People have a right to know exactly what's happening

People have a right to know exactly what's happening

With the outbreak of technology, media is becoming more and more important in our life and to the world. We always turn to the media to know what is going on. We tend to take every word of the media as divine truth. But the sad fact is that the media often is more attracted to profit, rather then complete honesty. The media is a big influencing part of society. Hence being inadequately informed leads one down an ignorant path.

And absulately i think and i know that, people have a right to know exactly what's happening!

And what is happening, exactly?

Originally posted by jax:

And what is happening, exactly?

The Apocolypse no doubt.

I'm not going to tell anyone what I'm doing.

'Hic

But someone will know that after sometimes!

Nope.

But more to the point people do NOT have a right to know everything that is going on.

Most, if not all, people on this forum also think so otherwise they would add to their Opera Page such things as their name, address, telephone number and email address, their date of birth, sexual inclinations, bank account numbers, ----- do I need to go on?

If there is a difference, the same is true of "happenings".

The media is under no obligation and I am going to do what string is doing. .....I think

Best to be like the three wise...

Monkies...

See no evil...

...speak no evil..

...Hear no evil.

But, where ignorance is bliss, its folly to be wise.

String, Do you have a idea, that what means 'media' and what's for?

I'd like, just once, to have an idea of what Merijan is talking about. This may not be possible since it's apparent he either has no clue himself or doesn't know how to say what he does know.

Oh, jeez, there's gotta be something strange in the water they drink on the Isle of Man.

Technology is an "outbreak"? Where can we get vaccinated?

Originally posted by Acorn15:

Technology is an "outbreak"? Where can we get vaccinated?

Ask Grumpy. There are side effects though

Actually, i'm talking about media and men getting lot of information by the media. In any site of our social, political, business, weather, history we wants true information about that. Only media can do it.

Hey string, i'm not talking about your personal life.

You did say "social" ...

Originally posted by merijannath:

With the outbreak of technology, media is becoming more and more important in our life and to the world. We always turn to the media to know what is going on. We tend to take every word of the media as divine truth. But the sad fact is that the media often is more attracted to profit, rather then complete honesty. The media is a big influencing part of society. Hence being inadequately informed leads one down an ignorant path.

Ignore any sarky comments - you're absolutely right, though I would argue that it's our duty to educate ourselves rather than expect the powers that be to ever tell us the truth. There are a number of alternative media sources where you can get a better picture of what's really happening. Places like naturalnews.com (for one) might actually save your life. There are independent journalists out there who do actually report the truth - not simply cow-tow to the corporations. One of my favourite sites is wattsupwiththat.com. Also GlobalResearch.ca and AntiWar.com. There are other sites worth checking to give you a good overall picture of just how bad things really are, if you're not worried about being branded a complete anti-semitic conspiracy nut - which is just name calling by those who would rather you didn't actually read those sites, for fear of actually learning something about how this world is run.

That looks suspiciously much like a spam comment... though it might not be.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

That looks suspiciously much like a spam comment... though it might not be.

Sorry, it may have looked like it but it certainly wasn't. I was just trying to help the original poster who seems somewhat (rightly) depressed about corporate news lies. There are alternatives - just pointing out a few of the ones I know of. As always, people should do their own research and make their own minds up about things, or just sit there and keep complaining about all this war'n'stuff they're paying for.

Bye!

yeh, we have rights to know that what's happening in our around.

Originally posted by merijannath:

Hence being inadequately informed leads one down an ignorant path.

Disagree. Leads to become a specialist. The world never had so many specialists.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Disagree. Leads to become a specialist. The world never had so many specialists.

Speaking of Al Gore...

Well there are two things here (at least)

First the "right to know" of the public which is often confused with "want to know" or "will sell newspapers"
and
The truthfulness of newspapers.

Common sense should prevail in the first instance. Unfortunately it does not.

