|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
 Posted: Sat, 25th Dec 2010 17:05 Post subject: Huxley versus Orwel, the role of free media in modern times |
|
 |
I wanted to start a topic like this some time ago already but finding above picture renewed the initiative. Can't really say if the information in it is completely truthful. It seems these days that truthful information is often withheld and replaced by an overkill of false or useless information. This is endangering the very fabric of our societies.
So in the past some great thinkers came up with ideas to prohibit governmental corruption and create lasting freedom. Political powers were separated (trias politica), the state got separated from the church (or other religions). We got freedom of speech, freedom of religion or the freedom to be not religious. Another important accomplishment was the freedom of the press. This is a simplified version, you can write books full of the processes involved.
So all kinds of nice liberal concepts that work as long as they aren't abused. A hate monger that tells us we should fear all Muslims, is freedom of speech. A fox news channel, freedom of press and freedom of speech. Preaching an intolerant religion, freedom of religion and freedom of speech, etc.
An average citizen in a western country is bombarded by information and not all information is brought to you by people or companies with honourable intentions. They might want you to buy some shitty product or to vote for a certain political party. Even intelligent people have a hard time to sift through all information to see the real truth. And sometimes one can't even know the real truth. Good example lately perhaps the rape accusations versus J. Assange. What to belief? Both media and governments are spinning.
I might have one solution that can defend against media like Fox news. Give the judiciary branch the power to put media out of business if these media's main goal is to spread false information. However it is by no means a complete solution. If you wonder, I don't think we can better the world from here but I like to hear some opinions of others on this subject.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Sat, 25th Dec 2010 17:46 Post subject: |
|
|
This is a great subject to be discussed indeed, and I'm glad someone other than myself brought this up, (otherwise someone would probably point me a finger for trying to start up another discussion to fuel my 'views' once again).
But before I laid forward my solution to the problems that you presented and that are indeed very real and destructive in todays society.
I would like for you to define your solution in the first place?
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Sat, 25th Dec 2010 18:13 Post subject: |
|
|
That solution is just a marginal concept that just popped up in my head while I wrote the topic. It can deal with "unlawful media" and is not a solution for the overkill of information.
But we people are consumers in our modern times and economies. As consumers we are protected by law. If a manufacturer produces a product that gets sold as a product with certain properties, the product should have those properties. If not you can cancel the deal. If one of those manufacturers is chronically lying about its products, there are means to prosecute them, put them out of business, make them pay, etc.
It just stroke me that we also consume information whether we want the information or not. And why shouldn't we be protected by law with this kind of consumers' product as well? Keep in mind a news channel that mainly broadcast opinions and opinionated interpretations is not a news channel and a news channel that falsifies information is malpracticing IMO.
This idea might work in some democratic countries. A country like Italy however where the media and a certain prominent political figure are heavily intertwined, it will not.
Formerly known as iconized
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 25th Dec 2010 20:05 Post subject: |
|
|
But what if the judiciary is corrupted and doesn't obey the law, and the moral obligations to stop spreading false information?
You are relying on the absolute dissection of the three main branches of government. But we all know that those are very intertwined.
The problem is that we are slaves to the ppl in power. We do what we do because we want to survive. And we follow the rules that other impose so that we could live, undisturbed by the vastness that is politics and power struggle.
The solution could lie in the direct democracy, where every member would have a say in important stuff in his life. But if that is to work the concept of government must be abolished. Government is basically a large concentration of power, ruling on the lives of others in the name of 'the greater good'.
I must admit, I'm beginning to realize Ronhrins views of anarchy, but I'm still afraid of it (and that's probably because I haven't really went deep into the concept of it)...
I think that we must make the ppl to think. If you look into the past, all the great thinkers were feared. They brought revolutions and changes in global view of the world around us. If you have a large concentration of smart ppl, that know that fighting isn't bringing anything good, if you educate ppl I'm sure the change can be made towards a better future...
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Epsilon
Dr. Strangelove
Posts: 9240
Location: War Room
|
| Posted: Sat, 25th Dec 2010 22:51 Post subject: |
|
|
Oh look iconized and ronhrin having a civil discussion, who would've thought that possible 3 months back.
