Latest on MJJC

Freedom of the press, a good idea?

K.O.S.

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
387
Points
0
Location
Norway
Yeah it used to be a good idea, to prevent a government from censoring a newspaper.

That was in the old days, before newspapers made profit from being a celebrity tabloid.
Then came the british newspapers and the tabloid concept of today was born.

Now these leeches and vultures have pissed on journalistic integrity and freedom of the press.
I think it is time for governments to create some restrictions for the media, when regarding writing about citizens.

It has been tried before, but the press people always use the freedom of the press card to get out of jail, so to speak.

Either they do that, or people are gonna have to pay some muscle to beat the living shit out of a reporter if he or she slanders you in the media.

Even I myself have been used by the media, after MJ's death. I did several interviews and my quotes have been twisted and used in other contexts wich has nothing to do with what I said.

Omer Bhatti is going through hell now because of those vultures.

Michaels kids will never be safe because of this.

Princess Diana died because of tabloids. MJ was pushed over the edge by media slander.

Who is next in line, before someone puts a stop to this?

The only reason why governments are not doing anything, is because the people are not doing anything.

I think it is time society speak up. Tabloid news media serves society no purpose.

It should not be allowed to be as free as it is today.

Let them have freedom of the press and write real news and talk about politics and politicians. But they should not be allowed to abuse people who are not in government.

Michael should have sued every single one of those tabloid newspapers. Make them pay in gold for their conduct.

If Michael did that, then writing some slander about him would mean be ready to pay everything you own to Michael. That would have worked. Instead he chose the high road and remained silent. I understand him, but at the same time I don't agree. If that was me, I would destroy the people who tarnish my good name.

What we can do is sign petitions to the governments in our countries, get more people to sign and let them know we as citizens do not feel comfortable or safe with reporters around who as soon as they find out you know something or might know something, have the right to turn your life upside down. Just look at Susan Boyle. She was so not ready for that media circus and the media knew it. They did it anyway.

When news reporting gets people killed, the limit has been reached. I am outraged how such events can go without something being done. Simply outraged.
 
No. Even if we hate 80 % of what is written out there, the freedom of the press is needed.

What we SHOULD DO is sue, complain, call all officials and tell them that we won't stick up with it.

There are certain tabloids that should be banned, but here's the thing; people like to gossip and they like to read about it. But when the gossip becomes the TRUTH, it is our job to educate yourselves and stop believing everything we read.

When you see someone write "J.a**o for example, send them an email, call them and show them the link from the Daily Show by John Stewart where he address this very subject!!

Don't be afraid to write to the media. No matter what your complaint is. If no one reacts to their way of presenting a case, how will they change?

I believe in change, but I think to ban certain things, we loose our freedom in a way. I believe that eventually, those that speak badly about others for no reason...they have to go home at night too...Eventually, they have to ask themselves; what am I doing?

That whole Susan Boyle thing is stupid. First of all, it looks silly to say WOW, she can sing, just because she doesn't have a certain look. To me, that shows how stupid the people are, not just the media. Sometimes we have to ask ourselves; who's more stupid? The media who's making up the articles or the people who are actually falling for their crap...

Michael should have sued every single one of those tabloid newspapers. Make them pay in gold for their conduct.
Click to expand...

I know! But I also remember him saying "why pay attention to a thing." Maybe he thought that that would have made it even worse.

I really wish he could have sued every tabloid that's out there, but I guess he didn't bother to spend any of his time on it.
 
Last edited:
I disagree marie marie

Well, if anyone watched extras and saw the christmas special
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9df84wyCxQE
it tell's alot of truths about todays media and the absolute mess and chaos in the 'celeb' cultures...

this creation of the word celebrity is a travesty imo...it gives the media justification to hound and scrutinize an actor or a singer or a dancer etc...thats is their profession , not a celebrity...and then on top of that you now have people who just become celebrities...and that is made into a profession...things are really getting out of control rapidly and something must be done for the people in these professions sanity

human beings do like to gossip and know things but WE ARE NOT OBSESSED WITH everything to do with 'celebrities' and have a unsatiable urge to read it all in newspapers....we read it becuse it is there to e read....essentially we are lemmings and sponges that feed off what we are being give...BUT if there as not pages on celebs have ing a bad hair day or getting out of a cab with no knickers or walking their dog or with a myseterious woman..if these things were not reported in the newspaper or the news..WE WOULDN'T CARE...we might be curious and angry for a while but it would pass and i can guarantee people in the world would not be having sleepless nights or making protest about this change..

