This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
To have control on print and electronic media, making it mandatory to publish some percentage of "any" positives happening around
I am proposing this idea, because at times, I find no control on the news which is being spread by different mediums,it is either biased or too negative. I completely agree over the fact that media is mirror of what's happening in the society, but when they completely forget their responsibility to publish positives happening around, and there is no control on media houses for doing this in free society. It is not asking about controlling what they print, its all about proposing to publish at least some percentage of news which brings a positive outlook from everybody, for example: Success stories of people who brought little but significant changes, steps taken for environment concerns by individuals etc and there may be many more. By glorifying good works of commoners, which do happen at every level of society, it will give a boost to many others who want to start something positive but backout for not being noticed. Being practical, I would consider here that nothing is completely selfless in this world. Consider the kind of news we are being fed everyday:
Politics, crimes, entertainment, strange surveys on relationships, meaningless researches which do not yield anything positive but keeps coming everyday.
Its all about forcing media houses to publish at least something positive on the front page, and on their portals, and there can be an international vigilance body to monitor all electronic media.
I am asking it to be "forced", because all the news around us, isn't helping us anyways.
Aren't you fed up with the words like, loot, murder, rape, racism, attack, violence, strikes, scams, terror suspects, bomb plots etc etc, and this idea is not to oppose these reporting, but its all about bringing forward small positives, no matter if it come forcefully!
Will deeply appreciate views of TED members.
Note: Deleted the word government from the idea, it may be any independent body which can be trusted and accepted.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Vivek Trivedi 10+
It is evident for media houses the negativity sells, and they are trying to cash this very fact as much as possible, and there is no control over this, in electronic media, word like scams, corruption etc fetch more clicks then any other news.
My solution is never force, its just putting a watchdog to take care of some small fraction of mandatory positives happening all around us. If they will come in a control way, what's the harm do you see in it?
I am not discouraging that other news shall not make headlines, I am just proposing mandatory inclusion of positives through media. and obviously, there shall never be any use of violence over it and it is not for glorifying the different governments, its about bringing forward the success stories of small town heros.
Please let me know if you need more clarification on it.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
the food example is a case of using one bad solution as a precedence for another bad solution. many governments try to regulate food to promote heathy eating. this is a complete waste of time, and an intrusion to personal space. only by educating the people, can we go forward.
Vivek Trivedi 10+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
mandatory is just a word use. that is my point, not yours. mandatory means forced. you just play with words saying it is not forced but mandatory. it is force in the rawest sense. not complying news agencies will be fined and finally shut down. their workers will lose their jobs, and families will left without income. it is not some theoretical framework. we deal with actual people here. you want to destroy the life-long work of someone because you have a different idea what they should do with their own newspaper or tv channel which they created and maintained. this is in no sense different than putting a gun at their head, and force them to leave and give up their property. it is literally the same as armed robbery.
Vivek Trivedi 10+
I am sorry Krisztian, but with your mindset, your conclusions are completely valid for you, but they can't be generalized, and believe me there is always a scope for improvement, no matter if it is not my way or if it is your way, but there has to be something. Its same like google added positive psychology section to its news columns. The basic thought is to prevent the influence of negative information around us, if it seems like an armed robbery to you, I would appreciate better ideas from you instead of leaving things as it is.
I have also added a talk by Peter Diamandis in which it is discussed initially. Again, I am just asking you the way to prevent it, rebutting is perfectly fine, but I will appreciate kinder words.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
you say that i can select news, and i assume you can too, but others can't? what kind of arrogance is that? what makes you that much better? what makes you so special that you believe your world-view fits other people better than their own world-view?
and what is that aggression? if you think other people are wrong, how can be your first thought not education, arguments but some legislation that makes other opinions unlawful?
google added positive psychology? and they were forced by what agency? none? you see, that is what we need. if there is demand, someone will work on it, and create supply. that is what we want to do. raise awareness, talk about it, argue, try things, create new services, and let people do their stuff freely.
and what is that outrage that you need "kinder words"? you plan to put a gun at people's head, and command them to comply with your demands. and then you want kind words? you are planning to destroy lives, destroy fruits of life-long work and effort, but you dislike harsh words? come on.
Vivek Trivedi 10+
For me, you are seeing things from narrow perceptive or may be from the perceptive of a developed country. If you explore more about Indian media, you will come to realize it is already enslaved and may be my idea is not suitable considering the wider audiences.
I beg your pardon for this, but I am not a self proclaimed person, who can insist that I have most positive mind set ever. There are certain limitations to put forth your arguments, be it TED or be it any other platform, your comments and your personal thoughts reflect that its not the "most positive" outlook.
If you could had understood the gist of the message I wanted to convey, we could had extracted something fruitful and meaningful out of completely negative statement, but you chose otherwise.
Believe me mate, its just an idea, not going to imposed on you, you have every right to disagree, but throwing so many question marks to the person who is starting the argument, is not going to help anyone. I expected constructive discussion, destroying life is the last thing I can think of. Just go through what Yubal has written, he also opposes the idea, but he fetches respect from whosoever read it.
Thanks for your contribution.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
how my argument is dependent on the development level of a country? in a poor country, it is acceptable to enforce your views on others? why?
media enslaved by who? if the media is enslaved, what is the merit in imposing more rules on them? in that case, you will need to regulate the enslaver instead. but it would be even better to free media, so it is not enslaved.
i am talking about the gist of your idea. i never talked about anything else. the gist of your idea is to ban behavior you don't like. a news website for example does not want to report positive news. but you go there and say "either you put positive news up, or you will be shut down, and your income will be gone.". that is your idea. that is what we are talking about.
Vivek Trivedi 10+
The gist of my story is NOT "to ban what I don't like", let them publish they are already doing, its all about asking a dedicated space to bring forward something positive everyday.. its not about blocking anything.. where did I say to filter the news?
I feel sorry for myself that I fell short of words to explain my idea. Blocking something is worst thing that can be proposed, and here in India, I am part of group who are protesting against the ban on social media!
Gist of my story is : To have a dedicated space for positives, its all about adding something..I am not advocating deleting-blocking or any kind of filtering.
By saying media is enslaved, I mean, there is some section of media which presents the rosy picture always against the misdeeds of some influential people.
To summarize:
-- I am completely against any kind of blocking or filtering of news that is being interpreted by you, the idea I proposed here is to open a dedicated department in media houses to bring forward the positive things happening at very small levels and that too on a regular basis.
May be you can suggest better words to frame my questions, any contribution is welcome whole heartily.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
again. the situation is simple. they are the service provider. i am the customer, and i want to get their services. we agree on that. you have no right to interfere. if you do this, you commit aggression on us. that is simple.
Vivek Trivedi 10+
tiffany branson
The last business standing will be true president of this country.