Is it time to consider media censorship?

Mr Benevolent

I've been pondering this for a long time now, and decided to get a few opinions from those in the know. I realise it's like going into the Aviation forum to propose that we ban certain aircraft, but new opinions are always interesting, even though I know what the response will be.

Simply put, the media now has far too much influence in our social, financial and political lives. Most people's opinions are simply torn from the pages of their most convenient news source. The media controls whether we go into economic freefall or boom, whether we walk the streets in fear or confidence.

A single journalist writes a biased article discussing a potential economic downturn. Other journalists either believe him implicitly and fail to do their own research, or do their own research and erroneously come to the same biased conclusions. Economists, investors, stockbrokers and banks
believe them. The stockmarkets plunge.

So depressions are now created with the wave of a pen. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost because of this implicit belief in 'free speech'. Countless companies go bankrupt, negative equity
abounds, fifty thousand man-years of miserable debt are created.

Opinions of every kind have been essentially manufactured from scratch. A few random examples:

Paedophiles: There is no doubting the existence of paedophilia. But any of did the previous generation stare suspiciously at any stranger who smiled at their offspring? No. But my generation does. There is a dark suspicion that perverts lurk everywhere, waiting to abuse their children. But most abuse happen in the home, now that religious institutions are a thing of the past. So where has this opinion sprung
from?

Crime: The public has been inundated with the impression that society is falling apart, the people are less safe then ever before. Clearly history is being ignored. Comparing the 17th century to now, we are very, very safe indeed. Murders are rare enough and are generally inter-family or drug related. Muggings are increasing because the number of muggings being reported is on the rise, as should be the
case to catch those responsible. The same goes for other crime. Yet people somehow feel less safe. How is this possible?

Bird Flu: Utter panic about this one, and even the governments believed the media. Ridiculous when you consider that neither H5N1 nor its variants had any chance of surviving in the human. But it was trumpted as the downfall of Northern Europe. How is that possible?

A while ago a morning Dublin commuter paper ran a frontpage piece entitled 'Is it time to PANIC now?' (emphasis not mine). The title covered more than half the front page, with the background in black and PANIC in red. The piece naturally considered the possibility of a recession and depression in the near future. Every person on the Dart, bus and Commuter rail lines saw that headline and/or read the article. That's close to 135,000 people in one day, reading one newspaper. Some of those readers were decision makers, managers, CEOs, stockbrokers, investors and bankers. In the article readers were told why they
should panic now. Other news sources carried the same story flavour, as they had for months before. And now here we are.

And so we come full circle. Our social, political and financial opinions spring from what the media tells us to think. Nobody can deny that the media has inconceivable power over how we live our lives, and we pay them for the privilege.

So in conclusion, we have free speech. In other words, we're free to say what we like. Not one constitution says it has to be true.

Free but biased. Makes me laugh.

lostexpectation

media didn't create this recession, greed did.

Who do you suggest as a censor?

mike65

Media is "controlled" by standards authorities, the issue is whether it is effective in its role. The fourth estate should be free to get it wrong and ready to pay an appropriate price when it lies or contravenes the law of the land.

Robert Peston did not create the current fiscal chaos btw

Mike

dresden8

A single journalist writes a biased article discussing a potential economic downturn. Other journalists either believe him implicitly and fail to do their own research, or do their own research and erroneously come to the same biased conclusions. Economists, investors, stockbrokers and banks
believe them. The stockmarkets plunge.

So depressions are now created with the wave of a pen. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost because of this implicit belief in 'free speech'. Countless companies go bankrupt, negative equity
abounds, fifty thousand man-years of miserable debt are created.

The current economic crisis was created by banks running out of money because they had been playing with pretend money for years and when it was time to stump up, they didn't have it. The financial system is a pyramid scheme. All pyramid schemes collapse eventually.

Paedophiles: There is no doubting the existence of paedophilia. But any of did the previous generation stare suspiciously at any stranger who smiled at their offspring? No. But my generation does. There is a dark suspicion that perverts lurk everywhere, waiting to abuse their children. But most abuse happen in the home, now that religious institutions are a thing of the past. So where has this opinion sprung
from?

Attacks on children happen. It's risk versus consequence here. Low risk, horrendous consequences. It's a parent's job to lower risk.

Crime: The public has been inundated with the impression that society is falling apart, the people are less safe then ever before. Clearly history is being ignored. Comparing the 17th century to now, we are very, very safe indeed. Murders are rare enough and are generally inter-family or drug related. Muggings are increasing because the number of muggings being reported is on the rise, as should be the case to catch those responsible. The same goes for other crime. Yet people somehow feel less safe. How is this possible?

Depends where you live.

Bird Flu: Utter panic about this one, and even the governments believed the media. Ridiculous when you consider that neither H5N1 nor its variants had any chance of surviving in the human. But it was trumpted as the downfall of Northern Europe. How is that possible?

I think you'll find it's media believing the governments. We're due a flu pandemic. All the time they kept reporting that H5N1 cannot be spread from human to human, all that was needed was a mutation and then we're in a sh1t-load of trouble. This was, and is, all true, what's your problem with that?

Luckily it should clear out the over 70's and give the government a clear run.

A while ago a morning Dublin commuter paper ran a frontpage piece entitled 'Is it time to PANIC now?' (emphasis not mine). The title covered more than half the front page, with the background in black and PANIC in red. The piece naturally considered the possibility of a recession and depression in the near future. Every person on the Dart, bus and Commuter rail lines saw that headline and/or read the article. That's close to 135,000 people in one day, reading one newspaper. Some of those readers were decision makers, managers, CEOs, stockbrokers, investors and bankers. In the article readers were told why they should panic now. Other news sources carried the same story flavour, as they had for months before. And now here we are.