Happy Winter Solstice guys!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Sat, 25th Dec 2010 23:35 Post subject: |
|
|
| dingo_d wrote: | But what if the judiciary is corrupted and doesn't obey the law, and the moral obligations to stop spreading false information?
You are relying on the absolute dissection of the three main branches of government. But we all know that those are very intertwined.
The problem is that we are slaves to the ppl in power. We do what we do because we want to survive. And we follow the rules that other impose so that we could live, undisturbed by the vastness that is politics and power struggle.
The solution could lie in the direct democracy, where every member would have a say in important stuff in his life. But if that is to work the concept of government must be abolished. Government is basically a large concentration of power, ruling on the lives of others in the name of 'the greater good'.
I must admit, I'm beginning to realize Ronhrins views of anarchy, but I'm still afraid of it (and that's probably because I haven't really went deep into the concept of it)...
I think that we must make the ppl to think. If you look into the past, all the great thinkers were feared. They brought revolutions and changes in global view of the world around us. If you have a large concentration of smart ppl, that know that fighting isn't bringing anything good, if you educate ppl I'm sure the change can be made towards a better future... |
For the best part, iconized's proposal in trying to regulate and protect the consumer when news channels like the infamous Fox News starts poluting the air with their outright lies and propaganda, would be a good thing, the problem here is exactly what you mentioned, the regulatory body would have to be completely separated from governmental influence, something that it is clearly close to impossible, (I don't need to remind the recent reactions against Wikileaks by some renowned US agencies when they got a slight under the table pressure from the government), channels like Fox News are used to propagate republican propaganda, and what would happen in reality if we tried to put up a regulatory body to regulate it's lies, the regulatory body itself would end up being pressured to began to avow certain information to pass as legit when in fact wasn't, all due to political pressure and under the table deals, this circumstance could actually be even worse than having no regulation at all, due to the fact that without regulation, some people will actually perceive the outright lies being passed by as when you have a corrupt regulatory body, it will make people more willing to accept something as truthful because it is being regulated by an external agency, when in fact it is in fact false.
Therefore my conclusion about this, is that it is best to have no regulation at all, than to have regulation that might end up being corrupt and as a result making the people more opened to propaganda and lies.
Also, dingo_d, can you explain why exactly do you need to feel fear in learning about what I propose, when I read your post, it transpired exactly the same thing when I read some religious people writing things like "I'm afraid of reading what this Atheist has to say, because it might make me question god, and I just fear it for some unknow reason"
| Epsilon wrote: | Oh look iconized and ronhrin having a civil discussion, who would've thought that possible 3 months back.
Happy Winter Solstice guys! |
It's the christmas miracle!  
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 26th Dec 2010 01:01 Post subject: |
|
|
Probably because anarchy is associated with chaos, and disorder. And I guess that comes from my lack of awareness about that subject.
But I cannot say that I'm not willing to look into that subject and learn sth about it 
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Sun, 26th Dec 2010 01:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| dingo_d wrote: | Probably because anarchy is associated with chaos, and disorder. And I guess that comes from my lack of awareness about that subject.
But I cannot say that I'm not willing to look into that subject and learn sth about it |
This is why I always personally compare Anarchy with Atheism when it comes to social awareness, until very recently (and it still happens today in some places) Atheism was associated with being evil and inhumane.
On my school days Portuguese dictionaries actually translated Atheist into Wicked, Amoral and Evil, so you sort of see the power of language in formulating misconceptions in the public mind.
Anyway, Anarchy can mean many things, it's just a word, and as I've said many times before, even as a political ideologies, Anarchism stands for many different and sometimes even incompatible things, and even I will say that there are some Anarchistic philosophies that even I cannot consider anything other than insane.
But like I said many times, my use of the word Anarchy is only a direct reference to it's Greek origins which means "without leader", the issue here is that many of the things that I propose and advocate are a very recent wave of Anarchistic thinking.
