Thoughts about media censorship, primarily against it, what about you? Options

[__CrUsHeR]

There is plenty of people like that but considering how the internet usualy responds to themes like that i myself and likely many others don't want to discuss this on the internet because someone is going to turn the entire conversation/topic into some "RUSSIA STRONK" "'MUCRICA FUCK YEA" subject soon enough which just ruins it entirely.

It's really a tragic fate. Anyway I already had good discussions here and learned a lot.

This post has been edited by __CrUsHeR: 23 Mar 2015, 22:05

[nikitazero678]

Uh... I think this topic is losing its direction. What I want to discuss is that media censorship (I mean entertainment media like film, comics/manga and anime or anything the like) being not fair and hindering progress, not about Russia and America or whatever...

Maybe to make this clear again, the conservatives here in Indonesia doesn't want us to change, seeing it will be destructive, so they impose harsher and harsher censorships to protect us from foreign influence whom they considered dangerous, although in my opinion, my country's salvation lies in the will of my people to accept change and be a modern, civilized people.

This post has been edited by nikitazero678: 24 Mar 2015, 9:43

[The General]

From the expirience of my own country which "accepted" the western values, i would strongly advise you to stick with tradition. Your country is also a on the east, and these kind of changes you think are good are actualy cancer for traditional societies.
The change of the society shold never come from the outside, because you will never get the same reaction in your own country. If it works fine in some countries, there is no guarantee it will be the same case in every other country. In fact, it's almost a rule that it never does. Even if you accept the changes some other countries implemented, it won't be anything like the "original" version. Before you know it, your society will become a Frankenstein.
Your country will change either way, but don't let the change be exported to you from others, you should come up with changes yourself. Globalisation in general is disastrous for traditional countries. You have your own values, others have theirs. So i repeat: stick to your own course and don't take any shortcuts. It never works the way you want it to work.

Controled censorship, however bad you may think it is, is actualy keeping your country on it's course. Just make sure there's no absurd ammount(complete) of censurship, and you will be fine.

This post has been edited by The General: 24 Mar 2015, 20:19

[nikitazero678]

From the expirience of my own country which "accepted" the western values, i would strongly advise you to stick with tradition. Your country is also a on the east, and these kind of changes you think are good are actualy cancer for traditional societies.
The change of the society shold never come from the outside, because you will never get the same reaction in your own country. If it works fine in some countries, there is no guarantee it will be the same case in every other country. In fact, it's almost a rule that it never does. Even if you accept the changes some other countries implemented, it won't be anything like the "original" version. Before you know it, your society will become a Frankenstein.
Your country will change either way, but don't let the change be exported to you from others, you should come up with changes yourself. Globalisation in general is disastrous for traditional countries. You have your own values, others have theirs. So i repeat: stick to your own course and don't take any shortcuts. It never works the way you want it to work.

Controled censorship, however bad you may think it is, is actualy keeping your country on it's course. Just make sure there's no absurd ammount(complete) of censurship, and you will be fine.

You do have a point, but I think that if my country remains sticking to their die-hard traditions, we will never get past our state as a developing country. I deemed the outcomes and the risks of accepting change and modernization, especially foreign influences, will be worth it for making my country much better than it was before.

However, I also think that my country could be like Japan, which accepts foreign influence but retains their traditions. The problem is with religion; since Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world, I think moderate ways should work.

About media censorship in Indonesia, that makes me don't want to watch local TV channels except for certain ones, and I'm still waiting to have cable/satellite TV in my house so I will at least have something good to watch. Still I wish that censorship be abolished for the reasons stated above; just control the ones who read and view the medias, and impose punishments for letting immature ones watch/read medias meant for adults to compensate.

This post has been edited by nikitazero678: 25 Mar 2015, 14:39

[The General]

You do have a point, but I think that if my country remains sticking to their die-hard traditions, we will never get past our state as a developing country. I deemed the outcomes and the risks of accepting change and modernization, especially foreign influences, will be worth it for making my country much better than it was before.

However, I also think that my country could be like Japan, which accepts foreign influence but retains their traditions. The problem is with religion; since Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world, I think moderate ways should work.

About media censorship in Indonesia, that makes me don't want to watch local TV channels except for certain ones, and I'm still waiting to have cable/satellite TV in my house so I will at least have something good to watch. Still I wish that censorship be abolished for the reasons stated above; just control the ones who read and view the medias, and impose punishments for letting immature ones watch/read medias meant for adults to compensate.

