Comments on: Blue House Slams PD Diary Over “Freedom of the Press” Claims http://rokdrop.com/2009/06/20/blue-house-slams-pd-diary-over-freedom-of-the-press-claims/ Korea From North to South Sat, 26 May 2012 18:30:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Scott Stout http://rokdrop.com/2009/06/20/blue-house-slams-pd-diary-over-freedom-of-the-press-claims/comment-page-1/#comment-339597 Scott Stout Sun, 21 Jun 2009 06:52:08 +0000 http://rokdrop.com/?p=14269#comment-339597 The American government certainly has done its share of policing the media over the years. Up until 1987 the FCC enforced the "Fairness Doctrine" which would exactly address issues such as MBC PD Notebook's shoddy and politically motivated mad-cow journalism. In 1987, the FCC revoced the doctrine, siting concerns of free-speech violation. Every couple of years, congress considers re-instituting some sibling version of the original fairness doctrine, but thusfar such a re-institution hasn't come into fruition. It seems to me that Mr. Lee is conflating freedom of the press with freedom of speech. Although they sometimes intersect, these freedoms are not the same. A 15-year old girl holding up a placard is not the same as a multi-billion dollar public broadcasting company airing a politically motivated, fabricated, and flagrantly false story with the intent of instigating a public outcry. Freedom of the press is granted, through licensing agreements, to certain individuals and companies to broadcast to the exclusion of other parties. It is this element of exclusion which makes the issue a little sticky. Basically, because PD Notebook exercises its right to produce whatever it likes, and MBC is licensed by the government to broadcast whatever and whenever it likes, other parties’ voices necessarily go unheard, or at least less-heard. Such a right is a privilege afforded to the broadcasting government by the people via licensing contract with the government. Freedom of the press is a privilege – and an important one – but it is not a human right, as is freedom of speech. Neither freedom of the press, nor freedom of speech absolves the broadcaster or speaker from ultimate responsibility for their words. Because of the exclusion principal, broadcasters must be held to a higher ethical standard than individual citizens. The American government certainly has done its share of policing the media over the years. Up until 1987 the FCC enforced the "Fairness Doctrine" which would exactly address issues such as MBC PD Notebook's shoddy and politically motivated mad-cow journalism. In 1987, the FCC revoced the doctrine, siting concerns of free-speech violation. Every couple of years, congress considers re-instituting some sibling version of the original fairness doctrine, but thusfar such a re-institution hasn't come into fruition.

It seems to me that Mr. Lee is conflating freedom of the press with freedom of speech. Although they sometimes intersect, these freedoms are not the same. A 15-year old girl holding up a placard is not the same as a multi-billion dollar public broadcasting company airing a politically motivated, fabricated, and flagrantly false story with the intent of instigating a public outcry.

Freedom of the press is granted, through licensing agreements, to certain individuals and companies to broadcast to the exclusion of other parties. It is this element of exclusion which makes the issue a little sticky. Basically, because PD Notebook exercises its right to produce whatever it likes, and MBC is licensed by the government to broadcast whatever and whenever it likes, other parties’ voices necessarily go unheard, or at least less-heard. Such a right is a privilege afforded to the broadcasting government by the people via licensing contract with the government. Freedom of the press is a privilege – and an important one – but it is not a human right, as is freedom of speech.

Neither freedom of the press, nor freedom of speech absolves the broadcaster or speaker from ultimate responsibility for their words. Because of the exclusion principal, broadcasters must be held to a higher ethical standard than individual citizens.

]]> By: gerry http://rokdrop.com/2009/06/20/blue-house-slams-pd-diary-over-freedom-of-the-press-claims/comment-page-1/#comment-339339 gerry Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:21:18 +0000 http://rokdrop.com/?p=14269#comment-339339 I have no problem over laws to regulate the media. The media is often dishonest in what they report and why they report what they do. The problem lies with politicians who must make the laws and are as dishonest in the laws they make and why they make them. It would be nice if everyone were honest, and made laws in the interest of the people as well as reporting those stories that inform people as to the merits or demerits of each law. But, money speaks louder than truth, therefore money and its source will largely win over both honesty and truth. Its the human thing we have to deal with. I have no problem over laws to regulate the media. The media is often dishonest in what they report and why they report what they do.

The problem lies with politicians who must make the laws and are as dishonest in the laws they make and why they make them.

It would be nice if everyone were honest, and made laws in the interest of the people as well as reporting those stories that inform people as to the merits or demerits of each law.

But, money speaks louder than truth, therefore money and its source will largely win over both honesty and truth. Its the human thing we have to deal with.

]]>