It is Time to Redefine "The Press"

You confuse the press with the truth. They don't have to be the same thing, The press can be factual (CSPAN), editorial (National Review), fictional (novels, comics), satirical (MAD magazine, the Onion), etc.

Who would be the bias police? Shouldn't the bias police also declare their bias? Who would police the bias police, and what would their bias be?

What the Hell is meant by "bias" in your world view?

Obama and other top Liberals would love nothing more than to be able to infringe on the Freedom of Speech by restricting certain types of "hate speech." If they had the power they would pass numerous speech codes codifying what and what can not be said. The Framers of the Constitution would be weeping in their graves.

The number one goal of "the press" is to generate $. In today's political world they will NOT ask tough questions or call out candidates in the name of truth for fear that they and their staff will not grant them future interviews. They fabricate polls or use landline or other unreliable polls if it makes things look closer or more controversial than they really are. Their bias one direction or another depends upon their target audience share and ability to cash in. This goes to all subject matters. I used politics because it is the most easily recognized at this time. More than ever, "the press" are just attempts at creating and gathering entertainment profits. The truth adds little to nothing in the equation and even gets in the way in a lot of situations.

opinionated guy wrote:

The number one goal of "the press" is to generate $. In today's political world they will NOT ask tough questions or call out candidates in the name of truth for fear that they and their staff will not grant them future interviews. They fabricate polls or use landline or other unreliable polls if it makes things look closer or more controversial than they really are. Their bias one direction or another depends upon their target audience share and ability to cash in. This goes to all subject matters. I used politics because it is the most easily recognized at this time. More than ever, "the press" are just attempts at creating and gathering entertainment profits. The truth adds little to nothing in the equation and even gets in the way in a lot of situations.

Matt Lauer will never get another interview with Hillary. Fox News will NEVER have Hillary on for an interview. Andrea Mitchell writes puff pieces on Hillary and will eternally have access to Hillary.

Debbbie Ddddd wrote:

Obama and other top Liberals would love nothing more than to be able to infringe on the Freedom of Speech by restricting certain types of "hate speech." If they had the power they would pass numerous speech codes codifying what and what can not be said. The Framers of the Constitution would be weeping in their graves.

Speech ≠ Press. OP was clear on that.

To another poster, great question: What constitutes bias, and who will decide what bias is and whether stories are equally represented?

thejeff wrote:

Debbbie Ddddd wrote:

Obama and other top Liberals would love nothing more than to be able to infringe on the Freedom of Speech by restricting certain types of "hate speech." If they had the power they would pass numerous speech codes codifying what and what can not be said. The Framers of the Constitution would be weeping in their graves.

Speech ≠ Press. OP was clear on that.

To another poster, great question: What constitutes bias, and who will decide what bias is and whether stories are equally represented?

The whole point of the 1st Amendment was to make sure there NEVER could be any bias police.

Debbbie Ddddd wrote:

Matt Lauer will never get another interview with Hillary. Fox News will NEVER have Hillary on for an interview. Andrea Mitchell writes puff pieces on Hillary and will eternally have access to Hillary.

If you think this only works one way, then you are dumber than the drivel you write already makes you look, and that is profound.

"The public depends on the press"

Someone's bias is showing. I don't watch the TV news, don't have any newspaper subscriptions, no Facebook or Twitter.

How exactly does anything put out by the press effect me in any way?

My hunch is that originally the drafters of the C thought "we should give people free speech" then some genius said "yeah, but what if they wrote something down!? They didn't say it then DID THEY????"

"Oh yeah, then people are free to write stuff too!"

opinionated guy wrote:

Debbbie Ddddd wrote:

Matt Lauer will never get another interview with Hillary. Fox News will NEVER have Hillary on for an interview. Andrea Mitchell writes puff pieces on Hillary and will eternally have access to Hillary.

If you think this only works one way, then you are dumber than the drivel you write already makes you look, and that is profound.

Your usage of "profound" in that instance makes you look like a dunce. Come back and talk to me after 4 years of undergraduate, 2 years of grad school and 3 years of doctorate. Because now you sound like a dumb azz clown.

You dummy wrote:

"The public depends on the press"

Someone's bias is showing. I don't watch the TV news, don't have any newspaper subscriptions, no Facebook or Twitter.

How exactly does anything put out by the press effect me in any way?

My hunch is that originally the drafters of the C thought "we should give people free speech" then some genius said "yeah, but what if they wrote something down!? They didn't say it then DID THEY????"

"Oh yeah, then people are free to write stuff too!"

Just curious: (how) do you keep up with current events? Please don't say "LRC" :-) (although, there ARE worse sources out there...)

Current events that matter to me:

Is it going to rain today?

Are those close to me (family, friends, co-workers) doing alright?

If I am going to spend money on something today, is there a way for me to get it for less money via either a sale, coupon, or buying a certain amount?

Does that band I like have any new music coming out? Is there a new band that maybe I would like that has something to check out?

That's basically it. Everything else is more or less noise. If I venture outside of that, to say check a race result or watch a youtube video, it is to fill a void with entertainment or just some mindless distraction, which I feel is healthy.

I get no entertaining or intellectual value from following things like election coverage, a shooting in some city 2000 miles away from me, a flood in Nicaragua, etc.

Not all issues deserve equal time for both sides. An example that I would hope we can all agree on is slavery. Pro slavery does not deserve equal time. Somewhere between that and, oh, I don't know, the birther conspiracy, a line is crossed.

On one hand, I admire your realistic approach to life...however...

You don't believe in your civic duty to vote? How do you make educated decisions?

Debbbie Ddddd wrote:[/b

Your usage of "profound" in that instance makes you look like a dunce. Come back and talk to me after 4 years of undergraduate, 2 years of grad school and 3 years of doctorate. Because now you sound like a dumb azz clown.

In an attempt to be honest instead of argumentative, your posts "appears" bigoted & close-minded which in-turn come across as unintelligent.

Spewing your credentials exasperates this perception.

You have either done a good job trolling or there is more truth my perception than you realize.

To my original query to you; do you really think only one side of the political spectrum is treated with kid gloves by "the press"?