For example; several years ago it would have been in the public interest to know if a politician was Gay. That is not directly because of the morality of such inclinations but rather the consequent vulnerability of the politician to exposure and/or blackmail in order to further some interest or other. Nowadays in many countries this not the case because Gay people are accepted as a variant of the human condition and are thus not so vulnerable. So that matter passes into want-to-know, as in titillation, rather than an actual need to know.

Untruthful newspapers is another matter. In my view newspapers should be obliged to carry a warning on the front page which reads something like "don't believe anything in here without a great deal of thought". All newspapers that I have read, including such august ones (in my country) as the London Times, are prone to exaggerate to make a story. When you add to that the paparazzi effect of dragging "news stories" out of thin air and telephoto lenses, you get not just untruth but also fantasy.

I would agree that we may have a wish that newspapers should always tell the truth in a balanced way, but I doubt it is actually possible. (think about that last remark - it refers to the truth being in the "eye of the beholder"). The safest way is to regard newspapers as comics and treat them as such.

In summary you get what you believe.

Originally posted by string:

In summary you get what you believe.

The problem it's not the input but the output.
Three different sources, three different "facts". But we vote just one decision. We (usually) have just one opinion. We do just an action, not one and also it's opposite.
This means that we process different and even contradictory inputs in order to produce an output. The real problem it's about how people are educated to do that process.
merijannath's output, was saying that people have the right to know "the true".
string's was "that you get" what you believe.
And the input was the same for both, bad quality journalism. One stands for a world of perennial trues the other for a world of relativistic vision.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

we process different and even contradictory inputs in order to produce an output. The real problem it's about how people are educated to do that process.

merijannath's output, was saying that people have the right to know "the true".

string's was "that you get" what you believe.

It seems indeed so.

merijannath is on a quest for truth - because he doesn't have it. string couldn't care less - he already has the truth (or so he thinks).

The education lies in learning to combine the adequate sources with an adequate sense of satisfaction. When media is not adequate for you, the first solution should be to find different sources, because most of us are too inadequate to improve the media.

Media can hardly be improved to full satisfaction. There will always be people who don't care about gossip at all, no matter how factual and accurate it is.

"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."

Richard Salent, Former President CBS News

Originally posted by ersi:

merijannath is on a quest for truth - because he doesn't have it. string couldn't care less - he already has the truth (or so he thinks).

The education lies in learning to combine the adequate sources with an adequate sense of satisfaction. When media is not adequate for you, the first solution should be to find different sources, because most of us are too inadequate to improve the media.

Media can hardly be improved to full satisfaction. There will always be people who don't care about gossip at all, no matter how factual and accurate it is.

You're being facetious. Your second paragraph says what I said, which was that you get what you believe, in more words. If you believe you are reading truth from a newspaper then that is what you will believe you are getting by reading it (but you may be fooling yourself). If you have the nous to critique it then you will get something else, not truth but something else. Maybe enjoyment, maybe a sense of frustration at reading such tripe or maybe something to light the fire with.

You may be right about merijannath's intent, the title of the thread is somewhat misleading implying that we should know what is happening rather than being assured about the truth of what is reported to have happened. But I think it was what he also meant. merijannath - please correct me if I am wrong.

But, as I said and you apparently agree, one is unlikely to get truth from a newspaper. this is for a variety of reasons, not all to do with "bad journalism". The Newspaper may report a crime, such as kissing in public (a recent example in Dubai I recall). If the newspaper was a Dubai newspaper that report would be true, but to a reader from another country it would be untrue, simply because of one's own viewpoint.

But not just in the religious arena, also in the political arena there are different ideas on what is true and what is not, and so on for many subjects. The proficiency of a Pop Star for example..

Originally posted by string:

The Newspaper may report a crime, such as kissing in public (a recent example in Dubai I recall). If the newspaper was a Dubai newspaper that report would be true, but to a reader from another country it would be untrue, simply because of one's own viewpoint.

