Its not odd that NYC would have something like this in place. Every city does. It's not even a new system. Its a revision to a system that was always there. There's even one in Toronto.
The point of contention seemed to originally be its potential effect on low budget film making. I am wondering if it became a 'Big Brother' issue because it suited the interests of some of the film makers it would effect. By saying that, they wouild get a certain amount of public support. It would be a good plan - as well intentioned as everyone is, people won't investigate things that already mesh with their world view. Its certainly a big slap to Amy Goodman that she was hyping up the propaganda too.
This is a good lesson for the anti-Bush crowd (who I can only assume were the biggest believers of this story). As much as we criticise people who don't question what he is doing, we are wide open to any propaganda that attacks him and his administration, whether it is true or not. People will always be willing to exploit this, so its up to everyone not to take what they read on faith, no matter how much that story may reinforce their world view.
So you don't see it as an encroachment of rights, but rather a necessity?
To be fair...Bush's "approach" is coming at us from every angle, and we are all wide open and susceptible to that as well.
Laws have been changed, and media has been monopolized to make it so.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I think cities do need to regulate real commercial filming when it can effect the functioning of a city. You can't have film crews holding up traffic without the city involved for example. It obviously should not be encroaching on anyone's rights.
I fully understand why people react the way they do. A lot of changes are happening. I think you are right to question every decision made by Bush & co. What I worry will happen eventually, if we let it, is the anti-Bush message will be used to manipulate the public into doing something against its interests. A large reason Bush got the support he did was because of a reaction to Clinton.
If we don't what that to happen, then we can't make the same mistake that the right did. We have to demand accountability from the media we listen to and the politicians we put in power. Part of that responsibility is questioning stories like these. Any time you hear a story that makes you afraid or worried, or you have a strong reaction to, you must learn as you can about it.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
I think cities do need to regulate real commercial filming when it can effect the functioning of a city. You can't have film crews holding up traffic without the city involved for example. It obviously should not be encroaching on anyone's rights.
I fully understand why people react the way they do. A lot of changes are happening. I think you are right to question every decision made by Bush & co. What I worry will happen eventually, if we let it, is the anti-Bush message will be used to manipulate the public into doing something against its interests. A large reason Bush got the support he did was because of a reaction to Clinton.
If we don't what that to happen, then we can't make the same mistake that the right did. We have to demand accountability from the media we listen to and the politicians we put in power. Part of that responsibility is questioning stories like these. Any time you hear a story that makes you afraid or worried, or you have a strong reaction to, you must learn as you can about it.
My question here is how would have wanted Democracy Now to report this story or would you rather them not report it at all. A decision major media outlets like MSNBC, CBS, FOX and others haven't reported anything on this subject matter.
Democracy Now is a Independent news and television organization they receive nothing via the commercial entity. It's a listener supported station and receive donations from citizens like myself. If no one donates they're finished plain and simple.
Maybe it's my fault in my title of this thread, maybe it was my intention to get posters to take a look see, if that fooled you forgive me. Dn simply reported this story that isn't being reported on major networks not to influence anyone or make anyone "afraid" their objective I believe was to get this unreported story out. Then you and I can decide how and what was your take on what was reported, then research the story out for yourself like I did.
Or give a listen to DN or sign up for an email updates and you may get a better understanding of what they do for the many untold stories hardly ever reported today.
Peace
Earle
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
The first question is: Is there anything to report? These are rules proposed by the office of films in NYC. Who/what do they have jurisdiction over? Perhaps there are already rules in place that restrict their jurisdictions. Maybe documents like these exist in any city. I don't know myself. But I expect that a reporter should.
We put our trust in them to ensure that what they report is accurate. By looking at the proposed rules for 5 minutes, I found that camera operation could not be restricted at large gatherings unless you had more than a tripod.
Amy Goodman should have corrected her guest on that point, but she did not. If she did this knowingly, she should not be on the air. But, I would assume its because she did not take the time to read the proposed rules. In either case, you can't overlook mistakes like these just because she is publicly funded.
What good is a well intentioned media outlet if it overlooks falsehoods? How isolated is this incident? If I am going to listen to DN seriosuly, I have to keep my ears open now. You say its important to get the issue out. But how many people were ready to walk away from this article believing that you couldn't take a picture in NYC anymore?
The meme that the USA is becoming a fascist state is a serious consideration. It can not be taken lightly when supporting facts turn out to be misrepresented.
No matter how good the people at DN may be, if there is a pattern of allowing soft lies in their stories, it is a problem. They are either liars, or incapable of filtering out other liars. They become little more than a tabloid. Except they are a tabloid that weighs on on important issues. Little better than fox news in their usefulness. You seem rather emotionally attached to them, but tough love is best. The best thing you can do for them is hold them to account.
Comments
So you don't see it as an encroachment of rights, but rather a necessity?
To be fair...Bush's "approach" is coming at us from every angle, and we are all wide open and susceptible to that as well.
Laws have been changed, and media has been monopolized to make it so.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I fully understand why people react the way they do. A lot of changes are happening. I think you are right to question every decision made by Bush & co. What I worry will happen eventually, if we let it, is the anti-Bush message will be used to manipulate the public into doing something against its interests. A large reason Bush got the support he did was because of a reaction to Clinton.
If we don't what that to happen, then we can't make the same mistake that the right did. We have to demand accountability from the media we listen to and the politicians we put in power. Part of that responsibility is questioning stories like these. Any time you hear a story that makes you afraid or worried, or you have a strong reaction to, you must learn as you can about it.
My question here is how would have wanted Democracy Now to report this story or would you rather them not report it at all. A decision major media outlets like MSNBC, CBS, FOX and others haven't reported anything on this subject matter.
Democracy Now is a Independent news and television organization they receive nothing via the commercial entity. It's a listener supported station and receive donations from citizens like myself. If no one donates they're finished plain and simple.
Maybe it's my fault in my title of this thread, maybe it was my intention to get posters to take a look see, if that fooled you forgive me. Dn simply reported this story that isn't being reported on major networks not to influence anyone or make anyone "afraid" their objective I believe was to get this unreported story out. Then you and I can decide how and what was your take on what was reported, then research the story out for yourself like I did.
Or give a listen to DN or sign up for an email updates and you may get a better understanding of what they do for the many untold stories hardly ever reported today.
Peace
Earle
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
We put our trust in them to ensure that what they report is accurate. By looking at the proposed rules for 5 minutes, I found that camera operation could not be restricted at large gatherings unless you had more than a tripod.
Amy Goodman should have corrected her guest on that point, but she did not. If she did this knowingly, she should not be on the air. But, I would assume its because she did not take the time to read the proposed rules. In either case, you can't overlook mistakes like these just because she is publicly funded.
What good is a well intentioned media outlet if it overlooks falsehoods? How isolated is this incident? If I am going to listen to DN seriosuly, I have to keep my ears open now. You say its important to get the issue out. But how many people were ready to walk away from this article believing that you couldn't take a picture in NYC anymore?
The meme that the USA is becoming a fascist state is a serious consideration. It can not be taken lightly when supporting facts turn out to be misrepresented.
No matter how good the people at DN may be, if there is a pattern of allowing soft lies in their stories, it is a problem. They are either liars, or incapable of filtering out other liars. They become little more than a tabloid. Except they are a tabloid that weighs on on important issues. Little better than fox news in their usefulness. You seem rather emotionally attached to them, but tough love is best. The best thing you can do for them is hold them to account.