How FREE is the US Press

[reddread]

from the point of view of
consumers of "news programming" in the US?

[2naSalit]

1. Well

it's often free from addressing the issues objectively...

[reddread]

2. or telling the truth

that being their actual freedom of speech at work.
I guess they are as free as a bird.
maybe ill wear a hat.

[bvf]

3. Well, just yesterday I learned from a major network

that Katrina was the worst hurricane ever to hit the U.S.

The other comments here are spot-on, too.

Free to dismiss fact-checking, etc.

Two things everyone should do:

See the movie Network, and read Breaking the News: How the Media Undermines American Democracy, by James Fallows.

They're both old-ish works, but each is definitive in its own way.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. If you think those cable opinion shows are 'news programming' that's always going to cost you.

Commentary is not the news, it is editorial opinion. If you expect in depth news from a pundit, you will never get it. DU likes to use the terms 'the press' and also 'the media' to mean 'MSNBC, CNN and FoxNews' exclusively, while I would personally exclude those three from any discussion of the news because they simply don't have much news reporting. It's punditry.
Actual journalism does not take place on commentary outlets.

[reddread]

5. except I dont

Really want to frame the question around the mass impact of what is available to the average consumer.
in lieu of previous standards and obligations.
sure aint pretty.

[reddread]

7. actual journalism has been reduced to a footnote.

PR demands far exceed the public's right to know.

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. It is free from direct control of a central government,

Which was th original concept.

But it is not free from, in most cases, from the requirement to make a profit or to enhance the profits of owners and investors.

[Octafish]

8. They are free to make a boatload of money...

...with a minimum of effort at actually doing their constitutionally mandated responsibility.

[Octafish]

9. They are free to lie on-air...

...thanks to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, no one's around to call them out on their pro-war and pro-1% crapola.

[Shandris]

10. It's not.

Oh, it is (so long as it's not classified or provokes people who are too powerful), but since it requires a station to get carried on (or a publisher, print, choose your poison), anything that provokes them or their handlers is now off-limits too. And since advertisers and the corporations they represent are directly responsible for all the money the media outlets make (the bulk of it, rather), they're off-limits too. So you've eliminated most of the actual useful stories in exchange for Things The Corporations Want Printed or Don't Mind You Printing Too Much.

Of course the internet can get around that...sort of...for now. But not for too much longer, I'd wager. But online news is easily co-opted and so isn't a very good deterrent anymore.

[Nye Bevan]

11. I could start a "news website" called "Nye Bevan's News Show" in the next ten minutes,

and post my "news videos" on Youtube, viewable by everyone in the US with an internet connection. In these "news programs" I could say pretty much anything I wanted to, and nobody in authority would ever knock on my door and make me stop. That is what "freedom of speech" (and "freedom of the press&quot means to me.

[reddread]

12. but what would you mean to the masses?

let alone these parts?

[Nye Bevan]

13. I don't know, but the Constitution guarantees me freedom, not necessarily popularity (nt)

[reddread]

14. you realize I am talking about the other end of the barrel

what freedom of information the vast majority experience
from the press resources they access.

[Nye Bevan]

15. Ah, but someone has the freedom to only watch Fox News if that's what they want.

Or for that matter, only ever get news from Stormfront. Anybody who wants to do so can choose to get news from more balanced sources but the fact that a lot of people do not is not indicative of any lack of freedom of the press.

[reddread]

16. indicative?

id call this indicative

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027107802

[Initech]

17. It isn't.

It was taken over by a group of incredibly rich, incredibly powerful right wing ideologues who won't allow anything to be questioned negatively. And the sad thing is we've lost two sane voices of reason - John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. At least we have John Oliver. Man do I love Last Week Tonight.

[reddread]

18. I would argue "handed over"

like so many campaign contributions.

[Initech]

19. True.

But getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine was quite possibly one of the worst things that's ever happened to this country. You could reinstate it, but I wonder how that would affect 24/7 coverage and internet news sites?