The Fourth Estate

[Agent Zero]

http://i.imgur.com/Sj1vYXe.jpg


Otherwise known as The Fourth Branch of Government, our media - for good and bad - has been instrumental in protecting democracy and freedom as we know it.

Given that the closest route to anarchy is the repression of the media, why does a large portion of our population today favor restricting journalism?

[Ethereal]

Otherwise known as The Fourth Branch of Government, our media - for good and bad - has been instrumental in protecting democracy and freedom as we know it.

Some elements of the media, sure. But the mainstream media has been instrumental in subverting and damaging democracy. They are little more than corporate shills and propagandists.


Given that the closest route to anarchy is the repression of the media, why does a large portion of our population today favor restricting journalism?

By "restricting journalism" do you mean "calling shills out on their BS"?

[Agent Zero]

Some elements of the media, sure. But the mainstream media has been instrumental in subverting and damaging democracy. They are little more than corporate shills and propagandists.


How? How is the "mainstream media" "subverting and damaging democracy"?


By "restricting journalism" do you mean "calling shills out on their BS"?

I'm thinking more about a leader of a nation restricting press access, but I'd like to know who the "shills" are?

Are there "shills" on the left? Right? Center? ABC? FOX?

What, specifically, is your definition of "shill"?

[Common Sense]

The demonization of the media is disconcerting. The cheering of it even more so.

[resister]

lol:rollseyes: "media" is a frickkin joke these days. If they are the 4th pillar, democracy is doomed

[Ethereal]

How? How is the "mainstream media" "subverting and damaging democracy"?

By systematically disseminating propaganda that serves to promote perpetual war, authoritarian government, and corporate cronyism.


I'm thinking more about a leader of a nation restricting press access, but I'd like to know who the "shills" are?

Are there "shills" on the left? Right? Center? ABC? FOX?

What, specifically, is your definition of "shill"?

I don't think press access ought to be restricted.

But I also remember how the US's press freedom ranking declined significantly under Obama and how a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist at the New York Times, James Risen, called Obama one of the worst enemies of press freedom in recent memory. Democrats did not seem all that concerned.

As for the definition of shill, it's the large majority of corporate media outlets, left and right.

They are not trustworthy at all.

[Ethereal]

The demonization of the media is disconcerting. The cheering of it even more so.

It's far more disconcerting how readily corporate media disseminates lies and propaganda. They played a major role in convincing Americans to invade Iraq, for example.

[Ravens Fan]

http://i.imgur.com/Sj1vYXe.jpg


Otherwise known as The Fourth Branch of Government, our media - for good and bad - has been instrumental in protecting democracy and freedom as we know it.

Given that the closest route to anarchy is the repression of the media, why does a large portion of our population today favor restricting journalism?
What makes you think that a large portion of our population favors restricting journalism?

[Wehrwolfen]

Today the 4th estate has become the Left 5th column.

Sent from my QTASUN1 using Tapatalk

[Agent Zero]

What makes you think that a large portion of our population favors restricting journalism?

Try reading the responses in this thread.

[Ravens Fan]

Try reading the responses in this thread.
I did. Ethereal told you that he does not believe in restricting press access. How did that help me to understand what makes you think that a large portion of our population favors restricting journalism?

[Chris]

http://i.imgur.com/Sj1vYXe.jpg


Otherwise known as The Fourth Branch of Government, our media - for good and bad - has been instrumental in protecting democracy and freedom as we know it.

Given that the closest route to anarchy is the repression of the media, why does a large portion of our population today favor restricting journalism?

Where's the people?

[Chris]

The demonization of the media is disconcerting. The cheering of it even more so.

It's become political cheerleaders.

[stjames1_53]

http://i.imgur.com/Sj1vYXe.jpg


Otherwise known as The Fourth Branch of Government, our media - for good and bad - has been instrumental in protecting democracy and freedom as we know it.

Given that the closest route to anarchy is the repression of the media, why does a large portion of our population today favor restricting journalism?

aha....that's why they print so many lies..they think they're going to control all the news...buster, they are wrong

[Mister D]

The closest route to anarchy is repression of the media? What?

Anyway, most Westerners don't realize that they are bombarded with propaganda on a daily basis and are influenced by it. For them, propaganda is something totalitarian regimes engage in.

[Common]

http://i.imgur.com/Sj1vYXe.jpg
Otherwise known as The Fourth Branch of Government, our media - for good and bad - has been instrumental in protecting democracy and freedom as we know it. Given that the closest route to anarchy is the repression of the media, why does a large portion of our population today favor restricting journalism?
Because the media has lost all objectivity and have become the arm and voice of mostly the left. The media does not tell the truth, either by outright lieing or more often by omission. They report only what they want the mass' to see and believe.

Americans arent who changed, its the media that changed and america does not like it. Proof of that is you go to what has become mainstream blogs and you find dozens of articles on events that happened that the mainstream media doesnt even print because they dont want you to see it, if conflicts with what they want you to see.

