Skip to content

Blogging for Tuesday’s recitations

September 19, 2011

This week’s lectures, tied to Constitution Day (Sept. 17) will focus on journalists and the First Amendment. For your blog posts in Prof. Cifatte’s classes, respond to this idea:

Some years ago, a survey revealed that most Americans were opposed to a a Constitutional amendment that would prohibit Congress from restricting freedom of the press. Survey respondents said they found such an idea dangerous; that the press required restrictions to prevent it from excesses and irresponsible reporting, even if that meant the government would have to regulate or license journalists. Based on your understanding and without having to research the matter, how free do you think the U.S. media — newspapers, broadcast, online — ought to be?

29 Comments leave one →
  1. Sheilla Dumel permalink
    September 19, 2011 10:59 am

    Well i think that the amendments’ impact on media freedoms and free speech are among the greatest changes outlined in the proposal, media practitioners. meaning like everyone else the U.S. media, newspaper, broadcast and online should be able to freely express themselves in a behavior manner. Reporters should become familiar with the scope of their state’s privilege to withhold confidential sources and information. when giving a reporter something such as that to work with does not give the any privilege to what to say or do. why not just let is all out be fair to every body.

  2. Laureen Esposito permalink
    September 19, 2011 11:03 am

    I firmly believe that the media has the right to tell the truth and the whole truth. I do not believe that it should be censored or sugar coated. Journalist these days get a better response when their post are cut throat and to the point. I don’t think that they should have limitations as far as what is too much. I think that it is in the first ammendment for freedom of speech and that no one should be able to take that away along with freedom of press. Think about it how would you feel if they took away the first ammendment? I think America wouldn’t be able to handle such a switch.

  3. Arcadia Hauquitz permalink
    September 19, 2011 11:46 am

    I think it should be completely free. The job of the press is to report news and dig into things that make people/government uncomfortable in order to keep them honest. If the press were suddenly restricted in what they could and could not report it would hurt their credibility because it would give the impression of being in some ones pocket. It is important for our democracy that the press be allowed to report on anything because it helps keep the people informed and the government from doing anything too outlandish.

  4. Andrew Yelich permalink
    September 19, 2011 1:18 pm

    They should be able to say what they want and if you don’t like it don’t read it or don’t listen.

  5. Brent Atteberry permalink
    September 19, 2011 1:26 pm

    I believe that the laws in place at present are sufficient. I believe that journalists should be allowed to be as harsh as they want as long as they do not spread libel and slander. I believe that journalistic integrity and transparency are the best ways to keep a check on journalists. If a company, organization, or journalist has been found to be spreading lies or using illicit means to gain information. then they should be punished as the current laws see fit. I believe that media companies do a good job of managing what is and is not appropriate to put on television or in print. I believe broadcast television should remain regulated and cable, print, and the internet should remain unregulated. I believe that people should use their own critical thinking to research information to discover what is false and what is not. I believe the system in place works well and that further intervention would be an unwise decision and that the American people would not be in favor of such an idea.

  6. Natalie permalink
    September 19, 2011 2:10 pm

    I believe that the media such as the newspaper, magazines and news post , has the right to tell the truth and not filter anything out and give out misleading information. I do not believe that it should be censored. Journalist should write about true facts and let the people know what is going on in the world. I don’t think that they should have limitations to what they should and shouldn’t write about. It is in the first amendment for freedom of speech and that no one should be able to take that away along with freedom of press. The first amendment is very important in this world. We should all have the freedom of speech and to say what we want to say. The amendment should go towards the media press as well. Everything should be about what you want to write about not being limited.

  7. Erica permalink
    September 19, 2011 2:41 pm

    What the press informs us should not be restricted by Congress. People need to know the entire truth about events and they put their trust in journalists to give it to them. When journalists post harsh details about events, they are practicing their freedom of speech and freedom of press. People look into the news to find out all the details and the truth. Restrictions should not be enforced preventing journalists from providing this.

  8. Melissa Bognaski permalink
    September 19, 2011 3:28 pm

    I believe that the US media should be looked out for, by Congress. Freedom to express one’s self, and to report findings, is fundamental and the backbone to our society, but we need to make sure that the press remains trustworthy and informative. Journalism can be seen as an art form that needs to be studied, rehearsed, and performed by those truly invested. Licensing journalists is a good idea. The media travels fast and is a part of everyone’s lives. It would be refreshing to know that all the press was only handled by professionals. Americans rely on news and they shouldn’t have to be constantly questioning the validity of it.

  9. Paige Lukert permalink
    September 19, 2011 4:12 pm

    I feel as though the media should be as free as it gets. I want my news and my information to be real and true. I don’t want anything held back or sugar coated. I also don’t want pointless things in my news, like grandma’s 105th birthday. I’m sorry, but those things aren’t interesting to an entire public population. I want real hard FREE news.