it is time to get real and not fixate on these immaterial things...the media justifys it all because they think it's what we want..not true...they justify it by saying freedom of the press allows it...yes it does but laws NEED TO CHANGE...every country should have the laws like france and give privacy back to the individual...it took A DEATH for the french to wake up and realise their mistakes...these stories create serious pshychogical damage and or contribute to other 'celebs' death...

things are seriously getting worse and as months, years go on ...more extensions of this mess appear...look at it all in the big pictures now compared to say the 1920's ..of course there was the unnecesasry focus on celebs back then but thats it...look at all the facettes of it now...it is crazy !!!!!!!!!!
things must change and laws must be put in place....the world would not care if they did
 
I am 100% for freedom of the press. But freedom comes with responsibilty and that is what is missing from the majority of articles and items.
 
Freedom of the press has caused so much problems in the past but its an essential thing otherwise we wouldn't know everything we do now.
 
I agree with you, michael4eva. I wasn't thinking about the paparazzi's when I wrote my reply. Yes, that has to go!

And I agree with you, that if it wouldn't be certain sites that are obsessing about celebs, we wouldn't care or miss it. That is the truth.

I just don't think that this will ever go away, that is why I say we have to make the best out of the situation. People are more interesting to read and see pictures of celebs having a bad day or a bad relationship, instead of politics or wars. It goes easy on the mind, and it makes them feel better about themselves:/

Well, that it's how it has become. We see all these airbrushed celebs on posters all over the place, and to see them look like crap, can make us feel better. I've studied this a tiny bit in school, and the subject is hard, because it has become something that is just there.

I just don't think that we should start banning certain things, because, what comes after that, you know?
 
Freedom of the press. I wish though that they had to show confirmation of official sources or something but relaly theres no way of determining if their article is true or fabrication. Then agian u can sue them for libel if slander is printed against you. Freedom all the way. I despise censorship.

And dont be blind to the fact that Michael used the tabloids earlier in his career to create mystery, myth and debate. Unfortunately, it backfired when the journalists saw it as a green card to write whatever they wanted.
 
Why can't it change? Michael was at the fore front of hope of change and that is can /does happen

Nothing is impossible..the world worked before paparazzi
the world functioned before mobile phones..or internet....
these were not essential commoditys to life like water

we can go back to times before...regression is not a sign of no progress...i personally imagine a world where ever actor singer etc on tv or in a papaer..has their say..they decide when their photos can be take...things like premieres and awards shows would always happen..and if you want to turn up..you should prepeare yourself for photos as that would be a given..but if you feel you don't want to show up..your photo isn't papped...if you want to have your life in paparazzi's glare..it should be your choice...some would still want it..that's their choice...some would decline photos outside their house or with friends or family...that is also their choice

essentially these are human beings but becase they are on tv and doing something alot of people in the world watch or listen too..it means they are automtically made to have their whole life on show and analysed like their character on a screen or their music...this should not be the case and there must be a separation
 
It's called private life for a reason. Indeed, people think that they have the right to learning every little detail about them and their excuse is that they chose to be public personalities and famous. That's no excuse. Freedom of press should exist, but how about the freedom of living a life without being hassled by the paparazzi and without having your privacy invaded? Limits exist for a reason.
 
But I think it is a big difference when a newspaper write you are having a bad hair day, from writing about allegations and using things in your life wich has nothing to do with it and try to link them together. To interview people who claim to have dirt on a person.

If the newspaper quotes such people, they're article become facts for the public, and that is where the line must be drawn. No one should ever be judged as a guilty person, just because the media quotes unreliable sources or twist words you use.

We the people have such laws to follow, if I did something like that to my neighbour I could go to jail. But if a newspaper does it, it is just reporting.
 
A president of the USA who is considered one of the greatest, stopped freedom of press for awhile. And that is Abraham Lincoln.
 
I think one law that they should make is that all articles need to name their source. That will probably cut back on a lot of the tabloid-type articles.
 
MusicMan26 said:
I think one law that they should make is that all articles need to name their source. That will probably cut back on a lot of the tabloid-type articles.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is a great law. But then again, many people won't speak out because they want to keep their anonymity-_-

I liked what Hoofmark said: I am 100% for freedom of the press. But freedom comes with responsibilty and that is what is missing from the majority of articles and items.
 
Hoofmark said:
I am 100% for freedom of the press. But freedom comes with responsibilty and that is what is missing from the majority of articles and items.
Click to expand...

Being responsible doesn't = profit sadly. Its a tricky one as the media created this sensationalist output but then it became expected and so now in society there is a huge demand for it. If the demand went though I still don't think they'd stop. Paper sales have gone down so I think they are being even worse to get that headline that grabs people's attention to pick up the paper/mag and buy it or in this day and age click on the website and read it(getting them more clicks and justifying advertising on their site) I despise Rupert Murdoch and the likes of Berlusconi but I do believe in freedom for the press. If we didn't have that then when the police etc... do wrong it wouldn't get reported and that just is another form of corruption. What does worry me though is the police selling stories to the press and doctors. This story about SJP is a case where the police broke into the apartment of their twin's surrogate mum to get a story http://www.accesshollywood.com/poli...essica-parker-surrogate-scandal_article_21213

Its like a catch 22 situation as although I no longer buy tabloid papers or mags I do look at those sites online at times and so the number of clicks go up and so I'm telling them in a way that we want those stories... you can't win. Society really is lacking in morals and values these days and most people act like sheep and don't think outside the box. That has always been the case though before the media became the way it was.
 
Last edited:
I am for freedom of the press but not the paparattzzis, there should be a law the way they come up on your face is not right. They should be given about a mile limit. Someone should stop them from following you asking all kind of rude question. Like what they did Debbie Rowe.
 
Hoofmark said:
I am 100% for freedom of the press. But freedom comes with responsibilty and that is what is missing from the majority of articles and items.
Click to expand...

I agree completely Hoofmark. But the responsibility goes both ways, as does simple respect. That's what's missing more than responsibility IMO. There has always been sensationalism and gossip rags. But here in the US we can blame the lack of respect on the fall of Nixon. That's when what should have been real news became sensationalized entertainment, at the expense of an office that should be respected. After that anyone and anything was fair game. We don't need to know what politician is sleeping with who, it's not our business. But it's entertaining. Also, the steady increase in the sorry state of the world since the 70s has made the general public want to hide its head in the sand.

There are celebrities, then there are Celebrities. Princess Diana was a Celebrity, so was Michael. But if you think about celebrities, only the ones who want to be in the tabloids are. There are many who you never read about, because they do keep their private life private.

The fact is, tabloids wouldn't exist if the public hadn't asked for them in the first place.

Any kind of censorship leads to more. If there were bans on what could be written about celebrities, that would be an open door to suppressing the freedom to criticize the government or the president or anything else.
 
music65 said:
I am for freedom of the press but not the paparattzzis, there should be a law the way they come up on your face is not right. They should be given about a mile limit. Someone should stop them from following you asking all kind of rude question. Like what they did Debbie Rowe.
Click to expand...

Again the demand makes them do that and the large amount of cash they are offered sadly. I think I remember hearing that the pap who took that crude pic of Britney with no underwear on got $500,000 for the pic. I do agree with you and I definitely think countries should make it against the law for paps to take photos through an ambulance window!
 
ScreamER71 said:
There are celebrities, then there are Celebrities. Princess Diana was a Celebrity, so was Michael. But if you think about celebrities, only the ones who want to be in the tabloids are. There are many who you never read about, because they do keep their private life private.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on some points as you don't see some other big stars lives splashed all over the paps often say like Bruce Springsteen, yes some has been in the papers but not ALL the time. I just think Michael's celebrity was on a level above that. Also some say that celebs want to be famous so what do they expect but just like I'm not judging him for any prescription drugs he 'may' have taken recently I also won't judge him for the exposure his life got not just because he got into it at a young age because even if he had got into it later I don't think anyone is fully prepared for how mad the paps really are until they are living the life - if you get what I mean? I know I was warbling on a bit there lol
 
Well let me give you guys an example.

In Norway wich is a small country, the tabloids were using paparazzi pictures to write stories. This lead to the kind of chaos we see in the news today. You took a picture, sold it to the magazine and they created a story.

But celebrities quickly reacted to this, and there were court cases. In the end, the government passed laws that prohibits a magazine using pictures taken by paparazzis to write a story. Not only that, it became illegal for a paparazzi to follow a celebrity around while they were doing normal day things.