And I belief that when researching for Anarchy on your own you might find much contradicting information that comes from many different schools of thought, and might throw you off of researching further.
I arrived to the conclusions that I now promote due to a extensive process of personal thinking and selection of social political factors that I have found out to work on practice, there are a few prominent Anarchists out there that get close to my conclusions, but I have found that my political ground is something very unique, (at least to my knowledge)
I might end up writing a book sooner or later
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Sun, 26th Dec 2010 11:31 Post subject: |
|
|
| dingo_d wrote: | But what if the judiciary is corrupted and doesn't obey the law, and the moral obligations to stop spreading false information?
You are relying on the absolute dissection of the three main branches of government. But we all know that those are very intertwined.
The problem is that we are slaves to the ppl in power. We do what we do because we want to survive. And we follow the rules that other impose so that we could live, undisturbed by the vastness that is politics and power struggle.
The solution could lie in the direct democracy, where every member would have a say in important stuff in his life. But if that is to work the concept of government must be abolished. Government is basically a large concentration of power, ruling on the lives of others in the name of 'the greater good'.
I must admit, I'm beginning to realize Ronhrins views of anarchy, but I'm still afraid of it (and that's probably because I haven't really went deep into the concept of it)...
I think that we must make the ppl to think. If you look into the past, all the great thinkers were feared. They brought revolutions and changes in global view of the world around us. If you have a large concentration of smart ppl, that know that fighting isn't bringing anything good, if you educate ppl I'm sure the change can be made towards a better future... |
Corruption will always exist, power corrupts. Some guest in the "Colbert Report" said: "Politicians are like diapers. After some time they start to smell real bad and you need to change them often."
The goal is to have a certain system that keeps corruption minimal. I think good and honest education is the starting point to fight corruption. Basically all humans have an innate ability to become evil and corrupted.
Personally I kinda lost track of the exact ideas of Ronhrin. It is some hmm... interpretation of anarchy. I am not in favour of redoing the society and the way it is governed. The constructions are old though and did not foresee global terrorism or the rise of the mass media for example, so it needs to adapt.
I am also glad that my country has a constitution that is hard to change. This functions nicely as some kind of safety buffer against populist movements. And because of populist movements I am also not in favour of to much direct democracy. Look the Americans put a religious nut case in the White House and to make it worse they re-elected him as well. I guess some people will disagree with me on that but anyone who thinks that god speaks to him or her gets the label religious nut case in my book.
Last edited by TSR69 on Sun, 26th Dec 2010 11:55; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
| Posted: Sun, 26th Dec 2010 11:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ronhrin wrote: | For the best part, iconized's proposal in trying to regulate and protect the consumer when news channels like the infamous Fox News starts poluting the air with their outright lies and propaganda, would be a good thing, the problem here is exactly what you mentioned, the regulatory body would have to be completely separated from governmental influence, something that it is clearly close to impossible, (I don't need to remind the recent reactions against Wikileaks by some renowned US agencies when they got a slight under the table pressure from the government), channels like Fox News are used to propagate republican propaganda, and what would happen in reality if we tried to put up a regulatory body to regulate it's lies, the regulatory body itself would end up being pressured to began to avow certain information to pass as legit when in fact wasn't, all due to political pressure and under the table deals, this circumstance could actually be even worse than having no regulation at all, due to the fact that without regulation, some people will actually perceive the outright lies being passed by as when you have a corrupt regulatory body, it will make people more willing to accept something as truthful because it is being regulated by an external agency, when in fact it is in fact false.
Therefore my conclusion about this, is that it is best to have no regulation at all, than to have regulation that might end up being corrupt and as a result making the people more opened to propaganda and lies. |
I never said something about regulatory body but it happens we have some kind of organisation in the Netherlands that does that.
http://www.cvdm.nl/content.jsp?objectid=7264
It seems to function but hey this is the Netherlands, we score pretty low on corruption. On the other hand we the Dutch people don't really have any real influence what happens in that organisation.
Something that you did not consider though is the possibility of starting a civil lawsuit versus a news channel and try to shut them down that way.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
