Freedom Ride

Operation MOCKINGBIRD — The CIA begins recruiting American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda. The effort is headed by Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham is publisher of The Washington Post, which becomes a major CIA player. Eventually, the CIA’s media assets will include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service and more. By the CIA’s own admission, at least 25 organizations and 400 journalists will become CIA assets.
source:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html
CIA= Government Agency
Mocking Bird= Government Agents in Press
Would you think the same way if I said KGB? What about the DISIP (Ven.)? No, you would say they were controlling the press. Wouldn’t you?

Operation Mockingbird reveals nothing about the USA’s commitment to freedom of the press. It does however reveal that you can’t believe everything that you read in the papers with the CIA disseminating disinformation.

This is a question in Civics, please explain answer.

They have some freedom, but are censored by the religious bureaucracy that runs the country. They recently jailed many journalists and free speech/anti-government activists in an effort to suppress the press.

Various news outlets and people do whatever they want to gain a story; what can someone do to make them realize this isn’t acceptable? Princess Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed died directly because of the overzeal of the press.
To those who said the example I gave had nothing to do with the press, yes it damn well did. Once Diana and her man made it clear they didn’t want to talk(running would have done this, to any normal person), they should have backed off.

The press nowadays is full of mediocre people interested only in money and try anything to stay in that position.
Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters, Larry King, etc., just to name a few, you see how mediocre and bias are, no credibility, neither ethics. They hide or enhanced whatever is convenient to their agenda, not the facts.
The audience has a responsibility that is almost gone and very few people take charge and resolved not to buy certain newspapers and sensationalist publications. I do not watch certain channels because I know they are so bias that I would be wasting my time, they have a very disloyal to the truth agenda.
DId you see the way they treated the Miss California in the press? She is being treated as a criminal, a corrupt woman, and the homosexual Perez Hilton like a decent man that asked a fair question. Didn’t Miss California give the same answer as President Barack Hussein Obama when he was asked during his past campaign? And those same people that support President Obama are the ones bashing on Miss California.
No credibility, no ethics, no character, just garbage.
That’s my opinion.

Can you tell me any other interesting facts of freedom of the press? thanks

Russia, thanks to Putin.

For example… A duty that goes along with freedom of speech is to listen to others through freedom of speech, and do not offend or hurt others.

Write your Congressman and Senator and demand that they exempt libraries and bookstores from the Business Records section of the PATRIOT Act.

If people can’t read what they want without attracting attention of the government, we don’t have freedom of the press any more.

We already heard so many press activity that create much controversy in countries. Some of the new one were the cartoon corner.

I know that we lived in a country that had a freedom of press and media. But can activity of insulting someone is a good activity too? Press also disturbing personal life too, especially those celebrities and well-known person, well-known as paparazzi. Until at the end, it DOES really costs lives.

I just wondering, the freedom of press in my opinion is the freedom for the public to get information, not the freedom to disturbing other person’s private life or freedom to insult one person/group/country.

In fact, the freedom of press now becoming the freedom of writing gossip, not news. A news that it’s validity still questioned, much likely to be broadcasted in an improper way than it should.

Is this the face of press that we really wanted? From my opinion, it’s not ethical at all!

It is important to always protect the freedom of the press. At the same time, I think it is wrong how the paparazzi harrass celebrities. I don’t consider following somebody everywhere they go and taking their pictures as a necessary part of freedom of the press. This is just stalking people with a camera. The paparazzi that harrass celebrities should be arrested. It’s also the fault of the public. People should respect the privacy of celebrities and not support the gossip papers that give money to papparazzi.

Because as a democracy is a government where the people vote for candidates and on issues, it is important that they are able to get accurate information from which to base their decisions on. If you live in a nation where the press is not free, and is instead state controlled, you will only hear what they want you to hear and in a way they wish for it to be presented. You will therefore be basing your decision of information that isn’t entirely accurate or wholly representative of the truth.

Two examples of nations which are at least nominally democratic, yet do not have a free press, are Russia and Venezuela. Both governments have really cracked down on the press to the point that they are basically uncritical if not entirely supportive of their respective presidents. Not coincidentally, both Putin and Chavez are enjoying enormous popularity.

This demonstrates just how essential a free press is, as democracy can easily be subverted when accurate information is not easily available.

the first amendment of the constitution protects freedom of the press which has allowed the press be what it si today. so should this great freedom continue?

The majority of the press is controlled by a handful of people with ulterior motives using fear mongering and brainwashing on the general public. If a reporter doesn’t tow the company line, they are fired. So it’s not really free at all.

Asking because a lot of people think sometimes the press violates the right to privacy regularly.

Freedom of the press provided that the press isn’t currupt and biased towards a particular agenda (sound familiar).

One can lose the right to privacy because IT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. It’s only a priveledge that you can lose due to suspect actions.

What are some reasons freedom of press can be suspended? Such as secrets or goverment, or can it be suspended

when ordered by the courts for a just reason or cause. but never a blanket suspension
ayfr