David Puttnam: What happens when the media's priority is profit? 

Me too! I have to write up if i agree with this dude and i still dont know if duty of care is good or bad!🤦🏻‍♀️🤓

there's only so many interesting, clever people

This is true.

Abominable Love I don't think so. TED has always, at least as far as I've been a viewer, been 5% real activism with 95% feel-good pieces on top, be it new wonderful new tech or motivational speakers talking about how they overcome their hardness or solved an issue.

or the very worst, priveleged people preeching about how you ought to solve your problems

No, his speech was about journalism. About the duties journalists should and must uphold to ensure a well informed and developed society. That they should report facts primarily, opinion as secondary and that it be clear where opinion starts and the facts end. It was a critique of the sensationalising that the media engages in and a plea for reason.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ also moreover, about moral justification for actions given the understanding of its implications

Well, to limit it to the US, let's take as an example Fox "News" as possibly the worst offender. Their journalistic duty requires them to report the news and act as a guardian over the political arena, not to cater to the preferences of their target audience. If they want to do that, they shouldn't report news. They carefully select any phrase out of interviews or official documents to scare the shit out of their right wing audience, recently that the ACA ("ObamaCare") would cost 2,5 million jobs which is a complete distortion of what the report they took it from actually says. Anything to damage the reputation of the democrats which they obviously hate. Absolute untruthful quotes of Republican politicians is treated as the Holy Gospel, even though a view minutes research could easily show these quotes to be totally wrong/false/deceitful. By this level of biased reporting they damage the public political discourse. This willful neglecting of their journalistic duty should have opened them up for prosecution the same way the brewer was for his neglect. But in the US these broadcaster run for the protection of the 1st amendment whenever they are caught in a lie. I, and probably David Puttman as well, think this 1st amendment protection should be removed from news-organisations to force them to present the news in a fair and balanced way. If they digress they open themselves up to prosecution for libel, deformation of character or dereliction of duty They of course are free to offer their opinion, but the format must clearly differ from the news-reporting and be clearly marked "OPINION" preferably in bold letters on the screen or above the header in printed media. The separation with actual news must be complete, and therefor also no "news-tacker" running underneath the screen during these TV-shows and no news items on the opinion pages. The populous will be better informed regarding what their politicians are up to,and the politicians will have to recon with increased awareness of the public and actually start to behave as politicians in stead of school-yard bullies.

I suspect the litigious element in the Painswick Snail story might have led you to expect an exhortation for punishment. He's speaking of the need for the media to apply a moral compass to the reporting of complex issues. In the Disinformation/Misinformation Age, that is vital. I don’t lay the blame solely on the media, though. Every reader and viewer who supports lurid and propagandistic trash-journalism, shares in the current morally reprehensible exaltation of ignorance.

Roy Kliffen Rhetorical question: What do you get when you mate amoral corporate-greed with a poorly educated, fear-based, black-and-white, control-oriented, moralistic section of the population? Answer: FAUX News. (FUX New is an equally appropriate answer, though.)

+A Skeptical Human +A Skeptical Human I found this Ted Talk amazing and very straight forward, though with the usage of some difficult sentences for a non-native speaker of the English language. What I understand from it, is that Puttnam calls for self regulated censorship. As he said, if you don't think it's right or any good to say, don't say it. I didn't recall anything about government regulated censorship at all, but this may be because of my own shortcomings when it comes to the English language. Care to give a time stamp of when he says it? The problem of tabloid media is that they only care about sales, thus pursuing a very narrow agenda of a specific corporation. They hinder democracy and give their readers a negative view on democracy and its leaders. If that was the case when the media first started arriving, it would've been banned with a stamp that it was unhealthy for your mind to read such a disgraceful paper. It has the exact same effects today, so why should we tolerate it now?

"egotistical hedonistic individuals not capable of empathy" That describes many on the left perfectly. Arguing as socialists yet behaving like libertines, without any sense of irony.

Good job missing the point of his whole argument. Was your comment created through common sense, was it a reasonable comment? Does it fill a function, a purpose, and does it inform in any way?

Quiet, you blistering polyp. This is simply an example of TED trying to appear 'critical' by making obvious lukewarm points without having to commit itself to a truly radical position. Unfortunately, the content of my own comment should be 'duh, obvious', but I fear that the great majority of the techno-evaneglist flock are impervious to reason that isn't packaged like an infomercial for the future.

Vikt0rEremita I more than well understood your comment and its content, which is why I replied. It seems far away from obvious since you made a comment proving the problem's nature and the very ongoing nature of it. And if what you say it true, than sure, I can see your reasoning.

Vikt0rEremita Since what he says still applies today, it's clear that it bears repeating, at least one more time. Lofty and innovative ideas are important, sure, but equally important is that the base upon which we build those ideas is as reinforced and good as is possible, and in a world of biased media concerned more with their editorial bias than truth and constructive reporting, we clearly have a ways to go. As said, it bears repeating at least once more.

Sounds like he's Bob Ross's long distant cousin 🤣

somebody once said that about Francis Crick. But who was that person???

