PDA

View Full Version : Should News Be Regulated?



Siebenbürgerin
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 01:04 PM
I thought about the concept of regulating the news when I saw some articles in the Romanian press. Because there are many bad incidents that happen here, there was an attempt to regulate news broadcasting and air more good news than bad. However, this new law was deemed unconstitutional and also criticised by the EU. Here an article:


Bucharest - Romanians have a right to doom and gloom, the country's constitutional court ruled on Wednesday, blocking a government move obliging radio and television stations to broadcast good and bad news in equal proportions.

The court ruled that a new law, which stipulated that upbeat news should make up half of all newscasts on Romania's radio and television stations, was unconstitutional. The senate had passed it unanimously last month.

The opposition liberal democrats, the PDL party, appealed to the constitutional court, arguing that the new legislation infringed freedom of expression.

The law was the idea of two senators - one from the governing National Liberal Party, the other from the far-right Great Romania party - who bemoaned the "irreversible effect" of negative news "on the health and life of people."

The aim, they said, was to "improve the general climate and to offer to the public the chance to have balanced perceptions on daily life, mentally and emotionally".

It would be left to the National Audiovisual Council in Romania to judge what is "positive" and "negative".

But the council itself was unimpressed by the new law.

More at the source:
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2354790,00.html

In your view, should news be regulated, or should events be transmitted as they happen, even if it reflects that a country is full of bad things daily? Should the population be confronted with reality as it is, even if reality hurts, and is this beneficial or not?

Volksdeutscher
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 01:12 PM
No, I oppose it. The citisens of any country should have the right to know what happens in their country, and that includes the bad news. What do these people think, that they can create an imaginary bubble to "protect" us? The far-right is always for bans and limitations, and allright, some things do need limitation, but not this! It's ridiculous, absurd, you name it.

Hrodnand
Thursday, July 10th, 2008, 01:20 PM
I think it should be transmitted as it is, not to hide and sneak around with good or bad news. Reality is something every individual has to face. Im really against mind control cause thats what the media does every single day. Some observe it some dont. People grow up without knowing what reality is and when they meet something "unreal" to them they feel shocked about it. An individual who faces reality becomes much stronger from a perceptual point of view than those who live in what they see or hear on T.V or in the Radio.

The aim, they said, was to "improve the general climate and to offer to the public the chance to have balanced perceptions on daily life, mentally and emotionally".

Yeah sure teach people how to become naive and daydream when problems are right before their feet.:rolleyes:

Gustavus Magnus
Monday, March 2nd, 2009, 11:16 AM
If there was "Hell yes!" option I would have chose that one, as it is, I voted yes.

I wouldn't mind if Joseph Göbbels or Julius Streicher filtered the news stream for me.

But in today's society, I believe the censoring that exists in most (Jewish controlled) newspapers is hypocritical.

Nachtengel
Monday, March 2nd, 2009, 11:17 AM
Other. The trash about celebrities and tabloid gossip should be kept out. It's useless and distracts attention from more important things. People end up buying tabloids and gossiping at tea and coffee time all day. But bad things which happen, especially because of multiculturalism and immigrants, shouldn't be hidden.

TheGreatest
Monday, March 2nd, 2009, 11:29 AM
News Channels are already regulated. Most of the older people I know watch the local news channel, which is hardly deserving of the name, because they report the most ridiculous stuff you could imagine. Its almost like a newspaper. Some newspapers are meant for white collar professionals and others for blue-collars.

My generation is a little better. We use Youtube and http news sites. BBC online, even though it's pretty left, is a lot better than getting your news from ''channel six''.


If there was "Hell yes!" option I would have chose that one, as it is, I voted yes.

I wouldn't mind if Joseph Göbbels or Julius Streicher filtered the news stream for me.

But in today's society, I believe the censoring that exists in most (Jewish controlled) newspapers is hypocritical.

The media is where most of the Jew's power is vested in. I wouldn't go as far as saying the academia is controlled to the same extent. There's a problem (that the Jews won't mention) about Universities organizing Israeli boycotts and allowing pro-Palestinian groups to function.

Though the media is the most powerful institution in the country. It can make and break people. Jared Diamond was nothing but then the Jews mentioned him on television and now what idiot hasn't read or head of his book?

Just like Ron Paul was the best man imaginable to become the US's president. A lot of people would have voted for him. He was old, appeared trust able and seemed to know what he was talking about, even when presented the most difficult of questions.
But guess what? Jew Media refused to show him on the air. The only publicity he got was through Jay Leno. The mainstream media wanted NOTHING to do with Ron Paul, never mentioned his name and subsequently, he was a virtual unknown in the real world.

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, March 2nd, 2009, 11:35 AM
I wouldn't mind if Joseph Göbbels or Julius Streicher filtered the news stream for me.
Hmm, well their perspective was a pro-Germanic one, I doubt a pro-Germanic person would have a problem with that. ;)

But I was asking more in principle. If we don't get lucky with the next filtering agents, regulation of news has more disadvantages than advantages.

Anyhow from my point of view the biggest problem is the way the news is written. It's not objective. The journalists are like fiction writers. Because their articles reflecting more their opinions than reality. That's a thing which is ruining the news and creating a bias in the immediate reading mind. :|


The media is where most of the Jew's power is vested in. I wouldn't go as far as saying the academia is controlled to the same extent. There's a problem (that the Jews won't mention) about Universities organizing Israeli boycotts and allowing pro-Palestinian groups to function.

