A CASE BY CASE BASIS…..THAT’S IT

A CASE BY CASE BASIS…..THAT’S IT

(Gene Policinski, Green Bay Press Gazette)

(Daniel L. Driesbach, Eugene Volokh, Warren A. Nord)

(David Shultz, Frazer Chronicle)

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a government redress of grievance.

Nowhere in the verbiage does the amendment talk about radio, television, or even printed material, in fact, bunched in with the right to talk is the right to exercise one’s religious beliefs. Today, in the 21^st century, we have an excessive attitude towards people’s right to know just about everything about everybody.

Citing terrorism, the gathering of private information for the protection of all, nut job shooters walking the streets, and not impeding our governments right to know everything from when we wake up, what we eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner, to when we go to bed…..and maybe practice carnal exercise with our partner and whether that partner is male or female.

Those people who read, and believe in what our forefathers said and wrote in what they felt should be the rules of how we frame how we are governed were truly an intellectual lot, that had the best of intentions at heart when they sat down to draw up first the Constitution and then the amendments that further explained their meaning.

I have long marveled at their plain and simple style in how they arrived at some of the conclusions that went into drafting the document. They were direct, open and honest in their approach as well as tempered in how the final draft was. I wonder if the current bunch of politicians could have done so well, in such a political atmosphere that we find ourselves in today?

GENE POLICINSKI

I believe that critics of the news media today, the printed, televised and radio types aren’t talking about what is shown or written about, but rather the depths that current journalists and reporters go to get the entire…..and the real story.

I also believe that readers and viewers would like some follow-up to the stories that are presented, like an end to the events that are reported, I know I would. I’m a lowly blogger, I only have my wife to proof and edit my material…..yet I try to keep abreast of the news articles that I write about and if there is a resolution, or a final result on what I’ve written, I share that with my readers.

Do I think that we, as the listening audience or those of us who read newspapers, need to see graphic depictions of human suffering, or the blood and guts of the 6:00 o’clock news…..I would say absolutely not. Why would I need to hear the anguish and the fear, and see the horror in people’s eyes? I guess if I wanted to, I could imagine how it might feel to go through a traumatic experience like the Sandy Hook murders…..because down at the end of the day; it’s what happened at Sandy Hook, mass murder by some sick-o.

Media and journalistic types talk about the “public needing to know” and that I agree with…..but cowboys and cowgirls write it, the message should be the massage. If you need to rely on images, maybe you need another career…..like a dog catcher or a garboligest.

The evidence that needs to be delivered to the public has never really changed, it’s called “just the facts” and believe it or not most people are more than capable of disseminating information, and through that information, forming an opinion. Oh sure, it’s best to get several viewpoints on a particular subject, but in the end the average Joe Blow needs to be able to formulate a somewhat unbiased opinion. Trust me; most people really aren’t as dumb as they appear.

I understand what Gene Policinski is saying about 911 calls be monitored, but gee…..Gene, couldn’t we have a civilian board or committee in local or regional areas hear and judge whether a 911 call should be heard by us civilians. And the same with any televised material or through the radio waves. It’s not censorship, but just plain common sense.

Mr. Policinski, you must be a card carrying liberal, because you talk about governmental regulations, “a free press properly is left to make their own decisions for their own reasons.” Now sir, you don’t really think that I can let something as condescending as that observation go unchallenged…..did you?

Everybody who is slapped on the backside at birth knows why newspapers, as well as television and radio pick and choose their daily or nightly topics….. Gene, it’s called ratings, it’s the great concern and the driving mechanisms that drives all of those people in the news media…..hell, to a degree it even drives me, I’m hoping for that one story that’ll be my big break.

RTDNA

No, its not one of my many miss-spelled words, RTDNA stands for a CODE OF ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RADIO-TELEVISION NEWS DIRECTORS ASSOCIATIONS! It’s a code wishing to foster the highest professional standards of electronic journalism, promote public understanding of and confidence in electronic journalism, and strengthen principles of journalistic freedom to gather and disseminate information to establish this code of ethics and professional conduct.

The literature carries on for several pages, but the gist is captured in the above paragraph, heady words, and much to live up to. Good luck with this one Gene, you and your cohorts have a ways to go, for me, I’ll just continuing to write what I figure the truth is…..based on my opinions that have been learned during my time on earth…..and what I read.

HAVE A NICE DAY!