• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

News Tech

James Lemon

Well-known member
“WikiLeaks’ decade-long pristine record for authentication remains. Our key publications this round have even been proven through the cryptographic signatures of the companies they passed through, such as Google. It is not every day you can mathematically prove that your publications are perfect but this day is one of them.
The US public defends free speech more passionately, but the First Amendment only truly lives through its repeated exercise. The First Amendment explicitly prevents the executive from attempting to restrict anyone’s ability to speak and publish freely. The First Amendment does not privilege old media, with its corporate advertisers and dependencies on incumbent power factions, over WikiLeaks’ model of scientific journalism or an individual’s decision to inform their friends on social media. The First Amendment unapologetically nurtures the democratization of knowledge. With the Internet, it has reached its full potential.”
The above paragraphs are from a statement by Julian Assange regarding the 2016 presidential elections. Has this type of reporting reached its full potential or is it only the beginning of something much more beneficial to society as we move forward? I like to think that these forms of revelations and reporting are the building blocks of a rock solid foundation which one can stand on.
When comparing mainstream media reporting of battles on the Lexington Greene, Concord, or on the Road to Revolution back in 1775 to that of the 2016 presidential election by today’s standards, one can conclude that the only difference is the speed at which rumors travel. The motive of the reports (whether they be from General Thomas Gage to King George III, or from local print media to the colonies of the day, including loyalists, rebels and the British regulators) has always been the same; to suppress opposition, garner support for their cause, and to influence the outcome of events.
Editors of the mainstream media were replaced by marketing executives to sell advertising space a long time ago. Advertising must to be one of the largest physiological experiments on society in the last 200 years or more. Most of us are bombarded with news and ads in this day of technology.
Journalism seems to have fallen of a cliff. Not that anyone with a heartbeat and a pulse could report events without some kind of bias, regardless of their ethically good intentions.
What effects does poor journalism and unethical advertising have on our everyday capacity to make sound decisions? What are the social consequences? Do we require a mechanism that would allow us to make better choices in what we purchase and how we treat others?
So, what are the benefits and liabilities of the people’s news media from places like WikiLeaks? Why do we advertise our goods and services with the intention of merely making profits, rather than asking how many people we could help? We should be able to make decisions based on objectivity.
The internet of things have come a long way and the quality of information from sources such as WikiLeaks is remarkable. Suppose a person comes to you and admits to being a pathological liar, how would you be able to know whether or not they are telling the truth, after having just admitted to being a liar? I don’t expect technology to answer such questions, but I do think we deserve better than what our current mainstream media platform has to offer.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
James,

Wikileaks is as susceptible to manipulation as all the other "news" sources. This is because the source of news is always seen as a potential lever for public opinion, so one can spoon feed select mixtures of true facts to sway a populace just as classic news sources!

We have humans in charge and we are all imperfect and have complex motives.

The best we can hope for is competing news sources!

Asher
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
James,

Wikileaks is as susceptible to manipulation as all the other "news" sources. This is because the source of news is always seen as a potential lever for public opinion, so one can spoon feed select mixtures of true facts to sway a populace just as classic news sources!

We have humans in charge and we are all imperfect and have complex motives.

The best we can hope for is competing news sources!

Asher


Quality journalism is expensive for media companies. But the cost to society of the absence of quality journalism is infinitely greater.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Quality journalism is expensive for media companies. But the cost to society of the absence of quality journalism is infinitely greater.

How about the laying of staff photographers and having news reporters take their own pictures instead!
 
Top