If they want to take pictures, they have to ask the person who is famous first, and then the magazine must ask the celebrity if they can write a story.

This applies only when people are not doing public things, but are just simply outside walking to the store or whatever. This law also applies to none celebrities. I myself have experienced this. Whenever I did an interview or was being filmed, they always ask me if it is ok to use the footage or picture for a story.

If Norway can do it, so can everyone else. This law did not prohibit freedom of press and at the same time protects an individuals right to privacy.

I used to work in a store in a place in Oslo where a lot of celebrities live. High profile celebrities, politicians etc. Not once did I see any paparazzi lurking around waiting for a scoop, thanks to this law.
 
myfavouritewintercoat said:
I agree with you on some points as you don't see some other big stars lives splashed all over the paps often say like Bruce Springsteen, yes some has been in the papers but not ALL the time. I just think Michael's celebrity was on a level above that. Also some say that celebs want to be famous so what do they expect but just like I'm not judging him for any prescription drugs he 'may' have taken recently I also won't judge him for the exposure his life got not just because he got into it at a young age because even if he had got into it later I don't think anyone is fully prepared for how mad the paps really are until they are living the life - if you get what I mean? I know I was warbling on a bit there lol
Click to expand...

That's what I was saying, his celebrity was on a higher level-that's why I used the "C".
Actually I do think they should expect the attention, at least to some degree. They know if they get famous, the paps will try everything they can. I'm not saying they want it, but they should know it'll happen and at least try to be emotionally prepared for it.
And yes I'm with you-I'd never presume to judge Michael for anything.
 
K.O.S. said:
Well let me give you guys an example.

In Norway wich is a small country, the tabloids were using paparazzi pictures to write stories. This lead to the kind of chaos we see in the news today. You took a picture, sold it to the magazine and they created a story.

But celebrities quickly reacted to this, and there were court cases. In the end, the government passed laws that prohibits a magazine using pictures taken by paparazzis to write a story. Not only that, it became illegal for a paparazzi to follow a celebrity around while they were doing normal day things.

If they want to take pictures, they have to ask the person who is famous first, and then the magazine must ask the celebrity if they can write a story.

This applies only when people are not doing public things, but are just simply outside walking to the store or whatever. This law also applies to none celebrities. I myself have experienced this. Whenever I did an interview or was being filmed, they always ask me if it is ok to use the footage or picture for a story.

If Norway can do it, so can everyone else. This law did not prohibit freedom of press and at the same time protects an individuals right to privacy.

I used to work in a store in a place in Oslo where a lot of celebrities live. High profile celebrities, politicians etc. Not once did I see any paparazzi lurking around waiting for a scoop, thanks to this law.
Click to expand...

This is a great example of the respect owed to the individual, not censorship. Your original post questioned freedom of the press and/or censorship, not permission to use a picture or likeness, I was just responding to that.
It's a great law-I just doubt it'll ever be applied here in the States
 
ScreamER71 said:
This is a great example of the respect owed to the individual, not censorship. Your original post questioned freedom of the press and/or censorship, not permission to use a picture or likeness, I was just responding to that.
It's a great law-I just doubt it'll ever be applied here in the States
Click to expand...

Well we also have restrictions as how far the media can go in accusing someone of anything.

If a public figure is accused of some crime, the media has some rules to follow. If and when they would start speculation about aspects that is not related to the story, then the person involved will be able to sue the newspaper and the penalty is harsh. That made all newspapers be very careful with how they write their stories. If the story somehow implied that the person involved was guilty or something like that, when the subject of the story was not related in anyway they would not go with it, in fear of harsh retaliation.

It could be viewed as censorship, but in practical terms it would not be, because a court of law would have to make that judgement based on evidence.

Like when Neverland was portrayed as a place to entice children, that would be enough for MJ to sue and the newspaper writing this would be punished in a court of law.

I think you can do that in the US, so I really don't understand why MJ didn't do something sooner. He could have worked up his reputation as someone, if you slander them unfairly expect to be sued and loose everything you got.

It is like dealing with the bully who picks on you. If you punch him real hard in the face, he won't touch you again.
 
Freedom of press is not a singularity by itself, it's part of a principal based on freedom of expression. So your question can be answered quite easily, I'll look at the countries that DON'T have these privileges and what situation they are in, then I'll compare. NOPE, no trading for me thanks.
 
