Do we need still need the "press"?

[SlugSlinger]

oh good, yes, please explain the differences.

As mentioned in my post, news agencies interject opinion based on their agenda. The press was intended to distribute information without opinion. It's fairly simple.

With technology, we don't need opinion because we can hear it straight from the source.

 

[donner]

As mentioned in my post, news agencies interject opinion based on their agenda. The press was intended to distribute information without opinion. It's fairly simple.

With technology, we don't need opinion because we can hear it straight from the source.

Not really.

News agencies come in many forms. From cable news (which in my opinion is where the real problem is) to the Associated Press to Reuters. They are often large networks that allow information to easily be shared from around the world and distributed down to local sources.

I don't disagree that people in the news agencies have agendas, but having an agenda (or not) isn't what distinguishes them from 'the press' since they are made up of journalists. News agencies are staffed by members of 'the press' and collect and disseminate information from members of 'the press' from around the world.

And while the founders wanted a free press, they never said anything about it being 'intended to distribute information without opinion'. Early media sources were often closely tied to one political side or issue and often owned/ run by the politicians themselves.

And the idea of getting all information 'straight from the source' has it's flaws. It often lacks context and will be just (if not more) biased and slanted than the so called 'agenda' you think the all ubiquitous media has. Take an issue like the Opioid crisis. It's not possible to convey all the information from 'straight from the source' since it includes, politicians, addicts, families affected, drug makers, first responders, etc. Nor does one statement or story cover even a fraction of the topic.

But you're so sure you're right, feel free to stop posting sources that come from 'news agencies'.

 

[Pokinfun]

I think if you are going to say anything about the founders, you have to include the fact the founders never expected the average person would be enfranchised. They also never expected the average joe to be able to elect a senator, they included checks and balances against the type of press we have today. Therefore, the fact that they did not said anything about restrictions on the press, they never assumed it would be an issue.

Not really.

News agencies come in many forms. From cable news (which in my opinion is where the real problem is) to the Associated Press to Reuters. They are often large networks that allow information to easily be shared from around the world and distributed down to local sources.

I don't disagree that people in the news agencies have agendas, but having an agenda (or not) isn't what distinguishes them from 'the press' since they are made up of journalists. News agencies are staffed by members of 'the press' and collect and disseminate information from members of 'the press' from around the world.

And while the founders wanted a free press, they never said anything about it being 'intended to distribute information without opinion'. Early media sources were often closely tied to one political side or issue and often owned/ run by the politicians themselves.

And the idea of getting all information 'straight from the source' has it's flaws. It often lacks context and will be just (if not more) biased and slanted than the so called 'agenda' you think the all ubiquitous media has. Take an issue like the Opioid crisis. It's not possible to convey all the information from 'straight from the source' since it includes, politicians, addicts, families affected, drug makers, first responders, etc. Nor does one statement or story cover even a fraction of the topic.

But you're so sure you're right, feel free to stop posting sources that come from 'news agencies'.

 

[lasher]

I think if you are going to say anything about the founders, you have to include the fact the founders never expected the average person would be enfranchised. They also never expected the average joe to be able to elect a senator, they included checks and balances against the type of press we have today. Therefore, the fact that they did not said anything about restrictions on the press, they never assumed it would be an issue.

and i wonder what percentage of the population, during the founders time, could actually read. i reckon with all the media available today i should be asking the same question of today's population LOL

 

[rawhide]

and i wonder what percentage of the population, during the founders time, could actually read. i reckon with all the media available today i should be asking the same question of today's population LOL

At the time of the revolution Americans were the most literate society on earth.

 

[Pokinfun]

and i wonder what percentage of the population, during the founders time, could actually read. i reckon with all the media available today i should be asking the same question of today's population LOL

One of the most commonly cited sources on this subject is Lawrence A.
Cremin's book American Education: The Colonial Experience, NY: Harper
& Row, 1970. For bibliographic information, see the Library of
Congress:
http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v3=1&DB=local&CMD=010a+79123923&CNT=10+records+per+page

Cremin was a professor at Columbia University. His research indicated
that literacy among adult white males was 70 to 100 percent in
Colonial America versus 48 to 74 percent in England.

 

[donner]

I think if you are going to say anything about the founders, you have to include the fact the founders never expected the average person would be enfranchised. They also never expected the average joe to be able to elect a senator, they included checks and balances against the type of press we have today. Therefore, the fact that they did not said anything about restrictions on the press, they never assumed it would be an issue.

What specific types of 'checks and balances against the type of press we have today' did they create?

And i was responding to the specific statement made that "The press was intended to distribute information without opinion". That was never the case, and it was certainly not reflected in the actions of those who drafted the Constitution, nor for many who followed. There has certainly been an effort in recent history to be more balanced, but it's always been an ideal. And even when it's achieved, there will always be those who refuse to admit it.

As i've said many times, i've been in the newsroom when we've had back to back calls of people complaining that the exact same newspaper section was too favorable to the 'other' high school sports team over theirs. Never mind each caller was supporting the opposite school.

 

[YukonGlocker]

The press was just as biased then as it is now. We only have more sources now, but each source is doing what they've always done.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

... They[The Founding Fathers] also never expected the average joe to be able to elect a senator, ...

The Founding Fathers didn't want the "average joe(SIC)" to vote for or elect a senator. This being a republic, the Senate is supposed to be comprised of councilors. (The definition of a senator back when the Constitution was written was "a public councilor".) Each state was to select 2 public councilors(senators) to have seats in the senate, with one vote each. Basically, the senators represented the legislatures of the several states, selected by the legislature of the respective states. As it stands right now, thanks to the Seventeenth Amendment, we have two houses of representatives. This has caused the several states to lose sovereignty and power to the Feral Government.

Direct election of senators is one of the alterations to our system of government that has impaired the energy of the system.

"One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown...." George Washington, from his farewell address.

Woody

 

[donner]

Direct election of senators is one of the alterations to our system of government that has impaired the energy of the system.

i think this point is somewhat debatable (to a degree) since before the direct elections, the states really didn't 'pick' the senators so much as the party political machines did.