I worry about what I see.
True, in the application of FB LivingSocial surveys hang some nice, funny and even fun, but there are some like this, that the title of this note, which give much thought, at least to me.
We are all clear on the polarization and the almost inevitable radicalization in the positions that we are living in our country: nothing more logical discourse, unfortunately, we're hearing from both sides. But there is something that is not usually think, is logical that radicalization, is it wise to assume similar postures, but in the opposite direction (Law of Action and Reaction)? Does that help with something, fix something?
is my personal opinion. The gobierneros, repeating like parrots the speech of His Majesty Gut Floja I assume to be closed Globovisión because "sick" and now the opposition, in response, we assume, even in this type of survey that we see in social networks, VTV close down. And I ask: Is not that exactly the same position as both criticize? To them, it seems Globovisión garbage to us, we think garbage VTV. Perhaps the solution is to close the channel that we dislike?
It is well known that in VTV, while a state channel, not the government, just have a posture: flattery the President, and that, I understand, if not against the law, at least it is unethical: the country we all gobierneros and opponents, and the channel state must serve EVERYONE. In the opposite situation, Globovisión is a private company and there is no legal impediment to assume an editorial stance. "Balloon" has never closed its doors to the officers; always invited and for a long time, they used to go to their programs. Sure, they were forbidden to go to the channel and, even, are advised not to speak to reporters the same.
Now, what position we take? Let's be consistent: if we oppose the closure of a channel that is our sympathy, "let's pretend, even in our imagination or in games like this survey, which closes the channel that we dislike? Fundamentally, the problem I see is this: fall, of inconsistency, in the same position we criticize. I will repeat what some have used as an argument, very sensible by others against the closure of the "Globe": if you do not like, do not see it. My position is exactly that: if you do not like VTV, not watch. Someday things will be put in place and those responsible (?) Infringements committed there will have to answer before the law.
the annoyance No more with this. I just want to say is this: we are consistent: order (or pretend, or imagine ...) the closure of a means of communication because we do not like to limit freedom of expression, is to have a country with clamp. I'd rather hear the terrible things they say on VTV to those people can not speak, right or wrong, rude or not, flattering or not, have the right to give their opinion. So are we.
PS: I am very surprised that people who are or have been television imagine closing a channel. Working in an environment, would you like to see it closed?
True, in the application of FB LivingSocial surveys hang some nice, funny and even fun, but there are some like this, that the title of this note, which give much thought, at least to me.
We are all clear on the polarization and the almost inevitable radicalization in the positions that we are living in our country: nothing more logical discourse, unfortunately, we're hearing from both sides. But there is something that is not usually think, is logical that radicalization, is it wise to assume similar postures, but in the opposite direction (Law of Action and Reaction)? Does that help with something, fix something?
is my personal opinion. The gobierneros, repeating like parrots the speech of His Majesty Gut Floja I assume to be closed Globovisión because "sick" and now the opposition, in response, we assume, even in this type of survey that we see in social networks, VTV close down. And I ask: Is not that exactly the same position as both criticize? To them, it seems Globovisión garbage to us, we think garbage VTV. Perhaps the solution is to close the channel that we dislike?
It is well known that in VTV, while a state channel, not the government, just have a posture: flattery the President, and that, I understand, if not against the law, at least it is unethical: the country we all gobierneros and opponents, and the channel state must serve EVERYONE. In the opposite situation, Globovisión is a private company and there is no legal impediment to assume an editorial stance. "Balloon" has never closed its doors to the officers; always invited and for a long time, they used to go to their programs. Sure, they were forbidden to go to the channel and, even, are advised not to speak to reporters the same.
Now, what position we take? Let's be consistent: if we oppose the closure of a channel that is our sympathy, "let's pretend, even in our imagination or in games like this survey, which closes the channel that we dislike? Fundamentally, the problem I see is this: fall, of inconsistency, in the same position we criticize. I will repeat what some have used as an argument, very sensible by others against the closure of the "Globe": if you do not like, do not see it. My position is exactly that: if you do not like VTV, not watch. Someday things will be put in place and those responsible (?) Infringements committed there will have to answer before the law.
the annoyance No more with this. I just want to say is this: we are consistent: order (or pretend, or imagine ...) the closure of a means of communication because we do not like to limit freedom of expression, is to have a country with clamp. I'd rather hear the terrible things they say on VTV to those people can not speak, right or wrong, rude or not, flattering or not, have the right to give their opinion. So are we.
PS: I am very surprised that people who are or have been television imagine closing a channel. Working in an environment, would you like to see it closed?
0 comments:
Post a Comment