Quote:
|
Originally Posted by August
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mrbeast
You know I don't know where to start, you're either joking or paranoid I don't know which.:hmm:
Whats that line again?......'... pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.'
Think that makes my point perfectly  |
I notice that you didn't say anything to contradict his post... |
He didn't have anything in his post, actually. It's full of "oh don't make me laugh, you don't believe that do you?", and the usual inflationary rubbish.
My favourite bit - "I see any further word would be pointless"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by heartc
You don't get it. *Every* media outlet in itself *lacks* them, for it is a human-run hierarchical system, and humans are biased. If you say that is not so, then you are either intellectually dishonest, or naive and living in denial.
The only way checks and balances can get into the media landscape is by having DIFFERENT and DIVERSE media outlets. The very fact that there is some commitie making guidelines that would take a station off the air because it might broadcast what they would decide to be biased should have you
worried.
|
So humans aren't perfect, that's not exactly new. It's rather easy to spot when an outlet is being misleading, employing leading questions or overly favouring certain agendas. Freeing them up from from guidelines wouldn't get rid of this. As we can see in today's media market, people will select outlets that conform to their viewpoints, I can see this increasing immeasurably should outlets no longer be held accountable. News would be totally replaced by focus-group propaganda.