Poll: The Trayvon Martin case should teach us which about the judicial system

[tailfins]

What changes should there be in the judicial system?

[SassyLady]

What changes should there be in the judicial system?

Laws that restrict the media from speculating or have access to recordings, videos, pictures, etc. that they can then manipulate to boost/enhance their ratings or ideology.

Media should be fined/regulated in such a way that they can only post the FACTS and not spin.

[logroller]

Laws that restrict the media from speculating or have access to recordings, videos, pictures, etc. that they can then manipulate to boost/enhance their ratings or ideology.

Media should be fined/regulated in such a way that they can only post the FACTS and not spin.

Hmmmm. I think that would be an enforcement nightmare; i mean, who determines fact from fiction-- there's a gray area which variably understood from person to person. Some people can see through the spin, others cant; but is that the fault of the news peeps? Sometimes perhaps, but far more often the issue is the dumbasses that cant see their way through opinion; assuming some show host on tv has the same credibility as walter kronkite. might as well just criminalize stupid and be done with it.

[SassyLady]

Hmmmm. I think that would be an enforcement nightmare; i mean, who determines fact from fiction-- there's a gray area which variably understood from person to person. Some people can see through the spin, others cant; but is that the fault of the news peeps? Sometimes perhaps, but far more often the issue is the dumbasses that cant see their way through opinion; assuming some show host on tv has the same credibility as walter kronkite. might as well just criminalize stupid and be done with it.

Man, you really know how to crush a girl's dreams! Yes, it would be an enforcement nightmare.

I really thought we could go back to the canons of journalism....you know ... the whole "truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness" thing.

So, Mr. VP Candidate ... how do you propose that we avoid the "trial by media" without creating more regulations and expanding the government. Oh, oh, I know ... let's use all those newly hired IRS agents. Instead of regulating Obamacare, they can regulate the media!!!

Sorry ... I'm getting a little rummy .... and should actually wait for your answer.

:coffee:



(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth)

[logroller]

Man, you really know how to crush a girl's dreams! Yes, it would be an enforcement nightmare.

I really thought we could go back to the canons of journalism....you know ... the whole "truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness" thing.

So, Mr. VP Candidate ... how do you propose that we avoid the "trial by media" without creating more regulations and expanding the government. Oh, oh, I know ... let's use all those newly hired IRS agents. Instead of regulating Obamacare, they can regulate the media!!!

Sorry ... I'm getting a little rummy .... and should actually wait for your answer.

:coffee:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth)

People today want their info now; government doesn't work like that, nor should it. So I don't think the government can solve that problem (or any social problem, arguably). What We can do is hold media accountable-- simply by tuning out! There's really no other way; not and still be free. Now if we're to sacrifice freedom, that's a different story; but I'm not too keen on the idea. If you're interested, I've read through the Chinese Constitution, and I'm sure it has a few points of insight on the matter. Kind of an odd segue way here, and not to suggest the adoption of socialist policies, but one thing this country is sorely overdue for is a Constitutional Convention. I think we should have two every 25-yrs (a generation)~one every three election cycles. The Constitution is a living document, but its showing its age; society isn't the same as it was 20 years ago and the Government has tried to adapt, but federally, its filibustered. The States have tried to implement changes on their own but the Republic's standing law overrules them. The last substantial change to the Constitution was in the early 70's-- its time for some changes. Congress and the President certainly have created a mainstay of growth in the Federal government during that period; much having been supported by judicial review. It only makes sense that their guiding document receive a more regular reconsideration. Even if only symbolic, with no changes being ratified, it gives the People of the States the much needed opportunity to reestablish faith in the Republic by which We stand. :salute: