Free speech is a basic right in our nation and I am not advocating the squelching of the news media. However, perhaps they should identify themselves more honestly. Pretending to be objective, they are, for the most part, the voice of the left. Their influence on the average American citizen is great. Only those who dig for the other view will get a more balanced view of what is really happening in politics, government, Irag, Katrina, etc. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I would guess that most people get their daily news from television. What they see and hear is not an objective view. It is censored. Topics are chosen that promote the views of the media. If they want to make a political candidate look bad they have the power to do it ( although it sometimes backfires on them).
What I am proposing is that the news organizations simply tell us where they are coming from honestly. Network names like LNM or CRM would be helpful. (You figure it out) Then you could tune in to your favorite program to get the view you want. If you want to hear the other side, you know where to go. This already exists to a certain extent. However, there are lots of people who think that ABC news is telling them God's honest truth every night. No organization in a free country should have this kind of power over its citizens. Perhaps the public school system is the problem. teaching children to regurgitate the secular humanism of the day, rather than thinking for themselves. It has become more important to feel good about oneself than to actually be able to perform well. Children that are taught to think critically will not automatically accept what they hear on the news. Their minds will be free as well as their speech.
Rococo
Image: www.cerritos.edu
3 comments:
The founders held these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, goverments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The government has the responsibility to prevent citizens from infrindging upon upon one another's rights. In this essential capacity, the government is lax if it allows certain types of behavior. Should it be legal to intentionally broadcast falsehoods? People can be mislead into courses of action that threaten their lives, liberty, and happiness. Obviously, it is up to the individual to make decisions regarding his own actions. However, when falsehoods are introduced, arguably, the individual is not free to make choices, and is being coerced. If I only have a choice between candidates one and two, and I am falsely told that candidate number one eats babies, have I really even engaged in representative government when I vote for candidate number two? If conclusive evidence is ever gathered against a particular source of news/media, it is the government's specified duty to punish the wrongdoers.
Then again, as I think about it, it probably is illegal to broadcast falsehoods. So, my entire argument did nothing but annihilate a straw man. Rats.
It is frustrating that the media is so obviously full of hogwash, which threatens our form of government. A misinformed puplic can vote themselves into tyranny or anarchy. Still, what can anyone do about it? There is no institution that could ensure completely truthful and accurate news. The government cannot do it, and the people will not do it.
Bachmann
What should we do? Promote homeschool, private schools, and Christian schools. Teach kids to think!
Thanks for your comments, Bachman.
Post a Comment