Though the media is the most powerful institution in the country. It can make and break people. Jared Diamond was nothing but then the Jews mentioned him on television and now what idiot hasn't read or head of his book?

Just like Ron Paul was the best man imaginable to become the US's president. A lot of people would have voted for him. He was old, appeared trust able and seemed to know what he was talking about, even when presented the most difficult of questions.
But guess what? Jew Media refused to show him on the air. The only publicity he got was through Jay Leno. The mainstream media wanted NOTHING to do with Ron Paul, never mentioned his name and subsequently, he was a virtual unknown in the real world.
You've highlighted one of the biggest downsides of regulation. The public doesn't have the chance to judge. If there was a balanced proportion and all candidates received mainstream space, I've no doubts Ron Paul would have been more successful. Maybe not president, but he could have constituted a serious adversary for Obama. But even if I'm wrong, it would have still been a fair fight. I know the peoples aren't perfect, but without mind control and bias, in my view there would be more support for conservative positions nowadays. I refuse to think most peoples would honestly believe in all the non-values of nowadays if they had an alternative to make sense.

Gustavus Magnus
Monday, March 2nd, 2009, 11:45 AM
You've highlighted one of the biggest downsides of regulation. The public doesn't have the chance to judge.

There's always some regulation. No news source can present to you everything of importance that has happened, even if it is something important as the president of Guinea-Bissau who has been shot. And even if you check atleast ten major news sources of various media every day, like TV, newspapers, internet and so on, you still wouldn't be able to remain updated on every important event that happens. So unless you're using your entire day to scour for news, you will have to rely on a filter of some sort.

Bärin
Monday, March 2nd, 2009, 12:26 PM
The problem with news isn't regulation, the problem is named privatization. Greedy Jews with money buying their way and literally controlling the media.
No to that. There should be nationalization all the way. State controlled national and regional stations and monopoly. If anyone wants to own a private station they should get approval and have a good reason for it. It shouldn't be for just anyone.

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, March 2nd, 2009, 12:34 PM
There's always some regulation. No news source can present to you everything of importance that has happened, even if it is something important as the president of Guinea-Bissau who has been shot. And even if you check atleast ten major news sources of various media every day, like TV, newspapers, internet and so on, you still wouldn't be able to remain updated on every important event that happens. So unless you're using your entire day to scour for news, you will have to rely on a filter of some sort.
But the president of Guinea-Bissau isn't important to the national scene. The most important things to the national scene or from the international scene which affect it should be reported in my view.

See in my first post the context of regulation I'm speaking of:


obliging radio and television stations to broadcast good and bad news in equal proportions.


The problem with news isn't regulation, the problem is named privatization. Greedy Jews with money buying their way and literally controlling the media.
No to that. There should be nationalization all the way. State controlled national and regional stations and monopoly. If anyone wants to own a private station they should get approval and have a good reason for it. It shouldn't be for just anyone.
That would be going back to communism, honestly. :| I can remember the communist age here. I'm not sure how it was in East Germany. But here there was only one TV station, TVR. It still exists today as national television, but now there are 3 TVRs, not only one. Anyway in the communist age there was only 2 hours of broadcast daily. Some news, propagandist programs and children's cartoons. That was it. The same with the radio. But there was "clandestine" listening to Radio BBC nonetheless and the communists couldn't avoid it. The Iron Curtain trying to seal the East from West wasn't functioning so well after all. Using one channel alone you get one bias. But more channels show you different perspectives to abordate a story and you see more than one point of view. If you live with just one point of view, as in the communist age, you're in danger to become a mind slave of the government.

Nachtengel
Monday, March 2nd, 2009, 12:50 PM
That would be going back to communism, honestly. :|
Just because a method has been used by the opposition doesn't mean the method is bad. It just means it was used by the wrong people, against the wrong people. :)

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, March 2nd, 2009, 01:59 PM
There should be nationalization all the way. State controlled national and regional stations and monopoly. If anyone wants to own a private station they should get approval and have a good reason for it. It shouldn't be for just anyone.

Oh great, now the jews can have the force of the state behind their monopolies. No thanks. I'd rather it be a free arena, the most capable be the victorious. That's why the jews/muds want to suppress the internet and even talk radio or anything else which is too diversified for them to control.

Nachtengel
Monday, March 2nd, 2009, 02:20 PM
Oh great, now the jews can have the force of the state behind their monopolies. No thanks. I'd rather it be a free arena, the most capable be the victorious. That's why the jews/muds want to suppress the internet and even talk radio or anything else which is too diversified for them to control.
In a nationalist German state, there would be no foreigners. So it wouldn't be a problem. News regulation worked well for the Nationalsocialists.

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, March 2nd, 2009, 02:30 PM
In a nationalist German state, there would be no foreigners. So it wouldn't be a problem. News regulation worked well for the Nationalsocialists.

That would have eventually led to corruption though-misdeeds by those in power would have been censored.

Gorm the Old
Monday, March 2nd, 2009, 02:35 PM
IMO, only during a war, when information of strategic importance might be divulged.