Like i wrote before, if you accept foreign pattern of development you will lose tradition and gain limited, but corrupted progress. Even if your country is die-hard traditional, change is inevitable, you just need to dose it gradually. Developing period is the most important for a country, and without a solid base that you yourself created completely, your country will have unstable and dependent gains. Foreign solutions to certain problems will have some influence on the solutions you come up with, but the less that is the case the more solid the base of your countrie's development is.
All countries have their own problems, even those who call themself "developed countries". And the very idea of "developed" and "undeveloped" countries is given way too much credit. "Developing" countries even have some advantages, they can for example change their focus while "developed" ones already made their choices, and switching is much harder for them.

I don't know much about the example you tok so i can't comment on it. Anyway, it has a lot to do with many things, like coulture, tradition and style of life. I am also pretty sure that Japan gave up on having their own army.

It's a process, it takes time. Things change, but you have to let it go by it's own course at it's own speed.

This post has been edited by The General: 25 Mar 2015, 19:53

[(USA)Bruce]

Reading the last comments posted here I see that all is not lost and that despite the demonized image created by the great Western mainstream media there are still people with a decent critical sense.

Dont mind me, Im just an observer stoping by and looking around this thread.Dont have anything to add or anything yet but I do want to state that not only is this map outdated but its entirely wrong.

First example being egypt among all others, so if people here wants to derail the thread by turning it into a GLORIOUS USA WILL DEFEAT PUNY AMERICAN PIGS then atleast use the correct facts, Otherwise I can just read the onion for something thats atleast satirical.

[__CrUsHeR]

Dont mind me, Im just an observer stoping by and looking around this thread.Dont have anything to add or anything yet but I do want to state that not only is this map outdated but its entirely wrong.

First example being egypt among all others, so if people here wants to derail the thread by turning it into a GLORIOUS USA WILL DEFEAT PUNY AMERICAN PIGS then atleast use the correct facts, Otherwise I can just read the onion for something thats atleast satirical.

I really did not check if the military bases indicated on the map really are consistent with the current NATO military situation - possibly outdated - but it does not have a great relevance to what I was pointing.

[(USA)Bruce]

That being said, apparently the lack of sleep has started to take its toll on me...
What I ment to say was: " GLORIOUS RUSSIA WILL DEFEAT PUNY AMERICAN PIGS"
Not USA defeating american pigs ^.^

Blue being nato members
Lighter tint of blue having Membership Action Plans
Yellow having Individual Partnership Action Plans
Orange enjoying Partnership for Peace
Red is the Mediterranean Dialogue
Pink is the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and
Green is Global Partners to nato

This post has been edited by (USA)Bruce: 26 Mar 2015, 18:30

[Svea Rike]

What does NATO members have to do with media censorship?

Plot twist: Everyone is a NATO member and USABruce has been secretly conspiring to cover it up! MEDIA CENSORSHIP! IT'S BRILLIANT!

[__CrUsHeR]

That being said, apparently the lack of sleep has started to take its toll on me...
What I ment to say was: " GLORIOUS RUSSIA WILL DEFEAT PUNY AMERICAN PIGS"
Not USA defeating american pigs ^.^

Blue being nato members
Lighter tint of blue having Membership Action Plans
Yellow having Individual Partnership Action Plans
Orange enjoying Partnership for Peace
Red is the Mediterranean Dialogue
Pink is the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and
Green is Global Partners to nato

The map is semi-appropriate but is not able to translate the complexity of geopolitics; there an siege in the background of "formality" by the West against Russia and China in order to contain their interests in a multipolar world.

This map does not show the military partnerships - not exactly between NATO - between the West and South Asia designed to undermine China and destabilize the balance of power between the West and the East and does not represent the unconditional political, military and economic support of Gulf Monarchies to the West through the petrodollars.

This post has been edited by __CrUsHeR: 26 Mar 2015, 18:58

[__CrUsHeR]

What does NATO members have to do with media censorship?

In fact nothing. Was the SKW that dealt with this issue and the MARS made a critical analysis redirecting the debate.

Plot twist: Everyone is a NATO member and USABruce has been secretly conspiring to cover it up! MEDIA CENSORSHIP! IT'S BRILLIANT!

[__CrUsHeR]

Double post...

This post has been edited by __CrUsHeR: 26 Mar 2015, 19:05

[The_Hunter]

See this is exactly what i meant Crusher.

This start as a topic where Svea wanted to know what peoples opinion was on media censorship and now is about NATO, RUSSIA STRONK ECT.
Fine example why i generally avoid debating any of these sort of topics on the internet several years ago.

[__CrUsHeR]

See this is exactly what i meant Crusher.

This start as a topic where Svea wanted to know what peoples opinion was on media censorship and now is about NATO, RUSSIA STRONK ECT.
Fine example why i generally avoid debating any of these sort of topics on the internet several years ago.

Okay, but someone has redirected the debate - not me - then new facts were placed on the agenda by other members, then those who found the facts interesting commented on them.

For me this discussion is closed.

