Is the media a part of National Security?

[Robert_Sock]

I believe so.

 

[Robert_Sock]

How do you as a government occupy people’s attention so that they do not cause trouble?

How do you as a government change people’s values and beliefs?

How do you as a government guide culture to a predetermined state?

THE MEDIA

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Under the First Amendment, the Mass Media is completly from Government interference. However, this has not always been true.
Abraham Lincoln abrogated the entire Bill of Rights during the American Civil War. In the opening days of the ACW, Union authorities arrested more than 100 newspaper editors and reporters and close to 100 newspapers were shut down and put out of business. In addition, innumerable civilians were arrested by the military (well away from the combat zones) were tried by courts martial and sent to prison, and in some cases hung.
During WW I, and to a lesser extent WW II, Newspapers were “self censored” according to government guidelines because the publishers did not want costly attorney fees for court costs and tax audits.
Today, we have the Department of Homeland Security, with a bureaucracy so vast that if they lock someone up, it will be years before the Supreme Court will be able to hear their case.
I guarentee, that if we get into another major war ala WW II or Korea, there will be no repeat of the Viet Nam anti war protests. The camps are ready and waiting for the anti-war protester types…and in all probability the war will be long over before their trials for sedition are thrown out on appeal.
This is what happens when the public at large permits a freely elected government to evolve into a professional politician led nanny state.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Under the First Amendment, the Mass Media is completly from Government interference. However, this has not always been true.
Abraham Lincoln abrogated the entire Bill of Rights during the American Civil War. In the opening days of the ACW, Union authorities arrested more than 100 newspaper editors and reporters and close to 100 newspapers were shut down and put out of business. In addition, innumerable civilians were arrested by the military (well away from the combat zones) were tried by courts martial and sent to prison, and in some cases hung.
During WW I, and to a lesser extent WW II, Newspapers were “self censored” according to government guidelines because the publishers did not want costly attorney fees for court costs and tax audits.
Today, we have the Department of Homeland Security, with a bureaucracy so vast that if they lock someone up, it will be years before the Supreme Court will be able to hear their case.
I guarentee, that if we get into another major war ala WW II or Korea, there will be no repeat of the Viet Nam anti war protests. The camps are ready and waiting for the anti-war protester types…and in all probability the war will be long over before their trials for sedition are thrown out on appeal.
This is what happens when the public at large permits a freely elected government to evolve into a professional politician led nanny state.

The problem with your nanny state comment is that you clearly show that the government has never had an issue with keeping the media quiet. Matter of fact, your examples show that the closer we get to a “nanny state” the more free the media has become.

 

[Bill_7154]

What is that law, oh yeah, the Patriot Act. I am aware that many private industries are made privy to info and part of a network where they get info and are plugged into a system connected to the Patriot Act and so called National Defense.

I’m not sure if the media is granted an offical role in this privatized sort of deputizing private industry power figures with offical roles or not. I would be interested in knowing this though.

As an aside, I really don’t trust the media a whole lot more than I trust the government. And as a whole I don’t respect their behavior a whole lot. I’m a strong supporter of freedom of the press, but if government has influence over them (and I believe they do to one degree or another) then that freedom is compromised and you and I as citizens do not benefit from this.

I know that Glenn Beck was stifled as he was reporting on individuals of influence and power, reporting about money trails behind the scenes and how this was connected to government. He was fairly mainstream and he was stifeled as he was speaking out of the box. This is done by internet media reporters who do not have wide audiences. He did and was a threat to the powers that be and was stifled because of it.

Land of the free? Me think not.