• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

[POLL] 1/3 of US Students Think the Press has too Much Freedom

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Look at what we're teaching them. School papers are all censored, random UA's are allowed, armed guards in our schools, random searches of persons and property allowed, etc. I predict that drug-sniffing dogs will become commonplace in our schools in the next decade.

We are teaching our children that freedom is bad. Oh, we rally the cry of freedom, etc., but our actions say that freedom is too risky to be allowed. We are also teaching our children that infringing upon the freedom of others without cause is perfectly acceptable, that if we don't like the harmless behaviors or beliefs of others that it is okay to make those behaviors or beliefs illegal.

I've said it before I will say it again, Eric Blair was a prophet.
 
As far as war-time reporting goes:
Anything that could damage national security should be classified Secret or higher. Anything with a classification of Secret or higher should NEVER be seen by anyone without proper clearance. That's exactly how the classification system works, "could result in some damage to national security" I believe is the description of Secret material. If reporters are getting information that is deemed Secret, there is a problem with the security in whatever military installation or deployment the info came from that needs to be dealt with.
I can definitely tell you that if I had let any classified info out when I was in the military, and it had been traced to me, they would have had my ass on a pike.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Look at what we're teaching them. School papers are all censored, random UA's are allowed, armed guards in our schools, random searches of persons and property allowed, etc. I predict that drug-sniffing dogs will become commonplace in our schools in the next decade.

We are teaching our children that freedom is bad. Oh, we rally the cry of freedom, etc., but our actions say that freedom is too risky to be allowed. We are also teaching our children that infringing upon the freedom of others without cause is perfectly acceptable, that if we don't like the harmless behaviors or beliefs of others that it is okay to make those behaviors or beliefs illegal.

I've said it before I will say it again, Eric Blair was a prophet.
Click to expand...

I've never looked at it like that but you're right. I've just taken it at face value that we need more security, but I've never really thought that the generation after mine will find it so commonplace that they won't realize what freedoms are gone.
 
Originally posted by: Vespasian
One-third of any population is going to have crazy opinions. Big deal. :roll:
Click to expand...

This is a big deal. That a full 1/3 of our population would consider one of the cornerstone freedoms of our nation is "bad" is shocking.
 
Originally posted by: maddogchen
Its High School people. Don't get too worked up. When they go off to college they start questioning everything they are taught.
Click to expand...

We should be so lucky. Too many don't, and simply accept whatever drivel their instructors might spew forth. Too many instructors are more interested in teaching students what to think rather than how to think.
 
Well, that's what you get for asking high school students...:roll:

Might as well ask a baskeball player about foreign policy while you're at it.
 
And to think that when I was in HS, we were so unhappy with the editing job on one of my articles, we started an underground paper so we could run the unedited version... the times they are a changin'
 
I don't get all worked up over what high school students think about anything. They aren't qualified to think quite frankly. They should stick to learning. They'll figure out in about 10 years that they didn't really have even half of a fvcking clue when they were in high school.

Brain eating zombies would starve to death in your average high school.
 
Originally posted by: aplefka
I've never looked at it like that but you're right. I've just taken it at face value that we need more security, but I've never really thought that the generation after mine will find it so commonplace that they won't realize what freedoms are gone.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Slippery slope is real. It just takes at least a generation to occur.
 
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I don't get all worked up over what high school students think about anything. They aren't qualified to think quite frankly. They should stick to learning. They'll figure out in about 10 years that they didn't really have even half of a fvcking clue when they were in high school.

Brain eating zombies would starve to death in your average high school.
Click to expand...

One of the points of primary education is to teach children the basic values of this country. That involves teaching them about the Bill of Rights and drilling it into their head what each one means and how it is applied.

This is an obvious case of how much of our education system is failing to teach even the most basic material.
 
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I don't get all worked up over what high school students think about anything. They aren't qualified to think quite frankly. They should stick to learning. They'll figure out in about 10 years that they didn't really have even half of a fvcking clue when they were in high school.

