شات مصرية - دردشة مصرية - شات مصري

شات القاهرة ، دردشة القاهرة ، شات دردشة القاهرة ، شات دردشة جامعة القاهرة

شات الاسكندرية - دردشة الاسكندرية - شات دردشة الاسكندرية - شات دردشة جامعة الاسكندرية

شات المنصورة - دردشة المنصورة

شات البحيرة - دردشة البحيرة

شات الفيوم - دردشة الفيوم

شات الغربية - دردشة الغربية

شات الدقهلية - دردشة الدقهلية

شات الاسماعيلية - دردشة الاسماعيلية

شات الجيزة - دردشة الجيزة

شات المنوفية - دردشة المنوفية

شات المنيا - دردشة المنيا

شات البحر الاحمر - دردشة البحر الاحمر

شات القليوبية - دردشة القليوبية

شات الاقصر - دردشة الاقصر

شات الوادى الجديد - دردشة الوادى الجديد

شات الشرقية - دردشة الشرقية

شات السويس - دردشة السويس

شات اسوان - دردشة اسوان

شات اسيوط - دردشة اسيوط

شات بني سويف - دردشة بني سويف

شات بورسعيد - دردشة بورسعيد

شات دمياط - دردشة دمياط

شات كفر الشيخ - دردشة كفر الشيخ

شات مطروح - دردشة مطروح

شات قنا - دردشة قنا

شات جنوب سيناء - دردشة جنوب سيناء

شات شمال سيناء - دردشة شمال سيناء

شات سوهاج - دردشة سوهاج

شات عسل ـ دردشة عسل

شات الشلة ـ دردشة الشلة

شات فلة ـ دردشة فله

شات دردشة ـ دردشة دردشة

شات شبيك لبيك ـ دردشة شبيك لبيك

شات العنابى ـ دردشة العنابى

شات حب شات الحب دردشة حب حب شات حب شات حبي الحب شات دردشة مصرية شات مصرى شات مصرية دردشة مصراوية شات بنات مصر شات سوريا شات عمان شات لبنان شات بنات شات المنصورة شات القليوبية شات المنوفية دردشة ليبيا شات السودان شات اليمن دردشة بنات السعودية دردشة السعودية شات سعودي دردشة بنات فلسطين دردشة بنات الكويت شات بنات الامارات شات بنات البحرين دردشة قطرية دردشة بنات قطر شات بنات الاردن دردشة عربية شات بنات تونس شات القاهرة دردشة القاهرة دردشة الاسكندرية شات اليكس شات الجيزة دردشة الجيزة راديو اف ام Fm Radio راديو محطة مصر شات الجزائر دردشة الجزائر شات مغربي دردشة بنات المغرب شات الشلة شات دردشة شات دمياط شات بورسعيد اذاعة القران الكريم راديو قران كريم دردشه الغردقة شات شرم الشيخ دردشة الاقصر شات اسوان دردشه المنيا دردشة الحب شات حبنا شات دردشة شات غرام دردشة غرام شات عسل شات عشق شات سعودي كول شات العنابي شات الملك شات برق دردشة برق شات دلع شات لمسة حب شات شوبيك لوبيك شات تعب قلبي شات عسل راديو روتانا

on a given day,one can find in the media about a murder,a rape, or a child fighting for her life in hospital.we as journalists dont enjoy reporting this all these is negative news.however in the news world,good news is no news.but a balance must be struck

Who will be the 'positive news-police', and what is the punishment for breaking the law if reality demands it? This is simply 50% censure. After this the Romanian press have to keep the 50% negative news for the politicians.

Journalists report, analyze and discuss what happens in a society--positive or negative. Yes they they are inclined to report the unusual because that makes the news. In some countries the government requires the media to produce programs and report happenings in a particular way. Some media follow these instructions in the name of patriotism--as in the US and India where they invariably block news of state's violation of human rights; at other are forced into obedience or rewarded for the services they render for autocratic rulers. Let's count the countries where violation of human rights is the state policy, and watch out if the media really report on these.

My God who said that journalists are supposed to report negatively this is against the ethics of journalism. Reporting possitively is a must and if it hs been ignored in some countries its high time they emulate it from prosperous countries that do it. However in Uganda since the media is more of private and business oriented rather than service providers then the person with money influence the reporting style.

Journalism is about truth. the issue of positive or negative reporting is usually used by undemocratic governments, and is an underhand attempt to suppress media freedom. I think journalists should report the truth, whether positive or negative. I don't believe that informing the public about some of the bad things being done by some BAD people, is being negative, i believe it is my obligation to do so. After all those advocating for the socalled positive reporting, should also look at this as doing a good service for the service.

