One in three U.S. students say freedom of press should be restricted
 

My friend sent me this link:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...eedomsgotoofar

I thought it was interesting.

Discuss.

They can move to China or Cuba if they want that.

Scary.

Wow - 36% saying that government should have oversight of newspapers? That's a larger percentage than I would expect from the population; I understand that journalism isn't the most popular field lately, but that still seems like a high number.

I'm wondering how many of these students actually read the newspapers, and what newspapers they're reading. That could play into their feelings.

It is a bit concerning; one wonders where they've gotten the idea that we should have that sort of censorship of the media.

Lets just hope that they don't remain idiots as they move through their lives.

If Geraldo wants to give away American military positions in a war and if a CIA agent is revealed by "unnamed" sources...

Well freedom of speech cannot be guaranteed in all incidences.

-Rudey

Pretty creepy that over a quarter of students in the poll think it's all right for the government to controll the media.

Although not surprising - college is NO LONGER a bastian for the intellectual elite. Modern American culture has brought college educational expectation down considerably, with more people expecting to go to college than not. This means that it shouldn't be surprising that a third are rampant morons - it's the 'Carlin dilemma' . . .

Think of how stupid the average person is . . . then realize half of the people are dumber than that.

Not everyone wants to go to or should go to or has the intellectual capacity for college. There's nothing wrong with making a living with your hands, but unfortunately many parents, teachers and guidance counselors make it seem like it is.

I really think college entrance standards in general need to be much tougher than they are at present. There are a lot of people in college who are miserable and would be much happier if they could do what they want to do and what they are suited for.

But back to the main topic -

I'd really like to know more about the wording of the questions they were asked. I mean if it said do you think the govt should control papers in general - that's scary. If they asked do you think the govt should control papers to avoid military snafus, that's a different thing altogether. It's important to know if the students were led or coached.

That's very good.

Thank goodness these are high school students -- although I wonder how different it would be among college types.

Apparently history classes are being abbreviated too much in high school. These kids are proving my theory that we are evolving into dumber humans. I wonder if this is just an American trend or also is similar to opinions abroad.

The group that funded the study is pro-journalism. Based on what I've heard and read about them, I would think that the study would have been biased more the other way. That's another reason I find the results so fascinating (and upsetting at the same time).

An honest answer -- and not a bad one.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. There are a few (very few) instances where the media must either voluntarily back away from reporting certain facts or be enjoined from that reporting -- and they generally do cooperate with officials. Really. Even the "dark empire" at CBS held a story for a couple of weeks at the request of the DOD.

What really amazes me is the number of people who will be shocked and outraged at the results of this survey, but will be the first to decry a network or newspaper for liberalism or conservatism -- or being the next thing to Communist -- when something with which they (or their party) strongly disagree is published or broadcast.

Human nature, I suppose.

I don't think it's surprising at all.

Look at the type of people in journalism today. They don't exactly inspire confidence in their reporting ability or integrity of their word.

It used to be that people trusted reporters-now you are a moron if you believe what a reporter or news agency says without double or triple checking it with different references. Reporters and the news isn't looked at the same way it used to be.

There is an effort in journalism and law now that is trying to figure out how to differentiate between freedom of speech and what is not legal. The CIA name game I mentioned earlier was one of the reasons this is all being brought about.

I can't remember if I posted an article on here or not but it was by a UCLA law professor on the subject. If I get time I'll post it or look for it. You might be interested.

-Rudey

I think this is one of those cases where the presentation of statistics is skewed. I found myself hollering at the TV a few times after 9/11 specifically. During one news broadcast, they showed a lab in a county in Michigan, noted that it was THE ONLY LAB THAT MAKES THE ANTHRAX VACCINE in the whole country. I questioned the logic of making that public knowledge and showing the place on TV. It seemed to me like a terror attack waiting to happen. Gee, there's an Anthrax scare and there's only one lab that can help, and their vaccines were bad, according to the one report. That seemed like they were giving ammunition to someone who wanted to use Anthrax in a bioterroristic attack. Geraldo giving away a division's exact location during the initial phase of the Iraq war wasn't a bright thing to do.

While I believe in freedom of the press, there are things that shouldn't be broadcast and they need to be smart about it to avoid an official policy of censorship in the future. Therefore, I could see where some people would say "yes, there needs to be some censorship".

Dee

I find that kind of blanket statement patently offensive.

I ask the question I have asked some in the past. Have you ever met a professional reporter? I've never been one, but I've worked with and beside them for most of my career. By far, most of them are just that -- professional. They struggle with what is not an easy task -- attempting to find some semblence of truth through all of the PR and spin.

Here's an opinion. Reporters started losing their reputation when government and big corporations started learning how to use negative publicity against them. Kill the messenger. It's become a science on how to discredit any story that has a negative feel toward them. I'll put a time frame on it -- the Nixon Administration. You know, that honest group, many of whom are now ex-convicts, who brought you Watergate, Vietnam body counts and the secret invasion of Cambodia.

When you throw a whole lot of mud at a wall, sooner or later, some of it will stick. It plays both ways. So, in this era, it's the IN thing to be anti-media.

How about this -- don't trust anyone who disagrees with you.

There are a few bad reporters. There are also bad cops, politicians, doctors, soldiers, hair stylists and anything else you can name.

What I see, given the benefit of at least some hindsight, is a lot of myopia on the part of people who really don't have the experience to understand that there just may be some difference between what they believe and what may be the truth.

The Founding Fathers believed, rightly I think, that things like "The Loyal Opposition" political parties, separation of powers and a sometimes adversary media are essential to keeping government free and honest.

One of the most biggest dangers to democracy is the stiffiling of opposing ideas.

