Whether it is through a newspaper, television, magazines or talk radio, people will always communicate through some type of medium. Now, whether or not the mediums are tainted with bias is a question of beliefs. Some people argue that journalism today is rather fair and balanced, while others would vehemently oppose that view by saying that bias is definitely prevalent in news media and other mediums today. In some instances, there lies the belief that the fairness doctrine should be reestablished in order to mend the problem of bias; however, many would strenuously fight that by arguing that such an act would destroy the freedom of the press guaranteed under the first amendment. Another argument surrounding this issue is the expectation of journalists to be as objective to each issue as possible.
Exposure can cause a series of consequences not only for those in the group but also others that this group has great dealing with. What does the threat or exercise of criminal punishment typically have upon journalists? How might punishment conflict with First Amendment protections of freedoms of speech and press? * Zero to none because they frequently express their rights of freedom of speech and free press. So they use the constitution in many situations to protect the information they release to the public.
Randy Kleeman POLS 208 Prof. LaRowe Reflective paper 2 Hamdi v Rumsfeld: Was This a Political Question? I feel that this is/should have been a political question left for the Executive Branch; but I understand the hard decision that consumed our upper chain with this case along with other enemy combatants/detainees that are in the correction system. Being privileged to hear a few cases that went through military tribunals down in GITMO, I feel the way our system gives enemy combatants/detainees the rights that we as Americans get preposterous. Hearing a case and keeping America safe during war is a job for the Executive branch alone, no cases should have been heard until the war was over. Habeas Corpus shouldn’t have been brought up here, being an American citizen you have this right along with due process, but once you fight on the side of the opposition you should renounce such rights.
If people do not realized they are being governed, and feel like they are governing themselves the best will come out. This form of government gives people a chance to show that they are generally good by nature, and everyone can live together without fighting. Also, if people gave up material things, the world would be a better place. If the world today wasn’t so caught up with having the next hot item, or how they looked, then people would have more time to better themselves, and it would create a more equal opportunity for everybody. However, one flaw in Lao-Tzu’s government is the lack of interaction with other countries.
When we talk about the advantages and disadvantages of these sorts of newspaper models we will take care of global world’s last pose, countries social and economic environment, people’s requirements, prompt, media barons’ profits, news’ value of content and reasons of to be elected. Lowing to these facts that we want to discuss this important research title. As far as we know and learn from the important authors, we will caution the parties. Except authors’ interpretations we will make our specific commentaries within logical diagram too. We are going to start researching with popular newspapers’ overwhelming effects to the readers and these newspapers’ content.
The media’s main objective is context. It is also important to consider free speech. The news wants someone who is fair and balanced; not someone who just cares about his opinions for his own country. Media is also part of capitalism; they work for money. There is language barrier included in the documentary.
In relation to investigative journalism, how much does the end justify the means? Are there issues of media morality at stake? Discuss with journalistic examples in relation to the theory of the media as society’s watchdog, with a duty to inform and educate the citizens on matters of public interest. In this essay I will look into the My Lai massacre and American Pulitzer prize winner Seymour Myron Hersh to focus on when great investigative journalism started, its capability to change a whole nation opinion and to show what a true society’s watchdog should be. I will also look at the phone hacking to demonstrate that the duty to inform and educated citizens on matters of public interest cannot be an excuse for “lazy” investigative journalism, breaking the law and breaking the NUJ code of conduct.
Community opinion, consumer action and professional ethics are other ways social responsibility plays apart in radio stations communication. Audience can call in and weigh in on discussions any time they want and learn more about other aspects for instance a political radio station. Private ownership in media may give better public service unless government has to take over to assure the public to provide better media service. Media must take care of social responsibility and if they do not, government or other organisation will do. The mass society thesis states that most individuals are the same, in that they are undifferentiated showing no individuality.
A liberal democracy aims at a free press that puts the government under a scanner to enable its citizen’s better scrutiny and impartial information. But do this media promote more transparency and accountability and does it have the power to bring down governments? Transparency and accountability is the basis of a vibrant democracy. Abraham Lincoln’s timeless quote “Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”, rings true even today. The government is just an actor in the stage set up by the citizens, and the sole beneficiary should be the country’s citizens themselves.
Citizens should be encouraged to embrace their citizenship, and not merely as a duty, but as a meaningful opportunity to participate in their own government for the sake of common good and in building the culture of life. In addition, it is an exercise of significant individual power. Now, most Americans will tell you that our politicians have all the power, but I disagree. Although it is true that our politicians do make the laws, here in the United States of America, the people have the authority. If an individual does not vote, then that individual cannot argue or comment on the outcome of what our politicians do.