Writing positive news is very important when it is positive anyway. Why would a journalist make negative positive. What matters are those values of having facts, impatiality, fairness etc. Such a low would not definately benefit the audience in Uganda because then, they will not get everything they deserve to know. Am glad the Ugandan government is a bit fair when it comes to media freedom. Joyce Bagala. Uganda

I believe news become negative if it is reported with some pieces of information without truth. But if the news story brings out the truth of the happenings I personally do not accept that concept of news been negative. It has just uncovered the clear picture of what happened. The reflection of reality journalistic report is not negative as people would see it.

William Soloman N'gafuan Liberian in Ghana at present

i think there should be no restriction on presenting positive and negative news, but readers and audience should be informed about whatever happening all around either it is positive or negative but both should present in its real form and both should get equal coverage so the happening should reach to everyone watching or reading TV and newspaper.

Swati bute research student India

Good point that politicians get interested in the kind of information people recive. What so ever, is not the clasification of the news as good or bad, is the way they show it to the world, as long the news get a citizens well informed, doesn´t matter a lot if is a good or a bad news...

I will with Romania's National Council on Audiovisual Broadcasting on this one.

I like that idea very much and I do like writing about the positive even more than negative. We live in world full of negativity and we need much positive writing to counteract all this. I like a story about the beauty of nature much more than the horrors of war. I too like a story about a child coming close to a disastorous end and surviving rather than reporting it in a tiny way saying a kid survived a dangerous event today. We should emphasize the positive in every way possible and if anything negate the negative aspects but put positive details even in dire circumstance.

What is negative and what is positive depends on perspective: 1. someone dies - bad news for them, good news for the funeral director. 2. someone robs a bank successfully - good news for the robber, bad news for the bank's insurance company and good news for the police who now have job security. 3. the military drops a bomb on the insurgents - bad news for the insurgents, good news for the military

Report the story accurately, completely, and with due respect for perspective. Laws are not necessary.

Even negative news can be presented in a positive way. Negative news may be realities but all realities are not good for society.s health.

nagappan nair faculty (guest) Institute of Journalism-teaching press law Thiruvananthapuram India

My opinion is, Don't leave out any details. No matter how gritty or bad things can get. We still have a right to know. Theres no point in trying to make it seem better by sugarcoating it with positive things.

First things first: mainstream media outlets specialize in passing on tragedy, violence, corruption, death, etc., etc., because they are absolutely certain that is what pays the bills. And until WE choose not to be willing participants in this, they are correct.

Then we need to ask if we want government regulating the media. Not particularly. BUT if this law in Romania improves the quality of life -- yes, I realize that's much harder to measure than defining "negative" or "positive" news -- but a significant shift in what the media pushes our way CAN potentially reduce the level of fear and distrust in a society and this can be palpable.

I say: Romania, give it a shot! I'd much rather the media outlets come off of their determination to pummel us with bad news even though it's at the behest of a government regulation.

Well the question is of drawing a line between positive and negative news, the first counter question that comes to me is who and on what grounds will decide the percentage of negativity in a story ? Is there a defined law or rule for that ?

I am not against positive news but at the same time the negativity factor may vary from person to person... the way one looks at it ?

Negative news is both 'harmful' and a 'reaity' of today... and I, in my individual capacity, would not promote facts being twisted just to make a news positive.

I would suggest to follow the rule of "check & balance"... -- check not to promote 'negativity" in a stories that can have adverse effect on society and --balance the story with a positive mix of editorial inputs.

the bottomline, positive news should be promoted but an agency governing media over positive and negative news would undermine freedom of press.

Gaurav Shrivastava Times Now Tv New Delhi

To me, news is an information which is not known to the recipients: however, people should not descredit news as bad or good, since there is no good news and bad news. The good news are not news, but the bad news are news, so news has to be bad for it to be news!

News is an objective rendering of the reality in any society. It cannot be legislated upon in any direction. The bill is dead-on-arrival.

No matter it is negative or positive news. Reports that attracts readers is a good news. Journalists should not judge whether it is bad or news. They should write what they see, what happening. Only the readers will judge.

But the fact is in Bangladesh readers always like negative news. So, the newspapers here publish more negative news than positive one.

Professionally we are supposed to report both negative and positive news.There is no need of writing a story which is in favour of a person.Just report what has happened depending on your investigations.

But sometimes media just leaving positive news without the attention, because they have shoking negative news. in Ukraine in most situations about the story "Somebosy was in dangerous, but was saved" will not be aired because nobody died. Usually Assignment desk editors asked - how many bodies? no dead bodies? Forget about it. thats the problem here.

Each and every news are needed to correct and accurate. false news would not only damage the personal and social life but also the media house's image too. So, it is not need to debate whether news are needed correct or false. in developing countries there is also practice that people and responcible authority are reluctant even if false news are published. At the same time media house too not responcible to publish or boardcast accurate news.They think that just sellabality ia their motto rather than their responcibility to the society. Concedering all the thing not only media house but also the state machanism need to be responcible to publish ate accurate news.

Negative news, just reality; I agree upon it. As all know, Myanmar junta are positive-news-makers. All of them are always lies. News true are mostly negative, a proverb said that no news is good news, emerging some news might be bad or disordered. If one thing becomes disordered, it's called news. I think.

Such a rule amounts to prior restraint. Nothing more, nothing less.

News must reflect the reality of the situation whether good or bad!

Such a law will amount to hoarding of certain facts in the name of balancing.

Journalists are not inventors or creators of news.Events ,whether negative or positives are determinable factors constituting news.

If the news at the point of reporting is all positive,journalists will report same; and the reverse holds also. So to restrict journalists to reporting on 50 % positive news is a clear manifestation of controlling the media freedom of reportage.

I think what what should be the crux of concern for the Romanian is that journalists must be held liable for their stories once it is established by law that those stories were libelous or slanderous or breach national security.

I think for that kind of definition and separation the news definitely should exist some kind of ethic code. Mass Media have big impact on the society, if you want - sometimes even forms its point of view. So if there will be only negative stories - about rapists, murderers, etc, on air or in the newspapers, who can give a guarantee that sometime our readers or viewers will not consider that it's usual thing - killings, violence, etc? I think mass media have to be have some kind of social responsibility. Now we have a lot of diacssions about that in Ukraine. In the pursuit of popularity and viewers shares some editors even created the list of demands here - news MUST include blood, fear, death, money... And that's the almost the only news topics aired. Come on... I want some inspiring stories, which pushed us to move forward. Of course I'm not the supporter of state separation of news, and implementing any kind of censorship, but I don't want to see the only negative packages in the newscasts. I'm fed up of them already.

Journalists must adhere to the media ethics to provide readers with true information regardless whether positive or negative

In my country, I believe that the readers have acquired a psyche of reading negative news more than the positive news. More over the TRP rating of the News channels and the readership of the Newspapers (as the owners of these think so) increase with negative news. According to my opinion there should be no restriction in terms of publishing negative news but there should be some form of ethical code for the journalists to atleast give full response to the positive stories too. It is very true that positive stories do have a good impact on the psyche of the readers and if media is termed as opinion maker, we should try to change the opinion and psyche of the readers from reading and demanding negative stories more.

Kuldeep Singh News Editor Sky Hawk Times SAS Nagar (Mohali) India. cell - 098726-30705

Here in Alaska, a sparsely populated state whose abundant fish, oil, gas and timber make it a continual source of national and international interest, a law like this one would have one benefit only: It would serve to re-focus much-needed public conversation on how to restore credibility to journalism in all media.

When non-journalists begin to demand better of us, journalism credibility will improve and silly laws like this one (good or bad news is, after all, in the eye of the beholder!) will gain no traction.

But as long as viewers, readers and listeners continue to be cynical - ignoring us and failing to demand better reporting and accountability - wrongheaded correctives like the Romanian quota will seem appealing.

The Detroit lesson applies: When consumers demanded more fuel-efficient autos, car makers responded. When news consumers wield the power they don't seem to know they have, journalism will improve too.

Sorry, I forgot to mention: I'm Romanian (and very furious, of course :))

Why shall we speak about "quotas" when the law operates with concepts alien to any journalistic decision, such as "positive" and "negative"? How many times in our debates in the newsrooms have we used these terms when deciding upon a piece of news? The law simply disrespects the journalistic instruments, values and work, being therefore unacceptable.

Sometimes news reporting does seem to be wholly comprised of negative stories -- death, destruction, etc. While these negatives are realities of life and essential for fair and honest reporting, it does seem that many of life's less catastrophic events -- stories of hope and inspiration -- hardly ever grace the pages of our news sources. Yet, I fear quotas and wonder what stringent regulation might beget. How many “negative" or "positive" stories might be omitted in a news world driven the 50/50 rule?

What do others think about the dangers of quotas? What about the dangers of judging news stories in such black and white terms (positive/negative)?

-- Dani (U.S.)