Being precise, it wouldn't be untrue to a reader from other country. Discording would be already that reader's opinion about what should be or not considered as a crime.
In that case, the Dubai newspaper seems to be just factual. No one seems to deny that a couple, at Dubai, were jailed because being kissing in public.

Unless you are using untrue with some different meaning from false, contrary to facts.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by string:

The Newspaper may report a crime, such as kissing in public (a recent example in Dubai I recall). If the newspaper was a Dubai newspaper that report would be true, but to a reader from another country it would be untrue, simply because of one's own viewpoint.

Being precise, it wouldn't be untrue to a reader from other country. Discording would be already that reader's opinion about what should be or not considered as a crime.
In that case, the Dubai newspaper seems to be just factual. No one seems to deny that a couple, at Dubai, were jailed because being kissing in public.

Unless you are using untrue with some different meaning from false, contrary to facts.

No - what I am claiming is that we cannot divorce our own beliefs from the way in which we perceive the news. It is the same with most communications, the more complex the underlying issues the more scope for different perceptions/interpretations of what has been said.

In the example I gave, one might consider that it was a crime that was being reported, another would balk, even, at the very use of the word crime in the report. Such things colour what we take from a newspaper report.


As an aside I do not decry this situation where we have different interpretations; it is a tribute to our humanity that we can view things from different perspectives; it illustrates our variety as a species. But I do think it logical and sane when we know our own viewpoints and where we are coming from in forming our opinions.

There are no "rights". Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded and is probably a teenager or its galactic equivalent, an American.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Oh, jeez, there's gotta be something strange in the water they drink on the Isle of Man.

This is true

Originally posted by string:

As an aside I do not decry this situation where we have different interpretations; it is a tribute to our humanity that we can view things from different perspectives; it illustrates our variety as a species.

I like that. I agree.

Originally posted by OnetimePoster:

There are no "rights". Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded and is probably a teenager or its galactic equivalent, an American.

And I'm delighted with that. Perfection.

Originally posted by OnetimePoster:

There are no "rights". Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded and is....an American.

(I couldn't be arsed to find a mockery flag to the flag of Austrailia OTP. )

I'd like to see one person logically explain why people have the right to anything at all, at the very least information. The media causes more problems than it solves.

Yes, i think people have the right to know the truth.

Fellow posters i think its rather unfair the way some people attack Merijannat in most of the thread he authors. Some make it a duty of doing so in all his threads, some others even twist his posts.
Am not saying you shouldn't disagree with his pov but pls lets do so with a little openness.
I personally dont see anything wrong with this particular thread. Pls, Lets be more accomodating to newbies on this forum.

Yes, i think people have the right to know the truth.

Fellow posters i think its rather unfair the way some people attack Merijannat in most of the thread he authors. Some make it a duty of doing so in all his threads, some others even twist his posts.
Am not saying you shouldn't disagree with his pov but pls lets do so with a little openness.
I personally dont see anything wrong with this particular thread. Pls, Lets be more accomodating to newbies on this forum (D&D).

Yes, i think people have the right to know the truth.

Fellow posters i think its rather unfair the way some people attack Merijannat in most of the thread he authors. Some make it a duty of doing so in all his threads, some others even twist his posts.
Am not saying you shouldn't disagree with his pov but pls lets do so with a little openness.
I personally dont see anything wrong with this particular thread. Pls, Lets be more accomodating to newbies on this forum (D&D).

Originally posted by jivelissie:

Yes, i think people have the right to know the truth.

From the status line of one of our friends:

A PERSONPROCLAIMED THAT: DWORLD WILL END ON D18th HOUR OF D21-12-2280CE/21-12-1709AH. PLS I NEED MORE INFO!

Originally posted by OnetimePoster:

There are no "rights". Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded and is probably a teenager or its galactic equivalent, an American.

I am deluded and totally agree. I would say you are bit exclusionary. I suspect from posts on this board it is a world wide virus.

