[Abood]

Such media already exist, at least in embryo. The internet is a medium of communication, just as much as newspapers or TV. Every time you edit a Wiki page, you're doing what a journalist does, just on a much smaller scale and for a much smaller audience. Bloggers are, in a sense, an archetype for the journalists of a future non-capitalist society. Just as the capitalist system already existed within the feudal system, as an undeveloped embryo, so the 'new journalism' which you are calling for already exists within capitalist society, in embryo. Make yourself part of it; help it to grow and develop.

I agree. I've always believed that.

I'm also part of it. I post in my own blog and in a collective website.

[Zyx]

Well in simple numbers, more have died to communism than to nazism. Is advocating something that has killed more people, while not explicitly saying they should killed, worse than killing less, but advocating it clearly, in general?

No . . . simply because killing rationally better than killing irrationally.

If 34 people went to your house with the intent on killing you and you killed all of them its much better than if you killed 14 people who meant you no harm.

I definitely agree that "to make an omelet one must first break some eggs."

How is it parallel to subservience?

Subservience is definitively servitude . . . just serving someone is subservience. I'd understand if the bad connotation was suggesting differently.

Because the woman staying at home would be preferable,

Why? In the Scenario that a woman had a $400,000 job and her husband had a $30,000 job, who should stay home?

It is ideal.

Well it's not really ideal . . . it was just highly purported as ideal . . . but there is no real advantage to it . . . it benefits mostly the man but even then it's not that beneficial . . . those households were not flawless successes mind you.

Doesn't mean your a failure if you can't obtain it.

Or sustain it? Many men have divorced because they could not live up to your ideals . . . why not just encourage dual income families with shared domestic labour, or even better domestic tribalism?

@Blogging suggestion;

I think even the bloggers should have organization, from what little I have seen of them there raving on nothing of importance is really wasteful. "lolz yesterday I kissed my dog on the lips and . . . " shut up!

[Muck]

Its fine as it is, at least in the U.K. Freedom is the keystone, and that includes the right to operate as a multinational, independent, regional or single issue paper/channel. Any restrictions are a step away from freedom.

[Looter]

News should be way more exciting, there should be explosions and riots and shooting and all sorts of chaos all the time. I cant stand when they have talking heads. There should be more facts on the ground, like all hell breaking loose. Also they should stop predicting the weather and start predicting the news, and no sports, absolutely no sports.

[Citizen J]

I'd like to see two things. First, a report of the known facts. No embellishments, no spin, no bias. Just a series of statements of known facts.

Then, clearly delineated from the above, I would like to see various analysis of the facts. What people think about the facts, what are their viewpoints.

Only when you have a clear delineation between fact and opinion will you be able to form an informed and logical conclusion about any subject.

I would mandate this format by law. Note that I'm not saying you cannot say any particular thing or that you cannot express any type of opinion, just that the known facts and the opinion parts must be clearly delineated.

[Dan]

No . . . simply because killing rationally better than killing irrationally.

I agree that sometimes some people may need to die.

But I'm pretty sure that not all the people purged by Stalin, killed in the Ukranian famine, or died in the Great Leap forward were necessary to protect the state.

Why?

Because she is physically equipped for certain tasks the male is not (ie. breastfeeding), most men I've met would amke piss-poor stay at home parents, while most woman would make fairly decent ones, and she is going to be away frmo work for decent chunks of time anyway during and ad pregnancy.

So in the main it just makes sense.

In the Scenario that a woman had a $400,000 job and her husband had a $30,000 job, who should stay home?

It might make more economic sense for the man to stay at home, but economics are not everything.

Well it's not really ideal . . . it was just highly purported as ideal . . . but there is no real advantage to it . . . it benefits mostly the man but even then it's not that beneficial . . . those households were not flawless successes mind you.

A proper division of labour in the household benefits the man, the woman, but most importantly the children. The children benefit from having someone they can depend on to be there for them, when needed. Rather than being raised by stranger being payed to pretend to care about them or being latch-key kids.

Or sustain it? Many men have divorced because they could not live up to your ideals . . . why not just encourage dual income families with shared domestic labour, or even better domestic tribalism?

See above for why not dual income.

Although, domestic tribalism might be a decent idea. The extended family living together (or at least nearby) and taking care of each other might even be preferable to seperate, independent nuclear families. Although, I'm not sure how practical it would be in modern society.

I'd like to see two things. First, a report of the known facts. No embellishments, no spin, no bias. Just a series of statements of known facts.

Nice idealism, but who's facts?

Is it an insurgent, a terrorist, a freedom fighter?

Is the person killed, murdered, died?

And such and on. The slightest word deviation in the reporting of the news can have a large change on the emotional impact and meaning of a news story.

Words aren't even necessary. I read somewhere that there was a study done a while ago, in the 70's or something, (I think it was in Blink by Gladwell), and the viewers of one news program were more likely to vote Republican than those who watched otehr enws programs, not because of anything actually said, but because the news anchor unknowingly smiled more when talking about the Republicans.

While your suggesting is nice, it is idealistic and unworkable. Bias and facts can not be seperated.

[kami321]

How would you like the media be?

Fair and Balanced.
Just like Fox, except balanced towards my point of view.

[Kylie]

I also would like the media, in some form to be the bullshit detectors for our government. What I mean is that the government and those in it, from both sides of the spectrum, can convince anyone that something is *good* if they have the right words to say and can make things look good. You have your lobbyists and other people pitching ideas that make things that are inherently bad somehow seem good for the people, then you have the media who simply calls bullshit and points out what is wrong, regardless of what it is, what side you're on and what political affiliation you are. I honestly think the media has lost that touch in the past 50 years. Where's the grit and substance it once had?

[QatzelOk]

I also would like the media, in some form to be the bullshit detectors for our government.

Ideally, the media are the "bullshit alarm" of not only government, but also business and church, as well as society.

This is their role as neutral sharer of information of all kinds. Without this neutrality, we are ALL rendered more ignorant.

[Dan]

This is their role as neutral sharer of information of all kinds.

I alluded to this three post above and I think this forum is going to cause me to get real sick of saying this, but:

The media can not be neutral.

Neutrality can not exist outside the minds of unthinking idealists. And even then, when these idealists say "neutral" they usually mean biased towards their ideology.

News neutrality can not and will never exist. It is impossible. Human language and emotional expression make it impossible.

[Shannonnn]

Human perception also makes it impossible. One person's recognition of bias may be completely different than the next.

[Kylie]

News neutrality can not and will never exist. It is impossible. Human language and emotional expression make it impossible.

Then what do you propose we do so it's not infinitely biased toward one thing over the other in the prusuit of reporting the truth. I guess in my mind, I understand what you're are saying, but you must be objective as possible when you report a story to the public. I understand a reporters, editors, newsanchors, etc. etc. will have certain takes on stories as to what is important and what isn't, but when you can't include an important story because it may piss off the corporation that owns you, then I have a problem.

[Dan]

Then what do you propose we do so it's not infinitely biased toward one thing over the other in the prusuit of reporting the truth.

Let the media be free, and let people choose to ingest what media they want and make up their own minds.

[Citizen J]

Curious things, those facts, Dan.

Fact: a wealthy woman died
Fact: a custody battle ensued for her chidren
Fact: Paternity was established genetically

The whole anna nichole smith case would be summed up with just a few unembellished facts. After that, then you can read all the salacious details. But facts remain neutral regardless of who writes them. Any facts that lose their neutrality is not the fault of the fact, but the one that reported on them.

I would make it a crime to do so.

[Dan]

First of all, your example is choosing a relatively straightforward news story.

Second, you did not address my example of the newscaster's unconscious tones and expressions on the reporting of the news.

Third, your example gave no detail at all. It was little more than a headline. It's not hard to make a line or two "neutral", but it's a lot harder to make a news story neutral.

Fact: a wealthy woman died

Wealthy? Why is this important?

To some this word would imply that a wealthy person's death is more important than other peoples. To others the use of wealthy may create a slight feeling of disdain or respect.

Why didn't you add her former occupation of being a pornography star? That is a subtle bias there. Adding it would be another subtle bias.

Fact: a custody battle ensued for her chidren

A custody battle between whom? This phrase while fairly neutral, also says almost nothing.

Fact: Paternity was established genetically

This is biased. It carries a subtle bias that a child's genetic origin is more important than who actually raised them, or other factors, in determining who should have custody.

As well, it says almost nothing.

Even your "unbiased" example on an unpolitical issue is loaded with bias, despite being almost wholly uninformative.

As I said, no matter what you do, there will be some bias.

But facts remain neutral regardless of who writes them.

Whose facts?

Do you print the Israeli claim of 5 dead Palestinian militants or the PLO claim of 15 dead Palestinian civilians, including 6 children? or do you print both? Or do you print the third claim by Hamas of 30 dead civilians? Do you give them all equal space, which would give a bias towards the Palestinians?

A relatively simplistic example, but you see the problems implicit in "facts".

[QatzelOk]

The media can not be neutral.

This is, of course, wrong.

It is true that no one PERSON can be neutral. But the media includes thousands of people working for hundreds of different projects.

What needs to be neutral are the regulating agencies that decide WHO gets to make media products. This needs to be democratised so that there are many different social classes involved in deciding on the messages of our media.

[Dan]

What needs to be neutral are the regulating agencies that decide WHO gets to make media products. This needs to be democratised so that there are many different social classes involved in deciding on the messages of our media.

Idealism. It's unworkable.

Not to mention, it's not neutral at all. What you're suggesting is merely using democracy to choose the "truth" and make popular public opinion and class bias "fact".

[kami321]

I agree with Dan, the meida cannot be anywhere close to neutral, no matter how many people and channels there are.
And who's going to protect this neutrality anyway? The owners?

[QatzelOk]

What you're suggesting is merely using democracy to choose the "truth" and make popular public opinion and class bias "fact".

The only way we will arrive at truth is through objectivity.

The only way to ensure objectivity is to offer different points of view the opportunity to share their perceptions.

Our current media is owned by nation-states and corporations. Is it any wonder our world is on the verge of collapse? Everything we see on TV tells us to sacrifice ourselves to these two medieval Kings of Content.

[Dan]

The only way we will arrive at truth is through objectivity.

Which is impossible.

The only way to ensure objectivity is to offer different points of view the opportunity to share their perceptions.

That would not be objectivity. That would be increasing the number of subjective voices, which is nowhere near the same.

Is it any wonder our world is on the verge of collapse?