freedom of the press

[russellb]

i have just read a couple of sentences by Arthur Schopenhauer (19th century German philosopher) and I thought they might serve as a stimulus for a thread...for those who are interested of course...

"Freedom of the press is to the machinery of the state what the safety valve is to the steam engine; every discontent is by means of it immediately relieved in words-indeed unless this discontent is very considerable, it exhausts itself in this way."

Schopenhauer does go on to say more but i think there is enough here to constitute a view of the press which can serve as a basis for comment...

[108 fountains]

I can agree with these sentiments, at least partially. However, I think that a free press has the potential at least to be more than just a state-sponsored “pressure valve” for society. Journalism that seeks out truth can be a very powerful force. Good investigative reporting can uncover what the state wishes to keep covered up and can even bring down governments (I have the resignation of President Nixon in mind). Of course, this kind of free press can only be work in a democratic society (however you wish to define democracy) that allows freedom of the press and where you have the ultimate pressure valve of elections. The notion of a free press in a non-democratic society is an oxymoron anyway.

You also must consider what is meant by “free press.” Ideally, its strength comes from its advocacy for truth and transparency, but newspapers, even in the days when most medium sized towns had their own and larger towns had more than one, have always been owned by somebody, and the owners’ viewpoints have always been apparent, no matter how objective the reporting might purport to be. In the days when there was a plethora of newspaper and other media choices, an industrious reader could seek out the objective truth by taking his news from a variety of sources. These days there is still a decent range of points of view available in the printed word, but too many people (at least in the United States) rely on TV cable news where there is an extremely limited choice. The result is that millions of people are fed their news (and their views of the world) by an elite group of people who are rich enough to own and control this very powerful medium. In this situation, the idea of a free press has pretty much lost its meaning. Instead of advocating for truth and transparency, the press is becoming a tool to be used by the rich and powerful (although not by the state) to subjugate society via insidious propaganda - the very opposite of what a free press is supposed to do.

[russellb]

it strikes me that Schopenhaurer's argument could equally be applied to pubs, with their alcoholic inducement to vent spleen. This reminds me actually of 'the citizen' section of 'Ulysses' by James Joyce. What better location to express indignation and with the liquid means to really allow it to flow...

[stlukesguild]

It seems to me that the "freedom of the press" is a noble idea... but one that has rarely ever existed. Prior to the Enlightenment, the press... the access to information... was controlled by the Church and the Aristocracy. Control then shifted to the governments. Now we are finding that such access in increasingly being consolidated in the hands of the wealthy corporations. Even PBS... the US' public broadcast long known for objective reporting... has grow increasingly biased as they have accepted grants from the Walton Foundation, AT&T, Citibank, the Koch Brothers, Exxon Mobil, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, BP, Monsanto, Pfizer, Merck, Bechtel, etc... Recently PBS declined to air a documentary called “The Money Lender$: The World Bank and IMF,” a film by Robert Richter. Why? PBS was concerned that “Even though the documentary may seem objective to some, there is a perception of bias in favor of poor people who claim to be adversely affected.” :sosp:

[Vota]

never mind

[prendrelemick]

For the first time ever the chance of a truly free media lies within our grasp . The internet. I don't know how it will all pan out, even whether it is a good thing or not. I expect the big media groups and Governments will try (are trying) to wrest editorial control from the millions of individual reporter/editor/posters there are now. At the moment, being unregulated and open, it spreads truth, lies, gossip and opinion in equal amounts - and that's the problem. A truly free press will always do that. It means people can pick and choose the truth they want to hear.

[Levity]

I'm a Journalist major and we dissected the Code of Ethics pertaining to Journalism which is very extensive. To stay within each guideline you would have to exhibit Kohlberg's Level Three of Ethical Thought, the Post Conventional Level, and be within stage six at all times during your work day. Kohlberg classified this stage as impossible to be at a hundred percent of the time. A free press ensures the flow of ideas and has great influence on the masses to due harm and good. With this measure of influence comes peoples ethical standards of journalism. The problem here is that those who neglect ethics within the profession have a chance to harm themselves and others at an extraordinary level. So when it comes to the analogy above, yes free press can bring about rapid mobility from the citizenry. The kind of mobility will be based off of how the press profession plays it out and sometimes they do so in a way that benefits only them. That is something that is sad within communication nowadays. The need to turn a profit wins out compared to truthful journalism.