Should media outlets from dictatorships be banned from broadcasting.

[Something completely different]

I guess a lot of people here receive such garstly propaganda channels as "Russia Today" and "Press TV".
I personaly cant stand both of these channels and the hopeless way in which they try to distract from the fact that they are outright propaganda channels which have nothing to do with journalistic integraty and objective reporting.
Especialy "Press TV" the Iranian propaganda channel makes my blood boil, the dishonesty and the hatred they spread. Can someone actualy take a channel serious which treats David Duke as if he were a earnest political commentator?
And RT? is pritty much Putins mouthpiece.

But on the other hand I have learned to appreciate Al Jazzera english, although not always objectve it is objective most of the time and has reported on storys critical of the arab world. I do guess it`s a nice glimps into the liberal arabs way of seing the world.
I haven`t jet watched a lot of CCTV (chinas new international news channel in english) but would accept it in the same way as Al Jazzera if doesn`t turn out to be a outright KP propaganda piece.


So should certain media outlets from totalitarian nations which broadcast propaganda be forbidden to broadcast in democracies?

[Anomalocaris]

Indeed, we must protect our free press by making sure it is not free.

We profit from opinions made more diverse by exclusion of those we disagree with.

We are all better because we are taught news things everyday that we already know.

We become more knoweldgeable by learning what not to learn.

[Darkstar]

Technically, their banning wouldn't fit in with the whole freedom of speech thing. So, while they shouldn't be banned, there should be some outside indication that lets you know they are just propaganda.

[Something completely different]

so you would give broadcasting rights to people who actualy murdered journalists.
I`m not joking this arround, ever hear of Anna Politkowskaja?

[Anomalocaris]

so you would give broadcasting rights to people who actualy murdered journalists.
I`m not joking this arround, ever hear of Anna Politkowskaja?

Yes. If murders can concoct a story worth listening to, it offers an insight into the world deeper than could ever stupid shouts of "freedom".

[Something completely different]

Yes. If murders can concoct a story worth listening to, it offers an insight into the world deeper than could ever stupid shouts of "freedom".

Google translator:

Ja. Wenn Morde kann eine Geschichte hörenswert zusammenbrauen, bietet es einen Einblick in die Welt tiefer als jemals dumme Geschrei der "Freiheit.

so you think the murderes of honest and objective journalists were worth it because they get peoples attention for the story?
And that that is better than demanding the suppresed peoples freedom?

I am asking because i dont want a misunderstanding here, words like concoct i have never heared in my life.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes. If murders can concoct a story worth listening to, it offers an insight into the world deeper than could ever stupid shouts of "freedom".

Google translator:

Ja. Wenn Morde kann eine Geschichte hörenswert zusammenbrauen, bietet es einen Einblick in die Welt tiefer als jemals dumme Geschrei der "Freiheit.

so you think the murderes of honest and objective journalists were worth it because they get peoples attention for the story?
And that that is better than demanding the suppresed peoples freedom?

I am asking because i dont want a misunderstanding here, words like concoct i have never heared in my life.

No. Let me rephrase:

The fact that people who murdered honest journalist would nonetheless have a worthwhile story to tell, which you can't hear from honest journalists, is a fact that offers an unusually penetrating insight into how the world really works.

The potential for this insight alone is worth giving murders of honest journalists an ability to speak to public.

[Jackalope]

No.

What is the difference between one government who only allows approved broadcasters to disseminate information? It seems to me that this, in an attempt to avoid becoming like "them", that we adopt similar methods (sanctioning which opinions can and cannot be broadcast).

Were this to be done, who shall we appoint to judge what is objective?

Just no.

[Something completely different]

No. Let me rephrase:

The fact that people who murdered honest journalist would nonetheless have a worthwhile story to tell, which you can't hear from honest journalists, is a fact that offers an unusually penetrating insight into how the world really works.

The potential for this insight alone is worth giving murders of honest journalists an ability to speak to public.

Ah ok, thank you for your patience.

I would dought that they wouldn`t have a oppertunety to tell their story.
After all everyone saw Achmedinijads speech at the UN.
And when Putin was asked by journalists why he treated the oppositon so harsh he said he does that because his opposition consisted only of homosexuals and pedophiles. That itself delivers a pritty clear insight into how their world works.
My question is - should we let those people broadcast 24 hours a day their pittyfull excuses for commiting their crimes in our countries?
They have their chance to explain themselves, but should they be given the chance to indoctrinate a democracies population and calling it "journalism"?

No. What is the difference between one government who only allows approved broadcasters to disseminate information? It seems to me that this, in an attempt to avoid becoming like "them", that we adopt similar methods (sanctioning which opinions can and cannot be broadcast).
Were this to be done, who shall we appoint to judge what is objective?
Just no.

One can set up standerds to what is journalism, what is opinion publishing and what is simply outright propaganda aimed to indoctrinate and deceive.
I dont mistrust democratic institutions such as a high court to a level at which i believe it will make biased or eaven undemocratic decisions.
But i know that the US hight court consists of biased judges - therefor there might be a cultural difference here.
Our highcourt is payed to not have a political opinion and to make reasonable decisions on german law.

[Minimalist]

I guess a lot of people here receive such garstly propaganda channels as "Russia Today" and "Press TV".

Don't forget FOX.