Brain eating zombies would starve to death in your average high school.
Click to expand...

While I tend to agree with your posts, I disagree with you here. I hate people with this attitude. I'm 16, and I've got a lot of friends who are either in their 3rd/4th year at college or graduated, so I've always been ahead as far as paying attention to what goes on in the real world. Whenever I try to voice my opinions on things, regardless of how strong or sensible they are, people brush them off because I'm 16.

I'm not saying that what you say isn't incorrect, because I agree that MOST high school students don't have a fvcking clue, but you've gotta try to at least find the few that have a semblance of a clue, and are willing to learn more, because otherwise you'll turn them off from it.

But yes, whenever politics or a major national issue comes up, I try not to talk about it with my friends from school, because they're fvcking morons.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Look at what we're teaching them. School papers are all censored, random UA's are allowed, armed guards in our schools, random searches of persons and property allowed, etc. I predict that drug-sniffing dogs will become commonplace in our schools in the next decade.

We are teaching our children that freedom is bad. Oh, we rally the cry of freedom, etc., but our actions say that freedom is too risky to be allowed. We are also teaching our children that infringing upon the freedom of others without cause is perfectly acceptable, that if we don't like the harmless behaviors or beliefs of others that it is okay to make those behaviors or beliefs illegal.

I've said it before I will say it again, Eric Blair was a prophet.
Click to expand...

School papers don't have to be censored. Principals are entitled to prior review if they choose, but many leave it to the students' and advisor's discretion.

I can't say I'm surprised by this report. The media has done a wonderful job of discrediting itself to the point where long-trusted sources such as CBS and the New York Times are no longer completely credible. The phrase "liberal media" has become a four-letter word, due in part to the media's self-inflicted wounds and part to a very vocal right wing.

Just look at the number of replies to this thread that confused limiting access with censoring content. If the folks here don't know the difference, how can you expect high school students to?
 
Originally posted by: DurocShark
WTF???? Who voted the Yes options?!?!?!?!?!?
Click to expand...

I'm sure all the people who confused access control with content control did. Then you can add in a couple smart asses and a couple people who just screwed up.

And maybe a fascist or two.
 
Alright, after further thought, here's my analysis of the problem. Simply put, there are too many media outlets today and too much media also. What is needed is an independent group that rates or classifies the separate media outlets based on certain criteria. Some of those things should be: fairness in reporting, accuracy, timeliness, historical accuracy, credentials of reporters, income statements, etc.

Sound crazy? Well part of the problem in my opinion is that there's all this media and no real way to know what is correct and honest anymore. Everything seems to have a slant, everything has an agenda. Money often dictates how a story is written along with personal politics and favor for the story to appear one way or the other. There should be some type of agency that ensures that the various media outlets report with some degree of authenticity and/or accuracy. Does any such organization exist now?
 
It's a backlash against the non-news that our media is currently engaged in. Journalism is dead.

BTW this is not an advocation of the idea, just a statement of how the younger generations view the press. The press has lost respect because real journalism died.
 
Originally posted by: Rogue
Alright, after further thought, here's my analysis of the problem. Simply put, there are too many media outlets today and too much media also. What is needed is an independent group that rates or classifies the separate media outlets based on certain criteria. Some of those things should be: fairness in reporting, accuracy, timeliness, historical accuracy, credentials of reporters, income statements, etc.

Sound crazy? Well part of the problem in my opinion is that there's all this media and no real way to know what is correct and honest anymore. Everything seems to have a slant, everything has an agenda. Money often dictates how a story is written along with personal politics and favor for the story to appear one way or the other. There should be some type of agency that ensures that the various media outlets report with some degree of authenticity and/or accuracy. Does any such organization exist now?
Click to expand...