Most of america distrusts the media and that is not because of trump. The media sunk to its lowest point in 2012 when Obama was president. The media lieing to america EXPLODED in 2008, they went all out to protect obama because the first black president couldnt be allowed to fail. They lied and hid much from america and it caught up to them in and around 2012.

Now its their out right lieing about trump their fake news and NO one can deny the fake news many left outlets have been busted and some made retractions.

The media will never be trusted again but they dont care, its not about fair honest and journalism its about MONEY and ratings. Each anchor and pundit who has their own show makes in varying millions. Some make many millions, that money has to be made back and it doesnt matter how they get it back and make a profit anymore.

If you dont get the ratings, you dont get the money and you get fired. Greta Van Sustern is the most recent one to demonstrate that.

[AeonPax]

`
While the sentiment might have been true at one time, (The Fourth Estate) it is no longer valid. The media has been bought out by the corporations long time ago and their god is not democracy, truth or enlightenment, it's PROFIT.

[Common]

`
while the sentiment might have been true at one time, (the fourth estate) it is no longer valid. The media has been bought out by the corporations long time ago and their god is not democracy, truth or enlightenment, it's profit.

bingo!!!!

[Safety]

The demonization of the media is disconcerting. The cheering of it even more so.

Only because the current coverage of their guy is terrible. Partisanship.

[Safety]

How? How is the "mainstream media" "subverting and damaging democracy"?


I'm thinking more about a leader of a nation restricting press access, but I'd like to know who the "shills" are?

Are there "shills" on the left? Right? Center? ABC? FOX?

What, specifically, is your definition of "shill"?

Evidently, reporting on current events is being "subjective" and "shilling" that is, unless it's James O'keefe and some "groundbreaking" video evidence emerges.

[Chris]

`
While the sentiment might have been true at one time, (The Fourth Estate) it is no longer valid. The media has been bought out by the corporations long time ago and their god is not democracy, truth or enlightenment, it's PROFIT.

Profit and partisan politics, which, I guess, sells.

[gamewell45]

http://i.imgur.com/Sj1vYXe.jpg


Otherwise known as The Fourth Branch of Government, our media - for good and bad - has been instrumental in protecting democracy and freedom as we know it.

Given that the closest route to anarchy is the repression of the media, why does a large portion of our population today favor restricting journalism?
I believe its due to in part that media corporations are now run by lawyers and accountants whose main concern are profits which is what capitalism is all about so they various media corporations will defend their operations by saying "we are in business to make money, all else is secondary".

Second, the government deregulated the broadcast industry in 1987 when they eliminated the fairness doctrine which among other thing mandated equal time for opposing viewpoints. For example if a news commentator at MSNBC gave their opinion, they'd have to allow for another person of the opposing side to give their viewpoint in the same amount of time that the original person gave theirs. So it would mean in radio that people like Rush Limbaugh would have to provide equal time on his show for opposing views and Wolf Blitzer on CNN would have to do likewise.

Finally, values in this country have evolved over the decades where politicizing the news has become more and more acceptable to many Americans and its highly unlikely to change in the near future. Personally I'd love to see a totally neutral American news organization to be formed much like the BBC for non-partisan news. While NPR is close in that aspect they still lean to the left a wee bit.

[stjames1_53]

http://i.imgur.com/Sj1vYXe.jpg


Otherwise known as The Fourth Branch of Government, our media - for good and bad - has been instrumental in protecting democracy and freedom as we know it.

Given that the closest route to anarchy is the repression of the media, why does a large portion of our population today favor restricting journalism?

you were asked where the "People" are..............so were is the representation for "We, The People?"

[Ethereal]

Evidently, reporting on current events is being "subjective" and "shilling" that is, unless it's James O'keefe and some "groundbreaking" video evidence emerges.

Another failed attempt at hypocrisy policing.

Just give it up already.

[donttread]

http://i.imgur.com/Sj1vYXe.jpg


Otherwise known as The Fourth Branch of Government, our media - for good and bad - has been instrumental in protecting democracy and freedom as we know it.

Given that the closest route to anarchy is the repression of the media, why does a large portion of our population today favor restricting journalism?


Good point as is not including "We the people"

[Safety]

Another failed attempt at hypocrisy policing.

Just give it up already.

It's not hypocrisy policing or whatever you think that means, it's just speaking on what takes place here.

[Common]

I dont want the press restricted, I want them to tell the truth and since they wont do that, I basically gloss over what most of them say

[Chris]

The Fourth Estate has been replaced by the Deep State.

[HawkTheSlayer]

4th And Freedom of Speech


July 3, 2017
July 4th and Freedom of Speech

By Elise Cooper (http://www.americanthinker.com/author/elise_cooper/)


Americans should reflect on why July Fourth is such a special holiday. Apart from the birth of the U.S. as an independent nation they should not forget why the Bill of Rights was ratified as part of the Constitution in 1792. There is a reason why the Founders placed Freedom of Speech as the First Amendment.