Was that around the time Lenihan got onto RTE and told everyone the banks were safe and no worries? Just before the banks went begging because they were about to collapse?

And so we come full circle. Our social, political and financial opinions spring from what the media tells us to think. Nobody can deny that the media has inconceivable power over how we live our lives, and we pay them for the privilege.

So in conclusion, we have free speech. In other words, we're free to say what we like. Not one constitution says it has to be true.

Free but biased. Makes me laugh.

Keeping the people ignorant about what is really going on does not protect them, it just opens them up to further abuse.

luckat

Oooh, yes, please, censor the media.

(rubs hands)

Then the market for underground newspapers, radio, Web info, etc will really take off.

Of course, it might not have the accuracy of the newspapers, but it'll be much more fun.

flogen

You make a number of assumptions to validate your argument:

1) That the media is more powerful now than ever before.
2) That public sentiment, fed by media reporting, has caused the recession.
3) That people are incapable of reading a newspaper objectively.
4) That the media is the only guilty party in hyping up crime statistics.
5) That a single article or journalist can create a snowball effect and single-handedly cause a crisis.

I think all of these assumptions are way off the mark.

1) The traditional media today is far less influential than it was in the past - where before people were informed purely by the newspaper they read or radio station they listened to, today most people consume information from a wide variety of sources even if they don't realise it. That includes traditional and non-traditional media but also other people outside of their social circle.

2) While public sentiment is an important factor in the strength of an economy it is not the cause of Ireland's (or the world's) current difficulty. If you are suggesting that the newspapers are guilty by association due to their reporting of the facts then perhaps censorship would be a solution, although only for the symptom and not the cause.

3) Most people do not believe everything they read in the newspapers, partially because of the mass-media culture we live in which would force them to hold contradictory opinions if they did. I'd suggest that people are far more savvy than your argument gives them credit for and they can usually smell a rat when a bias article or newspaper is in front of them.

4) Politicians are just as guilty of hyping crime statistics as the media, possibly more so. The opposition, by their definition, have a vested interest in making people feel like the streets are not as safe as they used to be. The Government on the other hand, must tell people things are getting better but there's more to do - partially because they want to simplify their stance rather than get into a detailed argument on the reality and partially because they want to suggest that they're on the right track and only they can maintain that.

5) Going back to the mass-market society the reality is that very few single articles actually have much of an impact on the news agenda, or on the wider public's perception of things. It's only when a journalist breaks a major story, which happens relatively rarely, that this changes and if it's a story build in inaccuracies it becomes apparent quite quickly.

On the matter of paedophilia and public concern I do think that many people are far more paranoid about the matter than they should be but I think that this is not the fault of the media, at least not purely.

To some degree there's an echo-chamber effect caused by any talk of paedophilia; if one parent says they're worried about their child's safety then others may begin to believe that they too should be worried - so one person's irrationality multiplies again and again.

On the other hand I think it's a trust thing.

The current generation of parents and grandparents grew up in a time when the catholic church was to them the single most integral institute in the world - uncorruptable and honest no matter what. When that illusion was shattered by the plethora of scandal that we all now know about their value system was knocked for six and they found the organisation that they trusted the most to be untrustworthy.

They were basically betrayed by an organisation that they believed dearly in and that betrayal has destroyed or at least damaged any ability they previously had to believe in something or someone without suspicion. In other words, I think people are more paranoid about paedophilia because they feel they can no longer give anyone/anything the benefit of the doubt to be above it.

evil-monkey

and once the media has been censored, and these problems still exist, who will you then sensor?? the people on boards.ie?? where does it stop?? you either have free speech, or not. everyone, including journalists, are entitled to their opinion, regardless of how you think they may be influencing the world banks etc.

tell me, in time of prosper, are the media to blame for that too?? in which case, by your logic, a few front page articles would sort this whole slump out...

Run_to_da_hills

Read the UK Independant. The UK Authorities want to ban any media reports on matters of national security. The committee also wants to censor reporting of police operations that are deemed to have implications for national security.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-seek-to-censor-the-media-1006607.html

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=638

CCCP^

We already have Media censorship in the form of self-censorship.

evil-monkey

CCCP^ wrote: »

We already have Media censorship in the form of self-censorship.

care to elaborate??

Mr Benevolent

the people on boards.ie??

Boards.ie is censored to some extent - it's a privately run site that requires moderation to govern it effectively. It's not a media outlet and needs censorship (moderation) to avoid nasty legal wrangling because of one party accusing others of x, y and z.

I've seen other forum sites achieve a critical mass of members and fail utterly because of people getting totally out of control due to no moderation. It's about striking a balance, and that's what I'd like to see in the media.

RedPlanet

Confab wrote: »

A single journalist writes a biased article discussing a potential economic downturn. Other journalists either believe him implicitly and fail to do their own research, or do their own research and erroneously come to the same biased conclusions. Economists, investors, stockbrokers and banks
believe them. The stockmarkets plunge.

I don't believe that the financial crisis we are in is somehow created by the media.
But more importantly, this is nothing new or unusual. Don't you remember the runs on banks that occured during the last century?
Mere rumor mil would see hundreds of depositors queued up outside banks trying to get their money back.
Then the bank wouldn't have the cash on-hand to give it to them, which would exacabrate the problem.