I don't suspect I am completely convinced.

Anyway, Information does have value. We can buy it and sell it. It's produced and consumed. It has owner and can be stolen. It has "value added" services to support it, as analysts and specialists jobs. It's a transactional good, yet dematerialized.

But unlike other products it's very difficult to determine it's value regarding quality and opportunity. It's so much volatile than any other good.
Therefore people can always legitimate feel being defrauded. Even when it's for free.

If you want to know what is happening, just ask.
The first answer is free. The next two answers will be provided with the expectation of a donation. Subsequent questions should be accompanied by full banking details.

Your question is not clear. Are you asking if Obama will risk aligning himself with secret societies or if he will risk NOT aligning himself.
Clear or not, you have used up your free question.

By the time you get through scrutinizing all forms of media you should have came to the conclusion that it's all propaganda or agenda based . If history has been manipulated as we know , It stands to reason that current events are skewed and manipulated more easily today . They don't have to burn the books they simply change the wording to suit there biding ( " They " : Whom it may concern ) . " Truth " In any form of media is a fallacy , If not the editor of said wholesome information resource would be jobless or dead after the first broadcast . You may have the ability to question the truth but don't fool yourself into believing you have a right to it . Scrutinize everything and go with your gut .

Who is/are "they"?

I agree with scrutinise, but not with "going with one's gut". Such is a useful input but relying it risks being prone to bull***t.

String , " They " are in parenthesis in my post : ( To whom it may concern at the moment in time ). All forms of media are gobbled up by big corporations that are controlled by powers bent on curtailing your view of whats going on , If your a media outlet making tons of money you are a target for corruption by the hand of government , Banking and anyone whom might be willing to place a commercial on your form of media . " They " are in business to make money and push the agenda of those that contribute and hold their business license . Watch carefully and see them stick to the motto of " Keep the mushrooms happy , Feed them B.S and keep them in the dark " . As for me I prefer to go with what makes sense to me using the theory above , Most deceptions are not that complicated once you understand whom stands to benefit from them financially or politically .

Yes - I thought the concept was a bit fuzzy.

How do I know you are not one of "them"?

We are.

Do we have a right to know what's going on, or merely a right not to be stopped from knowing what's going on?

Freedom of press is an important part in helping people to know what's going on, but they are private corporations and under no obligation to exist.

In the UK we have the BBC who (and here's a ketle of worms) are supposed to be independent. The reason being that our government believes so strongly that we do have a right to know what's going on that they protect an organisation who will continue to tell you the news even when there is no profit to be had or political agenda to defend.

Leaving the pros and cons of the beeb for another thread, here's the kicker:
Do other countries have the same thing? If all your news networks decided their money would be better spent printing pictures of small mammals looking cute, could anyone stop them? If all the telophony companies sold their cables and satellite equipment for scrap metal, would it be a breach of your human rights?

I contend that so long as your government does not pass laws to restrict a free market for information on matters of reasonable public interest, then no breach would have occured and that a gap in the market does not constitute a breach of rights.

I can not assure you that I'm not one of you , But my ability to listen to what you say should narrow down the possibility that I work for any of the aforementioned entities in my last post . But there again you never know ...... Bugga bugga boo !!!!!!

I can assure you that the current confusion in the content of news broadcasts is due to a blanket blackout while Obama plans his punitive invasion of Iceland.
Not many people know this.

Originally posted by string:

How do I know you are not one of "them"?

I've never been so frightened in my life.

Originally posted by OnetimePoster:

I can assure you that the current confusion in the content of news broadcasts is due to a blanket blackout while Obama plans his punitive invasion of Iceland.
Not many people know this.

And high time also.

People have a right to know exactly what's happening

It's a Magic show..
I seems to be left to us to figure out the trick and sleight of hand... then get angry go to a tea party rally and make fools of ourselves..

We need a news program like Fact check and Snopes.. I rely on comedy centrals Southpark and lotsa