Rogue, if you did some research you would find that there is the exact opposite: too LITTLE media outlets and not enough media diversity. Primarily in the last decade there has been great unraveling of the safeguards in place preventing media conglomeration (and recently due to that FCC tool, Michael Powell) and there are huge media companies capable of reaching, in some cases, nearly half of the United States. Look at news articles and you'll find even less diversity as one reporter's article is recycled to produce material for ten others. If anything, we need more regulation of media ownership in this country, because frankly, it's getting ridiculous...nobody knows what is going on anymore.

I've found that turning to foreign media sources to get alternative viewpoints is most helpful to offset the obvious slant with which domestic news sources present information (plus, it's all recycled!).

Google News is a good place to find a series of articles on any topic.

Also, Rogue, it's worth mentioning that objectivity in the world is not to be found, anywhere. For crying out loud, sociological exammination of medicine and science has shown that even these two fields are not to be trusted for their touted "objective truth." After all, these are the same fields that were telling us things in the early 20th century which are today plainly absurd.
 
Originally posted by: Rogue
Alright, after further thought, here's my analysis of the problem. Simply put, there are too many media outlets today and too much media also. What is needed is an independent group that rates or classifies the separate media outlets based on certain criteria. Some of those things should be: fairness in reporting, accuracy, timeliness, historical accuracy, credentials of reporters, income statements, etc.

Sound crazy? Well part of the problem in my opinion is that there's all this media and no real way to know what is correct and honest anymore. Everything seems to have a slant, everything has an agenda. Money often dictates how a story is written along with personal politics and favor for the story to appear one way or the other. There should be some type of agency that ensures that the various media outlets report with some degree of authenticity and/or accuracy. Does any such organization exist now?
Click to expand...

Actually, what is surprising me here is that people think this is something new.

There have always been tabloids and sensationalism.
 
Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Originally posted by: Rogue
Alright, after further thought, here's my analysis of the problem. Simply put, there are too many media outlets today and too much media also. What is needed is an independent group that rates or classifies the separate media outlets based on certain criteria. Some of those things should be: fairness in reporting, accuracy, timeliness, historical accuracy, credentials of reporters, income statements, etc.

Sound crazy? Well part of the problem in my opinion is that there's all this media and no real way to know what is correct and honest anymore. Everything seems to have a slant, everything has an agenda. Money often dictates how a story is written along with personal politics and favor for the story to appear one way or the other. There should be some type of agency that ensures that the various media outlets report with some degree of authenticity and/or accuracy. Does any such organization exist now?
Click to expand...

Rogue, if you did some research you would find that there is the exact opposite: too LITTLE media outlets and not enough media diversity. Primarily in the last decade there has been great unraveling of the safeguards in place preventing media conglomeration (and recently due to that FCC tool, Michael Powell) and there are huge media companies capable of reaching, in some cases, nearly half of the United States. Look at news articles and you'll find even less diversity as one reporter's article is recycled to produce material for ten others. If anything, we need more regulation of media ownership in this country, because frankly, it's getting ridiculous...nobody knows what is going on anymore.

I've found that turning to foreign media sources to get alternative viewpoints is most helpful to offset the obvious slant with which domestic news sources present information (plus, it's all recycled!).

Google News is a good place to find a series of articles on any topic.
Click to expand...

Actually, you're exactly right. My thoughts are backwards today as I typically rail against the major media outlets (Fox, CNN, ABC, etc.). I was too focused on blogs, forums, etc. as media outlets also. And Amused is right, what passes as the "evening news" is much closer to a tabloid today than it was 10 or 15 years ago.

I also do the same as you in the way of news source variety. I regularly check BBC, read the local newspaper (which is still fairly decent around here anyway) and am strongly considering checking out Al Jazeera more frequently if for no other reason than to tip the scales. Sorry for the confusion, I was fixing a firewall problem and typing at the same time. 😉
 
Originally posted by: Amused

Why are so many people becoming so scared of freedom?
Click to expand...

Because responsiblity ensues.
Originally posted by: Vic
I predict that drug-sniffing dogs will become commonplace in our schools in the next decade.
Click to expand...

That was commonplace in my HS several years ago. They came through about 1/week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top