[Svea Rike]

I didn't start this thread....

[Karpet]

I would like to keep in mind, this argument was stated again by SKW trolling and flaunting his Russophobia and comparing RT to hate speech (what a joke, CNN and FOX spits infiinite bullshit, but since we know SKW is just an Obama-not, I'm not going to bother to continue with him).

But anyways, media should always be free, unless they spread hate, misinformation, basically anything malevolent. Media should report only the facts (something I can safely say American news does not do.).

[Svea Rike]

If you want only facts, stop watching any state-run media channel (CNN/BBC/RT/SVT1) and go straight for Wikinews. It collects information from basically every source on the internet and you have a definitive unbiased opinion since they use everyone's opinion.

[The_Hunter]

Okay, but someone has redirected the debate - not me - then new facts were placed on the agenda by other members, then those who found the facts interesting commented on them.

For me this discussion is closed.

Wasn't trying to put blame on anyone in specific merely pointing it out.

[The General]

If you want only facts, stop watching any state-run media channel (CNN/BBC/RT/SVT1) and go straight for Wikinews. It collects information from basically every source on the internet and you have a definitive unbiased opinion since they use everyone's opinion.

If you think someone will simply hand you over the "unbiased, objective truth" you can't be more wrong... You have to think for yourself... Get the information from whatever news channel, or however many of them, but you must think for yourself.
Without that, time you spent reading is worthless.

[Svea Rike]

If you think someone will simply hand you over the "unbiased, objective truth" you can't be more wrong... You have to think for yourself... Get the information from whatever news channel, or however many of them, but you must think for yourself.
Without that, time you spent reading is worthless.

Of course not, you keep saying that all the time of course I know it. I simply say that every news channel run by the state is biased. It's better to get information from multiple sources and construct something out of that.

[(USA)Bruce]

Okay unrelated to any posts made earlier here I'll just give my point of view:
First off I was asked this same question in nationstates,

For me Im agaisnt any sort of censorship, even if I find stuff like RT at FOX news levels at times, popcorn journalism at best I wouldnt ban it all togeter cause its anti-US 24/7
But for any sort of media to be broadcasted would be of course regulated by the FCC for anything disturbing and just tax forign companies as a whole for their services more then local ones.The reasoning being moslty corprate inversion thats a whole another issue offtopic and to my knowladge a US only problem.
So yeah we can have neonazi propaganda on public tv, who cares? TV is second best in mass media when the internet exists anyways...If you cut them off the air sure kids wont see the KKK saturday morning cartoon special where they hunt dark skined bad guys in thier holy jesus powerd robes but they would see it with leaflets handed out etc.What Im trying to say is if theres a majority of an idea right or wrong censoring it wont solve anything cause they will find a way to spread themselves, rather just tax them they more the grow and enforce public service anouncements with conflicting broadcasts like a hand in hand we're all equal and love each other video by the department of education Imagine how silly that would be, two hour interview of white hillbillys arguing about mexican illegal aliens and back criminals then a cute song comes up saying its all okay (Cookie to who knows what the song says or means)

The goverment to directly

One thing I would like that will never happen is for news to be either have a seal during broadcasts saying: "Information is limited and not solid at this time"
So the claims of lets say...The recent Ukraine airline shoot down inncident to give as an example.Both sides reported the other side shooting it down.Not trying to point fingers or revive that topic, but it would be nice for news agencys to say this is what they presume or think rather then saying "Putin shot the plane down" or "American CIA agents shot it down"
This way we could have less bullshit, or the FCC could give them a warning or limit thier broadcast hours by forcing public service broadcasts or basicly shooting them off the air.
In a sense I'd like any TV channel to be responsible for what the say and if they point fingers during said event they should be able to present solid evidence rather then accusations and presumtions after the dust has settled in a court of law.

Yet I dont see that happenign cause media is a way of controll and always has been

This post has been edited by (USA)Bruce: 27 Mar 2015, 11:29

[(WbG)~SpeC~]

In a sense I'd like any TV channel to be responsible for what the say and if they point fingers during said event they should be able to present solid evidence rather then accusations and presumtions after the dust has settled in a court of law.

+1
---------------------------
speaking about the topic Thread starter. Of course if someone is interested in my opinion, given that no one knows me here and I'm here at all new.
I think that censorship in the media should be present, but in moderation. here in this country for example banned on TV advertising of alcohol and tobacco products. I think that is a good thing - the less people see it, the less think about it. at least a little bit less. also think that censorship is immoral behavior or actions should also be the place to be.
on the other side - people are free, and if someone wants to know something for sure, he still finds it. censorship exists to control the broad mass of the population. but each personality individually - has the right to circumvent this censorship.

This post has been edited by (WbG)~SpeC~: 28 Mar 2015, 15:52