One in three U.S. high school students say the press ought to be more restricted, and even more say the government should approve newspaper stories before readers see them, according to a survey being released today.

The survey of 112,003 students finds that 36% believe newspapers should get "government approval" of stories before publishing; 51% say they should be able to publish freely; 13% have no opinion.(Source (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-01-30-students-press_x.htm).)

What the hell is going on in America that more than a third of the supposedly brightest part of the population now thinks that the press should be censored by the government? I find these results horrifying.

Edit: I see it says high school students now (not university), but still...

I wonder if some of this comes from the "live" coverage of the war last year (with cameras on the front lines) -- and the constant intrusion and "hammer-to-death" attitude that many reporters like to proudly exhibit. It's alarming, however, that this sample would want the GOVERNMENT to censor what is reported on and how it is written. I'm hoping it's more of an anti-press statement, than a pro government censure plea.

Who'd want to live in a government censored culture. There's a good phrase: he who doesnt learn from history is doomed to repeat it.

Does Stalin, Hitler, and all of their type of government censorship ring a bell?

Weirdest thing for me is, why should the press be accountable and edited by the government? When was the last time that the US press, as a whole took a visibly anti-government stand and was proved wrong? I mean, as an outsider I am bound to miss a fair bit, but it seems the last time was Monicagate (for that noise about the fake Bush AWOL records, I still didn't understand if the actual story was truth or not)
What is happening in the US, anyway?

Tal,

the USA Today is a conservative rag best used to line bird cages . . .

the article doesn't suprise me at all. the federal and local governments all foister a certain amount of state propaganda in all American schools...the federal government foists a noticable amount of propaganda onto DVD's, CD's, movies-games, Tv commercials, radio commercials; paid journalists to parot the governments propaganda, etc. etc. etc.

so it's no suprise to see this surveys' results

'they' want to turn America into 'Amerika' by making US into the largest police state in the world

we already imprison more of our own people than any other country in the world; including the Soviets and Chinese . . .

Amerika isn't all that free and neither is american journalism

IMO, the results are not very meaningful without the "whys" behind the answers.

Remember, these are high school students, so they probably care more that their current teen idol will get attacked in the local rag than whether the government will censor information. :)

BTW, sorry if someone has found my questions offensive

I find myself agreeing with BTA here, word your questions right and you can get your average high school student saying pretty much anything. Heck, even by very clear wording a large part of every population are dumber than bricks, if they are teenager multiply both the number of idiots and the level of idiocy by ten.

I'm with BTA on this one. Maybe the kids figure that there needs to be a way to ensure greater responsibility and accountability in journalism (not necessarily a bad idea), but are under the misguided impression that the government is the one to ensure that happens (terrible idea).

Why would someone (http://www.knightfdn.org/default.asp) be needed to promote excellence in journalism worldwide and invest in the vitality of 26 U.S. communities.
The two-year, $1 million research project, titled “The Future of the First Amendment,” was commissioned by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. :eek: What ever for!?! A $1,000,000 survey! :faints:
If this survey and its aftermath means we dont see Jeff Bush in the White House :banana:

There's a good phrase: he who doesnt learn from history is doomed to repeat it.
I agree. And here's another: "The farther back one sees in history, the farhter one can see ahead."

Take their freedom of expression away from them and see how quickly they gain an appreciation for that freedom.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Thomas Paine - "The American Crisis"

Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Some would say its because america's high school kids are dumber than ever before.

Others would argue that high-schoolers are increasingly conservative in their views.

(At this point some of you are probably asking yourselves "What's the difference?" :) )

Having taught math to incoming freshman at an american university, I am inclined to go with the first reason. (The kids are dumb. 'Tis sad but true.)

A significant percentage (not all, some were brilliant) didn't know how to think. I could present ideas to them and they could repeat them back to me but that was about it. They could memorize steps to follow and get the right answer but many seemed unable (or unwilling) to think about the actual concepts.

I think this same problem carries over into other disciplines.

A growing number of students in america are unable/unwilling to think critically about anything.

Thus for many high-schoolers, the Bill of Rights may just be a list of "stuff" that they have to remember so they can regurgitate it on their next exam.

Others would argue that high-schoolers are increasingly conservative in their views. I always thought more freedom was a more conservative value--hence the libertarian party being conservative.

Others would argue that high-schoolers are increasingly conservative in their views. I always thought more freedom was a more conservative value--hence the libertarian party being conservative. I'm sorry, "conservative" was the wrong word to use. I should have said "influenced by the religous right" instead.

All in all, the sentence was included in my post so that I could unleash my feeble attempt at a joke in the next line. I'm sorry if I offended anyone. :o

hehe. Sure didn't offend me :p

A growing number of students in america are unable/unwilling to think critically about anything. It's happening in Britain as well.

@AMaster
Conservative is historically not about more freedom just think Castro and Mussolini. Libertarians are the extreme end traditional of liberalism. In the US, as you probably know, the conservatives like to remove your social freedoms and the liberals your economic freedom.

I think it is normal of ALL governments to take away freedom of its citizens. It's naturally required because too many rights/freedom = free thinking which, in turn, means criticising the government. It's funny to think that the more one government speaks of freedoms, equality, etc., the more it strays from actually delivering. It's not typical of anyone, but of everyone. And BTW, it's more a domain of left-wing, social, states. Reason? They think the people cannot decide for themselves, so the country has to decide for them -- "free" education, "free" medical service, "free" social security -- all "free," but at the expense of taxes, and discretion of the government to spend taxes as they wish. OTOH, I'm not too keen on pushing some civil rights issues too far -- outlaw abortion -- I'm all for it, not only because of moral issues, but also because of money that taxpayers would have to give to support it; but outlaw, I don't know, selling cigarettes? No way. People smoke for their own demise. As long as there are laws that they are not allowed to do so on the streets, to the demise of fellow pedestrians, it's ok with me.

