“Media freedom” from the facts and interpretations of the factual condition


I am presently not connected with the Republican or Democratic Party. I am forging my own political theory to serve the word from a right direction.If media are highly politicized from one ideology to some other. I hold my own judgment to write here. As a professional degree holder in journalism and economics, I harbor a different thought on media freedom. Harbor means to fetch something or someone to safety. How can any media do that with “politics? ” My argument here is yes Media is being slanting the news to favor politics, just as media can slant the news (facts and interpretations of the facts) to discredit politics. Both are biased (untruthful) reporting. Unbiased (truthful) reporting means reporting the facts about the issues not only picking out those facts that fit the reporter’s and editor’s prejudices, while ignoring the others.

Likewise, reporting faulty interpretations of the facts (illogical cause-effect relationships) is harmful for the same reason. Most media do that all the time, in part so that their readers and advertisers will continue to read and finance them. Academicians who write in professional journals are a little more truthful than the media because they are under the scrutiny of their mates and not under advertising pressure. In the conclusion, it’s hard for me to find an unbiased book on the subject that is, all the facts and logical interpretations of them.

In summary, reporting favorable or unfavorable untruths about something is useful; it just throws people and causes them to take erroneous actions based on incorrect information.

It’s difficult for ordinary people to get at the truth through the media, but most of us have no alternative. If we are ambitious, all we can do is read a lot of media, books and journals and perform the best we can to get at the verity.

A press, or media in general, if it remains somewhat objective is the only means the citizenry can see what is happening in the politics? The more objective press (media), the more serious, because what one press fails to describe, a competitor will.

The only justification I can think of for forbidding a particular press to publish is when it loses its objectivity so much that its articles are lies by any standard, or at least gross distortions from the truth by any standard.

No one in this world can teach me what is a media freedom all about? What is so magical about democracy? I recollect, the media should have both a right and a duty to report fully in the pursuit of the public’s right to know. And to encourage openness, informed argument. It should not be one sided.

Much of Asia’s South Asian and some Nepali media are either partisan or outright controlled by, for example, the government, political party or political leadership. Dr Raman Raj Misras said “I can see the number of newspapers, magazines, TV stations and radio stations has increased, both with foreign and domestic investments. Aside from commercial media there are also political media. That is, those financed and run by several political interests and individual politicians. And of course, the Government, media, as before, also survives. Each of these types of media, are used news and views of benefit to the respective controller’s or investor’s respective interests.

I am talking close to certain media here. Their event has had the benefit of providing different and at times opposing messages, enabling the consumers to make choices. To some extent, skepticism among the media-consumers of the news and views provided has also been identified”. He further argued “Particularly due to partisan presentations. Due to costly and lengthy litigation process in the world, acts of willful defamation and character assassinations of individuals by some media sources have also tended not to be ground out. Media may be able to take on that role, if and when freedom, is achieved. But currently not the commercial and independent media, but politicized media seem to be more of a hindrance in reaching national consensus leading towards democracy.

A Scholar Dr. Misras said ” As I understand enhanced capacity of whatever media is necessary to head up or seek changes in the existing political relation. A nation divided, dependent, and with dubious politicians is not in any position to recommend any such modifications. Except, of course, it’s concerned citizens can attempt to use the “weapons of the weak”, by appeals for justice, fairness, and redress from the adverse effects of politics to create favorable world opinion. And for the long run, collective endeavors to reduce vulnerability must be sought, as well as remove other forms of national deficiencies.

As it is said: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. And then the people may even recommend or advise, but it is we, who may have to endure the consequences of such advices. This can similarly apply to politics. In any case, externally imposed or delivered “artificial freedom”, may not be genuine and may not be lasting or sustainable.

Misra said “Such opportune time and circumstance can only exist, when formidable resistance from all sides is met with the media and their mentors are drawn.
Copyright mediaforfreedom.com