Should the media be controlled by the government?

Answer 1

Do you want to live in a world which government have absolute power over what is said and in what 99 % of people will belive.... not forgeting that governments isn't realy having power in this world but banking oligars ... read something about new world order and see hoe is realy in charge of the world

Answer 2

No, the media should not be controlled by the government as it would hinder freedom of speech and press, which are essential for a democratic society. A free and independent media is crucial for holding those in power accountable and ensuring transparency. Government control of the media can lead to censorship and Propaganda, undermining democracy.

Answer 3

Should media be controlled?

There must be control over the media to prevent the "average Joe" from knowing what is realy happening in today's society.

For example, a racially mixed couple will be respected, liked, and socially sought after by other characters, as will a "take charge" black scholar or businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual, or a poor but honest and hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the other hand, a white racist -- that is, any racially conscious white person who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening racial situation in America -- is portrayed, at best, as a despicable bigot who is reviled by the other characters, or at worst, as a dangerous psychopath who is fascinated by firearms and is a menace to all law-abiding citizens. This 'white racist gun nut', in fact, has become a familiar stereotype on TV shows.

The average American, of whose daily life TV-watching takes such an unhealthy portion, distinguishes between these fictional situations and reality only with difficulty, if at all. He responds to the televised actions, statements, and attitudes of TV actors much as he does to his own peers in real life. For all too many Americans, the real world has been replaced by the false reality of the TV environment, and it is to this false reality that his urge to conform responds.

Thus, when a TV scriptwriter expresses approval of some ideas and actions through the TV characters for whom he is writing, and disapproval of others, he exerts a powerful pressure on millions of viewers toward conformity with his own views.

And as it is with TV entertainment, so it is also with the news, whether televised or printed. The insidious thing about this form of thought control is that even when we realize that entertainment or news is biased, the media masters still are able to manipulate most of us. This is because they not only slant what they present but they establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion.

As an example, consider the media treatment of Middle East news. Some editors or commentators are slavishly pro-Israel in their every utterance, while others seem nearly neutral. No one, however, dares suggest that the U.S. government is backing the wrong side in the Arab-Jewish conflict and that it served Jewish interests rather than American interests to send U.S. forces to cripple Iraq. Israel's principal rival in the Middle East Thus, a spectrum of permissible opinions, from pro-Israel to nearly neutral, is established.

Another example is the media treatment of racial issues in the United States. Some commentators seem almost dispassionate in reporting news of racial strife, while others are emotionally partisan -- with the partisanship always on the non-white side. All of the media spokesmen without exception, however, take the position that "multiculturalism" and racial mixing are here to stay, and that they are good things.

Because there are differences in degree, however, most Americans fail to realize that they are being manipulated. Even the citizen who complains about 'managed news' falls into the trap of thinking that because he is presented with an apparent spectrum of opinion he can escape the thought controllers' influence by believing the editor or commentator of his choice. It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. Every point on the permissible spectrum of public opinion is acceptable to the media masters -- and no impermissible fact or viewpoint is allowed any exposure at all, if they can prevent it.

The control of the opinion-molding media is nearly monolithic. All of the controlled media - television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, motion pictures speak with a single voice, each reinforcing the other. Despite the appearance of variety, there is no real dissent, no alternative source of facts or ideas accessible to the great mass of people which might allow them to form opinions at odds with those of the media masters.

They are presented with a single view of the world - a world in which every voice proclaims the equality of the races, the inerrant nature of the Jewish "Holocaust" tale, the wickedness of attempting to halt a flood of non-white aliens from pouring across our borders, the danger of permitting citizens to keep and bear arms, the moral equivalence of all sexual orientations, and the desirability of a "pluralistic," cosmopolitan society rather than a homogeneous one.

It is a view of the world designed by the media masters to suit their own ends - and the pressure to conform to that view is overwhelming. People adapt their opinions to it, vote in accord with it, and shape their lives to fit it.

And who are these all-powerful masters of the media? As we shall see, to a very large extent they are Jews. It isn't simply a matter of the media being controlled by "corporate interests". If that were the case, the ethnicity of the media masters would reflect, at least approximately, the ratio of rich Gentiles to rich Jews. The preponderance of Jews in the media is so overwhelming, however, that we are obliged to assume that it is due to more than mere happenstance..

Answer 4

Hell no. Media is a form of free speech, as specified by the Constitution, making it government controlled would violate the rights of the people. Government controlled media is ALWAYS the first step in Dictatorship, lets not delve down that path. On the other hand, the best form of government is a benevolent dictator because solutions are found much quicker; there isn't a whole bunch of bickering and arguing on what to do, when problems are caused, solutions are found.

Answer 5

This is more of a option, But many people mingle over this question. Some say yes, so that people cant say nasty things and so they can keep it under control. Others say we are free men and have a right to say what we want ans shouldn't be controlled. Both have good reasons.

Answer 6

No