I always thought more freedom was a more conservative value--hence the libertarian party being conservative. Liberalism is the antitode to conservatism.

Liberalism

liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
Conservatism is the opposite of freedom.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=liberalism

What is really sad here is that through the indoctrination of public schools, we have created a generation of children who believe that they are dependant upon the government, rather than the government being dependant upon them. Thus they believe that it is the government's role to tell them what is acceptable, after all, the gov't has been doing so for up to 13 years.

It is funny that in this one small regard it has backfired.

This is the problem with making people believe that the gov't is best mechanism for accomplishing everything. Eventually, after the gov't has taken over all other industries, why shouldn't they take over the media as well? It seems to be to be a natural progression of socialism.

Iago, it is strange that most political parties contradict themselves on these two issues. Ie. are liberal when it comes to civil rights, but strictly controlling economics. And the other way around.

a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c The gold standard has no actual use anymore, I believe the coupling of valuta to a gold stock ( as prescribed in the bretton woods system) stopped in 1971, so this actual description of liberalism is quite outdated...

And more importantly to all you peeps who claim absolute freedom, always keep in mind that another persons freedom starts, where your freedom ends...

Toughluck, that's another problem...

Lord Sven, outdated, yes, as, but it's a movement from the 18th to 19th century... They had to go on after the abolishment of the cornlaws, somehow.

By the way, the gold standart itself is outdated, but the underlying principle of a monetary-stability, now through monetarism balancing delfation/inflation through national banks, is still paramount. So, they just updated, not re-invented themself or simply ceased to exist.

Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Yeah... yeah, I think we should do that...

Seriously, I'd be surprised if high school kids understood the implications of this study. I sure wouldn't have when I was at school - I wasn't capable of thinking that well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A growing number of students in america are unable/unwilling to think critically about anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's happening in Britain as well. @ GrinninIdjut/Carcaroth: Same deal over here in Australia - and I tutor at one of the "highly-esteemed" universities in their Arts faculty. You know, the one which requires abstract thought and critical analysis of issues in order to complete it?

The survey's results are frightening, but not surprising. The idea of Liberty, as it was understood in the 18th and 19th centuries, and which is of course the basis of our Constitution, is simply no longer taught in our high schools, apart from rote references to a few iconic phrases. If Chandos were teaching civics it would help. Maybe 10,000 Chandos. (Hope I'm not embarassing you, Chandos.)

I always thought more freedom was a more conservative value--hence the libertarian party being conservative WOW! I'm not sure what to make of that. When one looks back at the women's movement, the fight over civil rights and government censorship, I'm amazed by that comment. But I would not use the term "value," I would think that liberals believe in freedom and equality as a matter of principle, while conservatives are opposed to freedom and equality BECAUSE of their values. For instance, they would oppose a woman's freedom and equality because it does not mesh with well their notion of "family values." I'll leave it to your ability to think abstractly to further this notion.

Cernak - Thanks for the kind words. :)

The survey isn't surprising to me at all. I also don't think it has anything to do with the fact that the poll was conducted among high schoolers. In an ever more conservative America, I bet you'd get about 1/3 of all adults to say that the government should give approval to what is reported in the press. Obviously, I don't agree with this, but 36% doesn't seem unbelievably high to me at all.

I'll use a George Carlin quote as it seems appropriate here:

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then consider that half the people are even dumber than that."

Which party was generally opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment and Suffrage?
Sorry, couldn’t resist a dig on the Democrats. In reality it was Dixiecrats, some of which are still lingering in the Democratic Party (Robert Byrd). But I have to admit that the new generation of these people are hiding in the Republican Party.

That said, conservative citizens are not opposed to equality. Do not confuse conservative citizens with Republican politicians. Most of the conservatives I know are not in favor of the Gay Marriage Amendment. That said, I voted against it, but it still passed in my state (OK), but it also had broad support from the Democrats in this state. I would say that this issue is more of a regional issue than one of political ideology.

Painting support of freedom and rights with such a broad stroke is not effective. There are many instances where liberals wish to impede the freedoms of individuals, just as there are many where conservatives wish to, we just have different views on what is a freedom and what is a social issue.

The old definitions of liberals and conservatives no longer fit, at least in America today. Even the definitions currently in use in the rest of the world do not fit well, as joacqin has pointed out; an American liberal is a conservative in his country.

That said, conservative citizens are not opposed to equality. Do not confuse conservative citizens with Republican politicians. I'm afraid you lost me. What does government censorship of the press, or at the very least government regulation of the press have to do with equality?

It doesn't, I was off topic responding to Chandos, and screwed up a cut-and-paste.

Sorry

Darkwolf - I was not comparing politcal parties, but ideology (conservatives vs liberal). And not comparing Republicans vs Democrats. As you point out, these labels don't lend themselves to either really well. I was really responding to the comment which was made that freedom was not a "liberal value". BTW, speaking of Dixiecrats, who are they now? Where are those red states anyway?

In reality it was Dixiecrats, some of which are still lingering in the Democratic Party (Robert Byrd). A few may be lingering, but where in the US government can one find high concentrations of white, Protestant, middle age, male, conservatives in suits? Just whistle "Dixie." But now we are really getting off the main topic here...

[ February 04, 2005, 07:03: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]