  10. Michael Bridges permalink
    September 19, 2011 4:36 pm

    The right of a journalist to give clear, unadulterated, uncensored truth about an event is the cornerstone of journalism, and I believe quite strongly that restrictions should not be placed on them. We deserve the right, as citizens of this country, to be able to access the hard truth about certain situations, and if we choose not to read/watch this hard-hitting journalism, then we have the right to switch to another source. However, journalists should have the right to record unfiltered truth about the events they’re covering.

  11. Aleksandr Skop permalink
    September 19, 2011 4:38 pm

    I believe that such laws would be the first step to tyrrany. A free press is in my opinion the cornerstone on which democracies can exist, and regulating journalists is a practice of totalitarian regimes. Being from Ukraine, our current oppresive regime (Yanukovich and his Part of Regions) first bought out or eliminated any source of media that was against him, and now our citizens face serious punishment for any form of negative commentary of him or his administration. Abolition of the free press is the first step to a police state, simply take a look at the “democracies” of the post-USSR for an example.

    • Aleksandr Skop permalink
      September 19, 2011 4:39 pm

      Party* of Regions

  12. Katherine Evans permalink
    September 19, 2011 5:06 pm

    I believe that the government should not be involved with filtering and demanding what should and should not be allowed in the U.S. media. If you cross that line, where will it stop? Will Congress regulate journalists to write only positive things about the government? Once you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile. Journalists and readers should keep each other accountable for the distribution of truth in the media. Journalists should pride themselves in presenting the full truth. Bringing Congress into will only destroy our freedom of speech.

  13. Nathan Ingham permalink
    September 19, 2011 5:35 pm

    In my opinion they should be able to do and say whatever they want as long as they’re not breaking any network rules and/or laws. If they are telling the truth I have no problem with them picking sides and “preaching” it on the air. They also have to recognize if what they are saying is unanimously disliked by the population they will lose viewers. I believe as long as the truth is told and they are not wrongfully accusing anyone of something that may have the ability to ruin the person in questions reputation then it is ok. If someone is convicted of murder there is no problem with them giving their 2 cents about it; just ask Nancy Grace. Although I will say it again the truth is MANDATORY. In my opinion it isn’t what the media is saying that’s the problem but when what the media is saying is not true….. that is when people start getting upset. With all that being said some news casts will be more more censored and some won’t be and it is the viewers discretion to pick what he or she likes.

    -Nathan Ingham

  14. Sarah Lappen permalink
    September 19, 2011 5:36 pm

    I believe that media and the press should have almost complete freedom aside from basic guidelines that restrict networks from airing offensive language and images at particular times. I think that investigative journalism and media are what prevent government corruption and expose fraud, unfair treatment and abuse of power that can occur within society. Without it those people in power would be able to do as they pleased with no risk of public exposure. Monitoring the press could have dangerous consequences.

  15. Samantha Jodice permalink
    September 19, 2011 5:58 pm

    With the amount of graphic and violent news that is floating around our world today, I believe it should be necessary for the government to be able to regulate our newspapers, broadcasts, and online articles, but only to a certain extent. With the ample accessibility of news, we never know who is viewing what we put out there on public stations and how it will effect them. For example, we wouldn’t want a small child to be watching a media broadcast or perceiving a news article explaining in deep detail a sex scandal that may have to do with a politician. The government should be able to regulate how much graphic detail goes into a story and analyze its credibility before it is published for the world to see. If a journalist or a broadcaster comes across a story that they believe people must hear, and all the small, maybe explicit details are crucial in order to get the affect and meaning of what is happening to the public, than they should somehow display the story for the appropriate audience at a time or place that the people will understand that the material that is to be presented may not be suited for a younger audience or someone who can not personally watch or hear about disturbing situations. A perfect example of bringing this awareness to the audience would be when they display the message of warning right before a show such as Law and Order, that it may not be intended for all viewers and small kids may need an adult with them.

  16. Matt Weaver permalink
    September 19, 2011 6:05 pm

    Media and Journalists are free to say whatever they please, however they should not be allowed to outright lie or misconstrue the truth completely. There needs to be some form of regulation, not a lot or total control, but something in place to make sure people can be held accountable. The first amendment allows you the freedom of speech, but these days its easy to say you are just expressing yourself while tricking many people who are ultimately hurt by misinformation. Journalists shouldn’t be punished for uncovering peoples dirty laundry or exposing corruption, but when they use the information for an ulterior motive, that is where there need to be protections.

  17. Karla permalink
    September 19, 2011 6:40 pm

    I believe the media should have no restrictions whatsoever. Perhaps, there’s times where the media has gone overboard about a topic, but that is their job and the communities need to know the truth about what is really going on. If freedom of press is limited then the information that we get would be biased.

