmental censors, not someone spreading rumors on the internets!!!ELVEN!!11
|
You're speaking as though there could be only one disaster
Sure, that would be a disaster, but not being able to tell fact from fiction would also be a disaster, since the real news would then hold no more value than fake news.
Quote:
|
Take for instance www.rense.com. I don't agree with every article they post, but I find their view of how news should be handled to be spot on.
|
Why? It has horriffic inaccuracies (Sharon is not "at least clinically dead" according to reputable sources, and the chemtrails bit is an old whacko conspiracy theory that has NEVER held water), and it's absurdly sensationalist.