Because you didn't GET the point.

archanth I have my opinion on the subject but i wanted to hear his. All im saying is that he said more than he should. Organise ur thoughts, make it brief.. or ur loosing ppl..

rurounisld So, according to your first comment, "he didn't get to the point". Next, according to your second comment, he lost you because you feel he said more than he ought. I'm aware that the internet encourages a reduction in attention-span, but your mutually contradictory remarks lead me back to my first impression: you didn't get the point. To be fair, perhaps you are too young to have noticed the decline--some of it egregious--in the quality of journalism.

archanth Dont u think he is talking too much to make his point? He spent 2 mins in a story. He barely became relavant to the subject around 3 min only to involve other things afterwards and not to b brief. 3:40 amen after all this talking u can finally hear why did u just spend those 4 mins slitghly comfused. Look i really think he was talking alot, if i didnt get the point ( wich is in the title) i would wright: He didnt get to the point. Wich u think i said. He does become better in the second half but overall i got the impresion that in this vid relevance comes and goes. Now am in contradicting my self in those comments? did i change my thoughts? Maybe im am too young (28) but todays journalism ,especially in my country is a joke. Dont u think that to have an informed citizen u 1st need to have an educated citizen, who thinks and acts in the right way? He really likes using the name democracy as if we live in one + he said :we have to trust those making the decisions... wich is im very sure is not democracy. Hey look im blathering myself now.

rurounisld Your penultimate remark is quite circular, isn't it? "Dont u think that to have an informed citizen u 1st need to have an educated citizen, who thinks and acts in the right way?" See it? To have *well*-informed citizens, one requires a good educational system which promotes critical thinking and the ability to discriminate between sound information and the sort of misleading waffle that abounds on the any-misguided-fool-can-publish internet. .

pre-Regan, in the USA anyways. He started a tear down of media regulations, such as they had to give equal air time to both (dem/repub) sides of the issue. People as a whole had more integrity in the old days of fighting nature and not boredom though too.

I think back in the days there was something called professional pride, witch demanded that you performed your work at good standards. But the cutthroat capitalism of to day can not afford such a thing.

Brett Leben thank you yes before reagan I was thinking 60s and 70s so there were actually regulations on this. So this entire video is about going back to that kind of integrity. It might have been a good Idea to mention that in his talk.

It's nothing to do with age. Newspapers have always reported news from their own viewpoint. Now it is different which I can explain by an example. You might presume that the eurosceptic Express and Mail would jump on the chance that all the treaties regarding the EU are illegal but no someone is stopping them discussing the fact. If you don't believe me check out the legal advice Edward Heath received before he signed the first Eu treaty. He was told it was illegal. Don't look in the media for the truth.You will have to search for the truth diligently and examine statements with proof. It's sick but true

I think we would like to believe what Teurgin says, but the fact of the matter is that the transparency of these organisations (or at least those who were in the know) was lacking and reporting technologies were inferior. So yes, you then have the illusion of a more stable standard reporting (and in some cases, governing-) apparatus. I prefer to call it a darker age of journalism myself. The internet has rather put the magnifying glass on problems that have very well existed a few decades before the internet age. I believe it is a good thing to be informed however, or rather have information available to me so that I can make informed decisions on any story I am fed. You can take war journalism as good example of the reverse of this scenario, but it was not because of the quality of journalism that is happened this way. The Vietnam was became very unpopular in the U.S. (and elsewhere) in part because of the fantastic frontline view we had from allowed embedded journalism. They showed the people a horror and biography of that war's participants and it was difficult for a government to paint a different picture than what people were seeing on their television (although some would argue that even this was perspective could be tainted by reporting bias). Now take the more recent wars in the Middle East. You do not find the same kind of transparency. Instead you have journalism "pools", where journalists meet with commanders to get updates of what is happening on the front, where the real story takes place. Integrity of journalism standards aside...If you ask me, people should seize the information age and try their best to make informed opinions about current events as much as possible. There is so much first-hand information available that was not so readily available a few decades ago. Independent news is more easily accessed than ever before and it is becoming increasingly easier to cross-reference information and fact-check the statements of politicians, corporate media and their borrowed "experts". It's not easy to find the truth and nothing but the truth, but with the internet we do have the power to check certain facts. We never had this access before. Never before have we been able to read the blogs of victims caught within a warzone or other conflict. We can be in a way our own investigative journalist.

Stephen, I don't know how you got the idea that I think the rest of the world should not hold certain media outlets responsible for the lies they spread. Or that I myself think that. They absolutely should. I just wanted to share my personal experience with the utter shit this guy sprouts, and highlight the dangers of people like Puttnam who are going around advocating not only the censorship of the press (to the direct benefit of politicians and others in power), but something all together more sinister- something that suspiciously sounds like actual control of the press. Which is in my opinion a dangerous solution to an all ready dangerous problem. He seems to want to fight one extreme with another. And I belive in a free press, however crap SOME (key word some) news outlets may be.

hi

PWNDer1337 WHASAAAAAAAA