- Thread starter
- #21
FaceBook is not a press organizationOil companies are not protected like freedom of the press is.
but if the NYT owned 90% of the newspapers in America it could be broken up too
If FaceBook owners want the same protections
under freedom of the press, if they could agree to standards of journalist media
established by journalist schools, trade groups, and institutions.
I would like to see a council of these organizations that meets to address complaints and reforms
among its own recognized members, similar to the UN, where
this is optional, run by media institutions, and not govt.
What I thought we might see come out of Trump's complaints about abuses:
Why not organize people and media groups to form a separate "two house"
system, similar to Congress divided into House and Senate: And have one
group of REPS come together from all MEDIA sources, to address biases,
conflicting policies, complaints, etc. and agree to spell out which reports
are proven false, which are contested or unproven, and which are spun
either left or right instead of fighting over these where you can't confirm the different sources.
This Representation council can include every level from direct representation to followings
by groups, and encourage all people to check against other sources to ensure correct information is distributed.
(And also form a SENATE of reps from EVERY PARTY serving on a Constitutional Council
reviews complaints and abuses, spells out the conflicts and objections,
and facilitates resolving complaints, refinancing corrections owed to taxpayers for govt abuses,
and implementing solutions by consensus of the various Parties. )
Both MEDIA and PARTY organizations are OUTSIDE GOVT and not regulated by the Constitution.
So these could use a SEPARATE system (outside govt courts or legislatures)
for PEOPLE to address abuses themselves. Then, where solutions might
involve changes to public policy through govt, these can be presented to Govt to implement reforms.
It wouldn't be the govt imposing on people, media or parties how to solve problems and complaints of abuse.
But the people would address these through various Party and Media sources,
form consensus based solutions that represent the full spectrum of the public interest (not just one political bias over another),
and implement those policies, either through private means or going through Govt if it involves public policy.
The Congress and Court procedures, all the Constitutional process through Govt
would still work the same way.
But these conflicts over political beliefs that become issues of personal choice
could be addressed better in person, work out solutions that represent all people equally,
and only present those agreed solutions to Govt to implement which already represent the people.
That way, this cuts down on the abuse of Govt to push political biases and beliefs of groups of people
that don't represent the entire public.