  18. Brittany permalink
    September 19, 2011 6:42 pm

    I believe that all the different news medias should not have any restrictions on what is being released. As citizens we all want the truth and the actual truth, not just a summary of a story and than someone beating around the bush to explain it. We all have the right to know what goes on in our society and how it is happening. The first amendment is an important piece of information to our nation and if the media is not allowed to release anything they feel is necessary, than how does the first amendment tie into that? It should relate to everything that is going on in our world, not having limitations and restrictions on what we can and cannot hear. We want to know the truth.

  19. Adrienne David permalink
    September 19, 2011 6:48 pm

    I think that if the press or news has something to say that is important, go right ahead and report it. As long as you are a “journalist” then you have the responsibility to share it with the people that don’t know what’s going on. I think that its important to have freedom to express what is going on in the news.

  20. September 19, 2011 6:49 pm

    I believe that there should not be restrictions when discussing what the media should publish. Everyone has their own interests and it would be impossible to show which interest is more important than other. It would be a complete waste of Congress’ time to research and attempt to establish guidelines for our news companies. I do think that these companies should establish their own section that checks and rechecks the information that they are communicating to the public.

  21. Melissa Wolfe permalink
    September 19, 2011 7:02 pm

    I believe that the news should be able to report the facts without having to censor the content. Knowing all the facts allows us to be more informed citizens with better ability to make decisions about different kinds of subject matter. I think that the government would prefer if we didn’t know about certain things, because it is much easier to have control over people when they are not presented with information and allowed to formulate their own opinions. Other then using vulgar language, I feel that the media should be able to report real events and not sugar coat them or change the content.

  22. Briana Jones permalink
    September 19, 2011 7:13 pm

    The U.S media should be allowed to report on anything that is important for American citizens to know. Reporting on events and crisis that affect us directly should have no restrictions. As long as the facts can be checked and the information is deemed accurate then the media should be allowed to report it. The only true restriction I would think is important is when it comes to reporting on entertainment. There is an invasion of privacy that is often crossed. Overall, I think the media should be free to report any accurate information but there should be a few minor restrictions.

  23. marycastro000 permalink
    September 19, 2011 8:03 pm

    When it comes to how free the media should be I think that the government should allow the media to report all of the facts. I believe by allowing the media to do this, it will allow us as citizens become much more informed. If the government has its way and censors the media I believe we will be getting pointless news. Something along the lines of “local man has found a lucky penny.”

  24. Taylor Dawson permalink
    September 20, 2011 6:50 pm

    I believe that journalists and other providers of the media should 100% have the freedom to report ANY news as long as it is 100% truthful and relevant. News and radio stations, newspapers and magazines should not have to censor what they publish to the world. Although there are news stories that are barely relevant to most of society, there are some VERY IMPORTANT events that need not be sugar coated, or have anything taken away from it as citizens of our nation deserve to know the truth. We need not hear what some people think is okay to be heard, but rather the whole truth. We need to be aware of whats going on around us in it’s entirety, not bits and pieces.

  25. Rachel Perez permalink
    September 21, 2011 12:50 pm

    The press should be able to report freely, without restrictions. We count on them to deliver the truth. Restricting this freedom would be dangerous and would, obviously, go against the First Amendment. Not only would it be wrong, but it would mean that even other amendments and laws wouldn’t be as substantial and all of those would be questioned as well creating further problems and possible revisions. If and when there is “irresponisble reporting” it’s not at the fault of the Amendment; it should be the publication’s responsibility and it’s their credibility that is at risk.

  26. Heather Comitz permalink
    September 26, 2011 2:56 pm

    Everything published SHOULD be factual and directed at informing the public. However, we are all entitled to free speech. As such, we can voice our opinions and inform others using our own responses. The public should be able to decide whether or not they want to pick up a piece of trash and read it, not the government. Therefore, works should not be restricted in content but should be mentioned as an opinionated piece. I agree completely with the understanding that with crap news out there, the public will know what good news is and want to read it.

  27. Jasmine Lewis permalink
    October 2, 2011 3:55 pm

    I believe the media should be free to report and not have to sugar coat stories. But, it is important to follow the rules and also follow some sort of ethical standards when reporting. For example, including a rape victims name in a story, something of that matter should not be included.

  28. Chelsea permalink
    December 13, 2011 12:13 am

    I believe that the media should always tell the truth whether it is good or bad, it should not be censored. Journalist would gain more credibility from its viewers if they only spoke the truth. There should be certain limitations though because even though the first amendment states that we have the right of free speech this does not mean we have the right to say whatever we want. It has to be within reason, this being it cannot ensue fighting words. So for the most part it should be the truth and nothing but the truth but only if it is within our constitutional rights and that is up to the writer and editor to determine that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: