10 ms·

Just to create a discussion here instead of jumping all over the guy for his questionable legal assertions: You could make the argument that a news organizatio

Just to create a discussion here instead of jumping all over the guy for his questionable legal assertions: You could make the argument that a news organization in possession of stolen documents has a legitimate claim to possessing them for the public good. An individual could not reasonably make the same claims.

nickff 10y ago
So you're saying that the media organization should be allowed to collect information, and filter what gets told to the public, but the public should not be able to 'double-check', or use their expertise and perspective to examine the same materials? If we are to entrust all information gathering and interpretation to media organization, shouldn't we let them vote for us too?
- danielrhodes 10y ago
  I didn't say that at all, but I'm going to respond to your questions anyways. I don't actually believe the media should have special legal carve outs (namely because it creates alignments that end up being against the public interest), but it's fun to argue it anyways. > but the public should not be able to 'double-check', or use their expertise and perspective to examine the same materials? If you have a free market for the media, then they should be double checking each other. > If we are to entrust all information gathering and interpretation to media organization, shouldn't we let them vote for us too? The US is a representative democracy. Your political representatives are already acting as surrogates for your interests. Thus, the media acting as an additional surrogate on top of that would not make a lot of sense.
  - pritambaral 10y ago
    > If you have a free market for the media And how would a new player in a "free market for the media" enter the playground? If you have to say "A new player has to be more than an individual" then it's not a free market.
internaut 10y ago
Are you actually serious?
- danielrhodes 10y ago
  There's a difference between presenting an argument and agreeing with that argument. In this case, it is actually an interesting discussion because you can use the same arguments in a discussion about whether we should have a direct or representative democracy.
  - internaut 10y ago
    Of course, I know that. I still don't understand why you're suggesting journalists have a status different to that of Tom from down the street. From whence doth their rights come forth? I think most of the population puts journalists somewhere between rat catchers and dog walkers. Somebody has to do it I suppose but I don't like them putting on great airs.
WalterSear 10y ago
No, an individual could.
- danielrhodes 10y ago
  Go on...

nickff 10y ago

So you're saying that the media organization should be allowed to collect information, and filter what gets told to the public, but the public should not be able to 'double-check', or use their expertise and perspective to examine the same materials? If we are to entrust all information gathering and interpretation to media organization, shouldn't we let them vote for us too?

danielrhodes 10y ago
I didn't say that at all, but I'm going to respond to your questions anyways. I don't actually believe the media should have special legal carve outs (namely because it creates alignments that end up being against the public interest), but it's fun to argue it anyways. > but the public should not be able to 'double-check', or use their expertise and perspective to examine the same materials? If you have a free market for the media, then they should be double checking each other. > If we are to entrust all information gathering and interpretation to media organization, shouldn't we let them vote for us too? The US is a representative democracy. Your political representatives are already acting as surrogates for your interests. Thus, the media acting as an additional surrogate on top of that would not make a lot of sense.
- pritambaral 10y ago
  > If you have a free market for the media And how would a new player in a "free market for the media" enter the playground? If you have to say "A new player has to be more than an individual" then it's not a free market.

internaut 10y ago

Are you actually serious?

danielrhodes 10y ago
There's a difference between presenting an argument and agreeing with that argument. In this case, it is actually an interesting discussion because you can use the same arguments in a discussion about whether we should have a direct or representative democracy.
- internaut 10y ago
  Of course, I know that. I still don't understand why you're suggesting journalists have a status different to that of Tom from down the street. From whence doth their rights come forth? I think most of the population puts journalists somewhere between rat catchers and dog walkers. Somebody has to do it I suppose but I don't like them putting on great airs.

WalterSear 10y ago

No, an individual could.

danielrhodes 10y ago
Go on...