Sifa_Dias said:
Freedom of press is not a singularity by itself, it's part of a principal based on freedom of expression. So your question can be answered quite easily, I'll look at the countries that DON'T have these privileges and what situation they are in, then I'll compare. NOPE, no trading for me thanks.
Click to expand...

Well there is something called a middleground here. If the newsmedia slanders you so that everywhere you go people look at you as some freak, then it is clear that a court of law can rule that a newspaper pay the penalty for doing this. It would not mean you are censoring them, because they still have the opportunity to slander you, make innuendos, twist words to make you look bad, and if you should decide to sue, a court of law can rule that the stories did not ad any truth, did not consider evidence, and did not care about the effects it would have on you.

To make such a law work, you have to have strict penalties. The goal is to discourage newspapers from writing such things. They will have to much to loose and won't take the risk. That is what we did in Norway, and it worked. No one is complaining about it, not even the media. Yes they now lost an easy way to make money but that is irrelevant.

But I am not saying that a law should state "You can say that, but you can't say this". Not at all. But if what you say is a lie, and that little story destroys a person life, then one should be punished for it. That is not censorship, that is justice.
 
K.O.S. said:
Yeah it used to be a good idea, to prevent a government from censoring a newspaper.

That was in the old days, before newspapers made profit from being a celebrity tabloid.
Then came the british newspapers and the tabloid concept of today was born.

Now these leeches and vultures have pissed on journalistic integrity and freedom of the press.
I think it is time for governments to create some restrictions for the media, when regarding writing about citizens.

It has been tried before, but the press people always use the freedom of the press card to get out of jail, so to speak.

Either they do that, or people are gonna have to pay some muscle to beat the living shit out of a reporter if he or she slanders you in the media.

Even I myself have been used by the media, after MJ's death. I did several interviews and my quotes have been twisted and used in other contexts wich has nothing to do with what I said.

Omer Bhatti is going through hell now because of those vultures.

Michaels kids will never be safe because of this.

Princess Diana died because of tabloids. MJ was pushed over the edge by media slander.

Who is next in line, before someone puts a stop to this?

The only reason why governments are not doing anything, is because the people are not doing anything.

I think it is time society speak up. Tabloid news media serves society no purpose.

It should not be allowed to be as free as it is today.

Let them have freedom of the press and write real news and talk about politics and politicians. But they should not be allowed to abuse people who are not in government.

Michael should have sued every single one of those tabloid newspapers. Make them pay in gold for their conduct.

If Michael did that, then writing some slander about him would mean be ready to pay everything you own to Michael. That would have worked. Instead he chose the high road and remained silent. I understand him, but at the same time I don't agree. If that was me, I would destroy the people who tarnish my good name.

What we can do is sign petitions to the governments in our countries, get more people to sign and let them know we as citizens do not feel comfortable or safe with reporters around who as soon as they find out you know something or might know something, have the right to turn your life upside down. Just look at Susan Boyle. She was so not ready for that media circus and the media knew it. They did it anyway.

When news reporting gets people killed, the limit has been reached. I am outraged how such events can go without something being done. Simply outraged.
Click to expand...

worst thread of all time! thumbs down!! The laws regarding the press are PERFECT!!!!! Absolutely perfect as in no room for improvement. As soon as you restrict it people take advantage of those restrictions and use it to their advantage to hide behind.

sorry guys we all love MJ but some things like freedom and democracy are a thousand times more important! People take their fandom too seriously and this is extremist! To suggest taking away the free press.

If you truly are opposed to a free press then you should move to Saudi Arabia or Iran where in addition to not having a free press it's also illegal to dance.
 
Last edited:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -a phrase, widely attributed to Voltaire, was made up by Beatrice Hall, in her 1907 book Friends of Voltaire writing under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre.
 
freedom of press ? YES!!
unconfirmed or anonymous sources? NO!!!!
we live in an age of information technology that allows all of us to basically be journalists or reporters per say. all that needs is for us to call ourselves one.
now there are ethical journalists.. i am sure there are some. very few. but the vast majority people aren't ethical. they don't care about making false statements (some celebrities have sued and won character assassinations or false reports). in these cases some tabloid magazines settle a civil case or retract a story..... but they don't pay for it by going to prison. they should.
I believe we need freedom of press, but i think there should be an organization that should monitor reporters, and the press. so when they come up with false stories, if it can be proven then they should pay.. like go to prison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top