Why Do Networks lie to the Public when there is no need PART 2?
353419
That is exactly what I feel also. I just can't put it into words like you do.
19034
1. Misleading info\n2. Crime-minded users\n3. Absence of electricity
246641
I don't know if there is a definite measurable point where the ends justify the means, but I do know that it does become a necessity, especially in today's world with the constant flow of information and ideas. It is a sad thing to be sure, that our own government needs to spy on us, however the greater good is served. Think about it this way, lets say another horrible attack happened on US soil, killing thousands, and it came out that the government had the means in place to stop it, but didn't pursue them for fear of violating your privacy. How outraged do you think the general populous would be, honestly? They would never live it down. The thing is, they are preventing these attacks, but because they aren't happening there is no outrage, so the government is the Big Bad Wolf now. It is a catch 22. Also, can you point out the section of the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights that covers your right to privacy, I can't seem to find it.
8553
My guess would be that they think it may fall under copywrite infringement. You know "No part of this broadcast may be copied without written consent". They probably feel that way regarding all photos and so on.
58047
If they are selling something then there is propaganda...not much of a mystery there.
302176
They are too busy worrying about a "wardrobe malfunction" and the FCC, to worry about finding truth. \nOr maybe Jack Nicholson said it best in a "Few Good Men".. "Truth? I'll tell you about truth- you can't handle the truth" \nor something to that effect. It is called disinformation, and the media is doing a great job of that.
775943
It is generally considered theft and more people are getting arrested/prosecuted for it.  As for open networks, in my experiences most people are unaware as to how to (or even the need for) protected wifi networks.  The article below gives an account of
923246
They get paid to lie on nations media outlets especially Fox, clear channel and time warner. Here you just get some gullible casualties of lies.
1018467
Yes, it's a way to maintain authority. Politics, corporations, and media want to keep a stranglehold on their authority statuses thus all three professions ignore the facts to promote themselves.
951400
But how much of your "information" is filtered through a system that may not give you the whole truth?\n\nAny source for news will have a bias, regardless of the intention.\n\nNo offense, what proof do you have to support the 90% number you quote?
1071263
In adverting we use it to give more credibility to the messages. People like to know people they trust talking about a product.
1105201
You don't have to convert people to truth.  Waking up does that.  All you have to do is unplug them and they'll see it.
39530
Because the big networks don't think they are going to appealing to a large audience and don't pick them up for their networks. Also sometimes they are not shopped to the bigger networks because they were specifically created with another network in mind.
1168175
next time you guys and gals should search before saying something doesn't exist.\n\nignore them they don't know about freenets. but these will load your screen down with ads to pay for the service you get for free\n\nhttp://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=ush-ans&p=netzero+freenets
952140
people would rather believe a TV rather than think for themselves. your right. people a lot of the time dont want the truth. they want the "pink fuzzy bunny" of truth. a nice neat little package that everyone likes to see, hear, feel, and listen to.\n\n200 years ago we would have revolted against our government. now we do nothing. not even running, ourselves, for public office.
790307
The article you linked certainly raises a question, in my mind, of how and why, exactly, this association relies on support from ANY private companies to the extent that they'd base decisions upon their fear of reprisal from such supporters. However, I do think it's a valid point that, if they were to accept these videos, they'd be setting a precedent; how could they then, say, NOT accept other videos? You could argue that they could determine which videos to accept based on the scientific validation of each video, but I'm guessing this association is pretty happy doing whatever it already does, and is not looking to change course and get into the business of validating scientific content in videos.
193227
ignorance is not wanting to know. if you don't want to know then you don't have to care.