In including that amendment, they had the utmost confidence that Americans would have common sense. Today, they would probably be turning over in their graves considering the rhetoric coming out of the leftists, celebrities, politicians, and the press mouths. No one is arguing that these people do not have their First Amendment rights to make these horrific comments, but where is the common sense?


After the four Republicans were shot on June 14th, there were calls to tone down the rhetoric, but it was just talk. While introducing his latest film in London, actor Johnny Depp asked the crowd how long has it been since “"an actor assassinated a president,” playing off the Lincoln murder while referring to President Donald Trump. Dan Weber, who founded a conservative alternative to AARP, is horrified that a standing senator, Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said, “I’ve read the Republican ‘health care’ bill. This is blood money. They’re paying for tax cuts with American lives.” He wondered “were there any consequences…? Absolutely not!”


Let’s not forget those who speak publicly, write critically, or satirize militant Islam. They are on the receiving end of violence, threats of violence, and/or lawsuits. Possibly because terrorists realize that freedom of speech is one of the greatest weapons to defeat them. Their response is to have those who challenge them fear for their lives. Recapping just a few instances: The firebombing ofCharlie Hebdo's offices in Paris in 2011 after the magazine "invited" the Prophet Muhammad as its guest editor; Comedy Central, which airs "South Park," censored a 2010 episode by excising a segment that originally had the Prophet Muhammad depicted in a bear costume and then turned him into Santa Claus; Theo van Gogh's movie, Submission, was not aired in many venues; and theJyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (or Muhammad cartoons crisis) began after 12 editorial cartoons that depicted Muhammad were self-censored from most Western publications, including Yale University Press. Van Gogh and the staff of Charlie Hebdo were, of course, later murdered by Muslim fanatics. The al-Qaeda hit list of eleven names with the heading "Wanted, Dead or Alive for Crimes Against Islam" is meant in dead earnest.

So why didn’t the Western governments defend these individual rights of freedom of speech? Was it political correctness? The hypocrisy is overwhelming. The explanation by the media is that they want to be “sensitive” and not be offensive. The New York Times explained in 2006 that it would not publish the Mohammad cartoons because of the symbols. Yet, one day later, they ran a picture of a painting that showed the Virgin Mary covered in elephant poop. Timemagazine's Bruce Crumley, the Paris Bureau Chief in 2011, wrote this about Charlie Hebdo, “Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by "majority sections" of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that "they" aren't going to tell "us" what can and can't be done in free societies?” And the Washington Post article commemorating the one-year anniversary of the Orlando shooting said nothing of Islamic extremism.



Another battlefront for the war against freedom of speech is on the college campuses. Alan Dershowitz brilliantly said, “What they stand for is the oldest notion, ‘free speech for me, but not for thee.’ Certain groups do not deserve more free speech than others.” Unfortunately, those attending U.S. colleges today do not appear to understand the First Amendment. According to a Pew Poll taken in November 2015, 40 percent of millennials are “OK with limiting free speech that is offensive to minorities.” When asked if they believe in free speech, a majority of Millennials say they believe in it except in cases of “hate speech.”


Most colleges look the other way as protesting mobs shout down speakers, depriving them and those who want to listen of their First Amendment rights. Freedom of speech does not give these people the right to prevent a speaker from being heard. Take for example UC Berkeley, which refused to provide security for conservative speakers, thus limiting freedom of speech. Yet, Berkeley has welcomed prominent radical Islamists, speakers who have openly called for violence and bigotry, because they fit within the accepted political framework.


Whether having a picnic or shooting off fireworks, Americans need to understand that one of its core values, freedom of speech, should never be suppressed. Yet, common sense needs to be considered when threatening someone else. After all, no one can yell fire in a public theater. The Founders would probably argue that when they wrote about freedom of speech they took into account the right to the First Amendment comes with some responsibility.


The author writes for American Thinker. She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.




Read more:http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...#ixzz4lmKv0fW3 (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/july_4th_and_freedom_of_speech.html#ixzz4lmKv0fW3)
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker) | AmericanThinke (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker)

[HawkTheSlayer]

Free speech is now a hate tool for progressive communists who no longer hide within the Democrat Party.
The solution is not to limit free speech but rather to limit the haters. http://thepoliticsforums.com/images/smilies/newsmilies/thumbsup20.gif

[donttread]

Free speech is now a hate tool for progressive communists who no longer hide within the Democrat Party.
The solution is not to limit free speech but rather to limit the haters. http://thepoliticsforums.com/images/smilies/newsmilies/thumbsup20.gif


Hate is perfectly legal.

[HawkTheSlayer]

Hate is perfectly legal.
Not when it becomes a hate crime whether it be lible, slander, or physical.

[Dr. Who]

I think that one of the better sources of information is PBS, inasmuch as they have fair roundtable discussions with all opinions being aired. Of course, they are not for profit.