 |
|
yavoon
|
|
to wut? remove his passport? no thats just bandwagon idiocy.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
(Gatekeeper- I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I don't think it really applies- I'm not suggesting the press is "shackled". "Whipped" is the term that comes to mind.  ) |
I can understand where that view might come from, so I'm going to let you in on a small secret regarding journalism: A lot of us go into the field after college (or sometimes straight out of high school, but that's rare nowadays) all bright-eyed, chippy and, some would say, naive. We want to change the world for the better. Unfortunately, said world often chews up a good number of journalists and spits us out, and we become cranky, disillusioned and generally *hard-edged* to a degree towards *all* parties and issues — liberals, conservatives, greenies, commies, grandma, abortion, wars, revolutions, the local mayor who's crooked ... you name the subject, and there's likely to be a journalist out there somewhere who's just a bit jaded and disillusioned with it. Not everyone, mind you, but enough so to warrant its admission.
Sounds human, doesn't it? Well, it is, and it's also seen in other professions (doctors, lawyers and so on ...), so it's not an "exclusive" domain, so to speak.
If I had to classify the state of journalism today, I'd say that there are a number of "dreamers" in our field who are tempered by the "crusty" veterans. Some may be "whipped," while others may be just "crusty," while yet others are still "dreamers," and, last but not least, we have the "tempered" ones who do their jobs as journalists as best they can and go on from there.
It evens out in the end, and I truly hope, TMV, that you can see beyond the obvious to the "not-so-obvious," when it comes to journalists. We're human, and sometimes painfully so.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
That's a blatant suppression of speech anyway you look at it.
You say the wrong thing, doesn't matter if it's true, they fire you.
So much for that.
See, Americans do this kind of errour: They always hyperestimate the possibilities of their armed forces and when these don't of course fulfill their overblown "prophcies" they take it out on journalists who dare to speak what is already common knowledge.
Happened in Vietnam, is happening here.
Nothing new.
Of course one has got to ask this question: if your country was at war (well war in this case is not the right word) would you think it's ok to say "undermining" things?
And was that "undermining"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
there is nothing in the constitution that sez a journalist can't be fired for what he sez.
so stop bastardizing the constitution to your political aims
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
it isn't a matter of constitution.
thelatter is not meant to be all encompasing.
its a matter of political culture and how strong the freedom of speech is in the US.
and of course the other question about the US being in a "war".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
"freedom of speech" is a constitutional issue. weilding it around willy nilly isnt doing anyone any favors.
so just stop.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
OTHERS: Freedom of speech clearly does not extend only to the individual. Just like TENURE in universities, the individual must be protected FROM HIS EMPLOYER because it is clear that COVERT INFLUENCE can be applied there. |
What a strange notion of freedom you have. So are you suggesting that NBC be compelled to keep Arnett? And presumably the gov't would enforce this. What you are describing then is the very definition of state controlled media.
quote:
I'm not suggesting, obviously, that NBC shouldn't be entitled to fire Arnett. They just require NON-POLITICAL REASONS to do so. Or they would in a FREE COUNTRY. |
But as soon as you enter the political arena, you associate yourself with certain agendas. There are clearly good reasons why those who report the news should appear impartial, or at least not be at odds with their employer. How would NBC protect itself from a boycott from those who disagree with Arnett? Better not to allow the problem in the first place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
so you're sayiong it isnt a constitutional issue and then say it is?
you sound very confused.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
I never once sed it wasn't a constitutional issue. I said there is nothing in the constitution that sez u can not be fired as a journalist for what you say.
since ur having issues w/ comprehension try this:
freedom of speech does not protect arnette from being fired.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
but you fail to answer that this is a matter of political culture and the strength of the american so called frredom of speech
if you could stop dancing around and answer you might start making a bit more sence?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
when u stop using words like freedom of speech like we dont have any because some idiot journalist got fired.
try something like "how objective our media is when they fire complete biased whackos"
that would be more appropriate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
it is obvious im talking to a biased person.
the question you repeadetly fail to answer is about the quality of your so called freedom
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
and about the "ubdermining character" in times of "war"
although the word is not really the right one in this case.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
and the point u seem to not be hearing is that our quality of freedom of speech is in full effect.
the question is the objectivity of our media, not the quality of our freedom of speech. its obvious you want to use a word like freedom of speech cuz it makes your case stronger, or atleast more shocking. but trying to use it is pure propaganda and until you stick to accurate usage I simply dont care what questions you ask.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
when someone gets fired for what he says, even more so when his words are true, then of course it is a case about freedom of speech. even more importantly so in the field of journalism, the one profession supposed to be the guardian of democracy.
you still fail to answer that question as well as the "undermining" character of what he said.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
Freedom of speech doesn't mean guaranteed employment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
if you can't fire a journalist for what he sez what can u fire him for? is he unfirable? his opinions are his product, nbc hired him for his product. then they saw his product was going to hamper them greatly instead of adding. so they dumped him.
he is FULLY capable of expressing his constitutional right to freedom of speech in any # of other ways. simply because nbc wont allow him to do it while paying him hardly means that it has been encroached upon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spiritof1202
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paiktis22
when someone gets fired for what he says, even more so when his words are true, then of course it is a case about freedom of speech. even more importantly so in the field of journalism, the one profession supposed to be the guardian of democracy.
you still fail to answer that question as well as the "undermining" character of what he said. |
Arnett gave an interview to another news network, and as such is probably in violation of his contract.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2003 05:08
|