To Read the origins of this thread go to Psychics/Derek Ogilive the baby mind reader.
Don't be silly, If I stole your tele then I would be infringing on your right to own property. therefore there will be a victim in the crime. Broadcasting a psychic on TV is a victimless crime.f you steal my TV, should I have the right to complain to the police but they not have the right to arrest you?
Ok so if you want to go down the 'Rules are Rules' and 'That is That' way of thinking. then what about the rule that America used to have that forbid the teaching of evolution. Rules are Rules?
or what about grocers in this country not being allowed to sell potaoes in pounds but they have to sell them in kilos. Rules Are Rules?
Cheers
Jamie
There is no such thing as a 'victimless crime'.
Before I address your points, I would ask you to consider why the broadcasting rules exist. Why do you think they are there?
Good question,
The reason I think they are there is to control what i see or don't see on a TV tha I bought with my own money.
Now the reason I think they SHOULD be there is to just regulate statments that directly lead to real crimes.
PROSTITUTIONOriginally Posted by tkingdoll
DRUG ABUSE
to name but 2, there are plenty more but those are my favorites LOL.
You're arguing against a position that no-one holds on here.
There are good rules and bad rules - not simply 'rules'.
If rules or restrictions are applied anywhere than they have to be justified by showing that their imposition, and restriction of freedom, is of greater benefit than not applying them.
Should we have rules that prevent people advertising or broadcasting things that are false? Yes, I think so.
Should we have rules that prevent people from teaching things that are true? No, absolutely not.
It's all about the appropriate use of rules and regulations and not the dichotomous situation of rules or no rules.
.
The ITC regulations are in place to ensure that things are presented in a balanced way.
It would be easy for a large media organisation to push it's agenda through it's programming - the regulations are there to prevent things like that happening.
With regard to the section on showing psychic phenomena - pre watershed is dodgy, but if you must, an alternate viewpoint must be present. Post watershed, you can, as long as the programme is top and tailed with "for entertainment purposes only" disclaimers to show that such powers are at best unproven.
It would be easy to make a programme that displays all manner of psychic or paranormal things, claim they are 100% real and convince a lot of people. The rules are there to stop this happening.
Remember, a lot of people are gullible and can't distinguish what happens on a TV screen from reality - there was a case a few years back when one of the actors in Coronation Street was physically attacked because someone thought they really were the character they played on screen and didn't like what they were doing (I think it was a storyline about wife beating).
By promoting psychic and paranormal events as 100% genuine when they are not proven is akin to using your power of authority to lie to people who put their trust in you - it's an abuse of power and promoting belief in things that are not proven.
Imagine that BBC News ran an article claiming that Breatharianism works and people can live on nothing but air and sunlight - the BBC would be prosecuted after the first person who died from starvation because of that report. Now to promote something equally as unproven will persuade the less critically minded that these things do exist and there is genuine chance that they can be suckered into some form of con because of it.
The rules are there to protect us from the broadcasters and from ourselves.
Well we'll have to agree to disagree on this then.
When I think of Critical Thinking I think of looking, then questioning, and then decideing for oneself whether something has enough merit to believe in or not. I also feel that is the way to teach Critical Thinking to kids. I feel you are harming the next generation of critical thinkers by simply not broadcasting the exact material that they should be looking at and questioning. You have to let them see it and question it for themselves. Eventually in generations to come more and more people will question things and the truth will prevail. Think about how many people in the past thought thunder was caused by the god of thunder. Not anymore thanks to critical thinking. Eventually these psychics will go away.
I do feel that where a profit has been made a case for fraud could be brought against the psychics (not the broadcasters) providing they fail the appropriate tests. That's because there is a victim involved the person who has handed their money over to a fraud.
Cheers
Jamie
I can see where you're coming from there Jamie.
I do think though that your position presupposes that people watching this unregulated broadcasting are all critical thinkers.
The sad fact is that the vast majority of people are not critical thinkers and can be influenced very easily by what they see on TV.
The real answer of course is that if critical thinking were taught in schools then there would be less need for regulation because the audience would be capable of assessing such programmes objectively and also, there'd be little demand for them in the first place.
I think that non-regulation is something of an ideal that is not realistic.
.
Hi Jamie,
I wish I could agree with that - but I fear that the reverse is the case. I percieve a rising tide of woo in this country - not just the psychics and the mediums, but also the chinese herbalists, reflexologists, faith healers, ghost hunters, etc etcEventually these psychics will go away.
As John says, most people are not critical thinkers by instinct - they need to have a balanced case put before them. If left to its own devices, the media would simply show whatever sells the best. Since people are attracted by ideas like ghosts, miracle cures and seeing the future, they will choose to watch TV which promotes these things: it is human nature to prefer listening to what you want to hear. On that path lies a great danger to critical thinking.
A media free-for-all may be an attractive libertarian ideal, but it is not a palatable prospect for real critical thinkers. Without some kind of guarantee that both sides of a case will be heard, critical thinking would be drowned out by the clamour of charlatans. We're close enough to that scenario as it is ... :(
BTW, total legalisation of prostitution and drug abuse does not seem such a great idea either, IMHO - but that is a debate for another forum
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks