- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,682
- Reaction score
- 262
- Location
- Philadelphia,PA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
The American public has the right to know.
beautymrgn said:"political info" meaning...what?
punkyg0608 said:It all depends. How many people would have to die? What kind of report is it? This poll is way too broad. But if it was 15 people and it would only benefit me or my company then I would never report it. Americans do not have a right-to-know. If you reported something that would kill people you would probably feel so guilty about their deaths that you wouldn't even enjoy the raise or promotion. Also, you need to factor in the idea of whether or not you are also saving lives by reporting the information. If it saves 1000 but kills 15 then it would be worth reporting.
Stherngntlmn said:There are many times where it is better off for the sake for the country, that the public not know things. Especially things that could directly... or indirectly affect national security or the taking of lives.
I couldn't have said that better myself. Great post.Datamonkee said:Wow, I love the "right to know" phrase. The blanket statement that Americans have a right to know everything. If that is true, I'd like a list of all of your SSN's, birthdays, addresses, phone numbers, brassiere and jock sizes, and the date of your last confession. I have a "right to know". We did not have a right to know about Michael Jackson, unless you personally know him or would have the opportunity to meet him. It was a media frenzy to sell more papers. If he was moving into your neighborhood, then maybe, you'd have a right to know. The publics desire to be in everyone else's business is crap. It is the reason reality TV is taking the country by storm. People need to pay attention to their OWN lives, their OWN problems and stop dredging up mistakes made by politicians, pastors, priests, and school teachers from 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. Clinton smoked pot (but didn't inhale) a long time ago. My question is WHO REALLY CARES? Bush did cocaine as a young adult. Uhm, Who cares. How about what is his take on foreign policy? How about sticking to the matters that they are getting elected for? There's a concept.
As for military matters. The public does NOT have a right to know any more about those matters than the fact that they involve the country. As in we are going to send troops here. We are going to go to war here. That is the extent. They don't need to know how many, they don't need to know where they are, they don't need to know what they are doing there. That information is vital to a strike force. If you tell your enemy you are there, you run the risk of losing lives. Reporters (like Geraldo) that think that it is their right to do whatever and tell whatever they want to the American Public should be shot. And had it been MY unit that moron was showing on CNN where they were, I would have shot him. Endangering the lives of soldiers is inexcusable. It makes no difference on your political stance on the reason that we are in combat with a country, you do NOT endanger the lives of your countrymen. Anyhow. The American public does not need to know everything that goes on around them. The only thing it is useful for is selling media.
LaMidRighter said:I couldn't have said that better myself. Great post.
I am a broadcasting major, we study journalistic theory as well as production techniques and ethics. There is no "right to know" it would be better stated as "right to publish" in other words, much happens in places even as small as city blocks that the general public has no clue about because it may have been a small event that won't improve ratings, such as car accidents and the like; I have personally seen the aftermath of many wrecks in my own city that made me wonder if the driver survived and what happened, but it did not make the news, honestly, it wasn't my right to know the info regarding these things even though my curiosity was peaked. Responsible reporting would include many criteria such as:
1) reputations of the innocent or charged should not be destroyed.
2) in the lack of direct evidence, the fact that things aren't final should be stated.(alleged criminal behavior for example)
3) it should not lead to compromises of public security or harm at any cost.
4) the reporting MUST be accurate and honest, all mistakes must be corrected in a very timely manner.
long post short, the public only hears the message that the media chooses to send and the public does not have a need or right to know many of the stories that do not make it (even some of the ones that do).
debate_junkie said:First labeled a hero, then a devil in a span of what, a week. Last time I checked, being questioned by the FBI makes no one guilty, and yet in the press, he was convicted of a crime before the FBI made a yea or nay decision to charges being filed.
The Truth-Bringer said:I believe it also highly depends upon how important or revealing the political information is, a small unnecasary fact is not worth lives , but a Great truth, that was hidden away from the people, would require revealing, for normally if its a truth of that neccesity, more lives will be lost if its not told, than if its told.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?