Proposed amendment to the US constitution

[billyskank]

It should be illegal for a company or individual that owns any form of media to have any other business interests whatsoever.

[fizzgig]

1. i absolutely agree

and i think it has something to do with the decline of the 'fourth estate', something that i think no longer exists in the form it should

[billyskank]

2. Would probably bump into the first amendment.

But still, free speech only works well when people get the chance to hear a variety of views.

[fizzgig]

3. it would run into problems there

the media should be self-governing in things such as this, but i don't know how realistic it is to expect them to do that. it's been going on for so long that i don't think it's going to change and that's without even considering the money angle.

here's an interesting site on what media companies own other companies

http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php

[Heidi]

4. Would that include selling advertising?

When I was a journalist, I thought it would be great for the community and the newspaper's integrity if advertising revenues weren't part of the equation. As a reader, I'd be more than willing to pay more for a newspaper that didn't accept advertising.

[billyskank]

6. Dunno. The more I think about it, the more I talk myself out of it.

But I am very conscious that it is very undesirable to have massive business interests owning mass media. Maybe the main problem is market share. But also, when the powerful make their inevitable free speech argument, I can't help but wonder about the freedom of speech of those who have only a quiet voice? Does not freedom of speech have any connection to relative loudness of speech as well?

[Heidi]

8. Practicing good journalism, and having good newsroom leadership

should ensure that all perspectives, even the quietest voices, are reflected in news coverage. I think it's the job of a good journalist to gather those perspectives, a publisher's job to publish them, and the readers' job to decide for themselves what the truth is. :hi:

[billyskank]

9. Problem is not really the journalists but their employers.

Unless you're freelance, a journalist is also an employee. Even if you're the editor of the New York Times, you're still just the employee of the paper's proprietor. And you can't go against their will, or risk finding yourself jobless.

:*

[Heidi]

10. That's my point about advertising.

Too often, the interests of one set of stakeholders (like shareholders) seem to cancel out the interests of another set of stakeholders (reporters wanting to do good journalism, and readers who want them to do good journalism). In my view, it's a sad day when practicing sound journalism is a media niche. x(

[hobbit709]

5. Any corporation that engages in any political activity whatsover

should have their charter immediately revoked.

[billyskank]

7. Hm yes, well that is another issue and an important one.

Why should companies get the rights that accrue to individuals, and yet still manage to disclaim all the responsibilities?

[Connonym]

11. Billy, who do you think your govt will support if we have a revolution? nt

[billyskank]

12. Maybe they'd have to grow up and start thinking for themselves!

Good thing too.

[billyskank]

13. Oh wait, I think I misunderstood your question.

Honestly, I have no idea what they would think.

[Parche]

14. bluddy right

:hi: :hug: