western media knowing liars or openly honest?
Debate Rounds (5)
Also, media is allowed pretty much to do whatever they want. The only exceptions are: a.) report nothing that is entirely untrue and maybe b.) don't break any supremely important laws. Other than these, the media is curiously under-regulated.
Be this as it may, I do believe that genocide is breaking a supremely important law, so if you provide a flawless example of how the media directly caused any form of genocide, I shall concede. Maybe.
Also, all of the news programs I have seen are pretty factual, not stating opinions and explaining happenings from all sorts of world views. I have never seen a program advocate the killing of hundreds of people.
Again, unless I am supremely stupid (not denying that possibility), I have not seen any instance in your case in which you have provided a case in which the media has intentionally reported wrong information that has led to genocide.
Please. Use simple language that us poor fools can understand and list one case, any case in which the media has intentionally "endorsed information they knew was false" that directly led to some form of war crime.
Thank you, and good morning.
Okay. I think I may have managed to pull myself together. I believe we are circling around the same issue, but you are taking one approach and I am taking a different approach and we are both to moronic to actually catch on to how the other is thinking. I wish I could say this was a first.
You have listed a whole slew of instances where you feel the media incited a war crime. This is, of course, exactly what I asked you to do. However, this is not what I intended you to do.
In one or more of these instances, can you explain HOW the media played a role in the given war crimes. SPECIFICALLY, mind you. Not just "they reported dud information" or "They made them mad." Nah. That won't cut it. Do this, and in the last round, I shall make a convincing counter argument to your points. Now, on to MY case, which, to be honest, I should have maybe started a little bit sooner.
Now, I will give you that the media does play a role in violence in the United States. According to aim.org, we are very accustomed to reacting to things we watch and hear, which has, in some select cases, led to more violence than we already have.
Be this as it may, the media is greatly important to society. For example, how would anyone outside of Paris have heard about the attacks? How would anyone know about the threat that ISIS has become? Who would know anything about the political state of this nation? Ordinary folk do not have regular access to the inner-workings of the government (whether this is good or not is another discussion.), and without the media, how would anyone know about anything happening in the country.
Also, the media pretty much have the right to say whatever they want to say, as long as it is somewhat true. They are allowed to manipulate the truth or put a certain spin on fact in order to express their views. AND THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO!
Besides, how would we hold media outlets to account for their actions? Would we shake our fingers at them, saying, "No, no. Bad Media!" I assume you would prefer something a little more drastic, in which case I ask you this: how would you determine which news facility is punished and which one isn't?
Based off of these issues, I don't see any way how the premise you proposed in your first round can be established fairly and reasonably.
I feel that you were being tactical earlier...however the mainstream media should be obligated to reporting well sourced information which is as accurate as possible. I have no head to list a glossarary of accounts as one should be enough. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were started on false information that was fed to the news networks to muster public support for the wars. I supposed Im a little more empathic then most, hundreds of thousands of innocents have been killed on the basis of these wars. Now do I believe the news networks should take some responsibility...hell yeh as with great power there should also be great responsibility. If the networks editors and management and owners give false info they should be liable. Now on a lighter note..if a network run a false story which was found later to be untrue..what you would be happy with just an apology...or would you be trying to sue for deformation. Maybe the poor people of Iraq and Afghanistan aren't as important as you...
In this case, the media did not intentionally spread false information for personal gain. They simply reported what they thought to be true. In this case, the providers of the information should be punished, not the media outlets.
In regards to intentional misreporting, I ask once again that you provide an example. I personally would sue the media station, yes, but first of all, only if the case was important enough, and secondly, not because the "poor people of Iraq and Afghanistan aren't as important." What does this statement have to do with anything, anyway? I feel as though this and the jibe about falling down was just rude.
Don't be rude. It makes me sad. :(
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.