That's why when the first changes to the Constition came along, freedom of speech and the press were among the very first -- along with freedom of religion. We know as The First Amendment and the first of the Bill of Rights.

To paint any group of people all with the same brush is narrow minded and borders on looking foolish.

<cough> <cough> The only CIVILIAN lab that makes the anthrax vaccine.

Besides across the border there are three that also make a vaccine... and another three on the books in the UK....

yea makes anthrax, but how many labs study them? I thought a bunch of university bio-labs across the nation have them in petry dishes for analysis and late night partying. Damnit, who's been messin' with my anthrax again?

Personnally the credibility of the journalisitic profession has fallen as the reporting switched from stories to sound-bites or video-clips... which to me is bit like reporting the news using only headlines.

The free media has always been full of divergent and often conflicting stories - its' the nature of free press, the freedom to take a story in any direction... I'd rather have that though instead of having one "official" news source with the "official" story...

To a large extent, I agree with that, but that's a matter of style vs. substance.

Soundbites used to be longer -- until "everyone" complained about the news being all "talking heads."

MTV has ruined our attention spans.

Uhh -- when was this golden age of trustworthy media? Oh wait, I'm pretty sure it didn't exist.

The reason that the media seems so untrustworthy now as opposed to before is because there ARE checks on it. With so many different sources (thousands of newspapers, magazines, television, the internet), discrepancies will be noticed much faster than they were in, say, the 1800s when most people were reliant on fewer sources for their news.

Thank you.

It seems to me that you are letting your bias cloud your vision. How many reporters/journalists have been fired in the past year or two for simply making up stories and having them printed in major papers and passed off as true?

What just happened to ol'Danny?

Those are just two examples of reasons why people don't trust the media as much now as they used too.

While you are right that there are other professions with people that mess, but keep in mind the media is watched by millions of people and any mess up is going to be broadcasted. A doctor might mess up and not be trusted in his own town, but a major network reporter messes up-and they lose the trust of hundreds of thousands.

A long time ago Walter Conkrit(sp?) was probably the most trusted man in the US. You don't have anyone like that anymore because all the reports go for is shock value and to dig as deep as possible to get some breaking news before another corp. In doing that they ignore facts or make facts up.

So then why are you arguing? Whether it was in truth more trustworthy or not, it was perceived that way and perception is reality to most people.

During the Vietnam era Walter Cronkite was named the most trusted man in America. Edward R. Murrow, and the mostly newspaper journalists he recruited for CBS (including Cronkite) were considered beyond reproach.

So tell me, how many journalists have been fired over the past few years -- in relation to how many practice the craft?

How many cops do you suppose have been fired over the same period? How many politicians have been forced from office?

Talk about bias if you will -- I prefer to call it first hand experience. When you can match that experience, we'll talk again.

Until then, enjoy the ride on the bandwagon. Oh, and don't forget the blinders.

Your comments do a great disservice to a lot of hard working people.

It doesn't matter how many reporters were fired. You act like I'm attacking you or something. You are getting pissed off because you have 'first hand experience'.

Like I said, reporters today don't have the reputation that Cronkrite had. Today people don't trust reporters because any mistake or bad information or made up story (no matter how few those may be) are spotlighted and everyone finds out about them.

The news is were we get our information and any time that is incorrect the integrity of the news takes an even bigger hit than misrepresentation in another field simply b/c of it's purpose.

Someone has blinders on here, but it isn't me.

I will preface this by saying that I was a professional journalist for a handful of years at a smaller local paper. Whether that gives me "blinders" or not, I guess that's for everyone else to judge.

I appreciate your point that there are a number of journalists who have committed transgressions. People like Geraldo and Jayson Blair surely don't paint the best picture of the industry

However, what about Hearst and his band of reporters in the 20's? The reporters who knew of Kennedy's affairs? The sportswriters who were buddies with the the athletes, and thus never wrote of their problems?

I don't mean this to be rude, but if you get a chance, do some research on journalism of the early 20th century. For every Walter Cronkite and Edward Murrow, there were others who weren't practicing high jornalistic standards.

Now there are better journalism schools, better journalism internships, programs to develop better journalists. The industry and universities are trying to make sure that these trouble-makers are in the minority.

It really is a matter of higher public standards and more journalists being caught. This certainly isn't a bad thing, to hold the press to a higher standard than in the past. Does that make light of what Geraldo and others have done? No, their transgressions are still serious. However, we can't be making blanket statements about the "type of people" who are journalists.

Again, I appreciate your points here, and unfortunately quite a few people share your views. However, there are many journalists with integrity out there.

Attack me all you want. My professional reputation and experience over the past thirty-five years stand on their own.

What you are doing is making a blanket statement which attacks an entire profession and condems them all for the transgressions of a minority.

"Look at the type of people in journalism today. They don't exactly inspire confidence in their reporting ability or integrity of their word."

That's small minded. I don't know what you do -- or intend to do -- for a living, but I suspect that if I made that kind of statement about your friends or profession you might be offended as well.

Well, Delt, obviously you are not on the same page as me. I'll try to spell this out a little more clearly.

What I posted was not intended to be an attack on reports or journalists in any way. When I posted I thought I made it very clear that I was not attacking you.

However when you respond with it's pretty clear that you are over-reacting and don't comprend what I am saying.


I agree.

That is basically going along with what I was saying. It used to be that journalists were more respected because people didn't know about the false practices they followed. Therefore the general populations perception of journalists were much higher.

Now though, with there being higher standards and more journalists getting caught making fallacies AND being that the general population is much more exposed to the media journalists don't have the trust that they used too.

Sorry to be redundant, but which part of this isn't an attack on Journalism and those who are members of that profession?