Where is the line between the 'obligation' to show whats happening
There is no real "obligation" to show what's happening.
INCITING of public emotions by doing so?
Anything reported "incites" emotions.
Other than that, seems the line may lie in the intentions of the producer of "media."
Do they want you to "know" or do they want you to "do?"
Do they want to "inform" or do they want you to "believe?"
How would a "reasonable" (legal definition) person respond to the information?
if Muslim extremists numbers rise and retaliation occurs, or if relations with Mexico become severed or harmful,
will those actions be seen as strictly their choice of behavior, or will the POTUS receive the blame for their reactions?
Some people are going to see those actions as the responsibility of the individuals choosing the behavior.
Others are going to blame who they think is "really" responsible.
Some are going to blame who they think is "really" responsible and find all sorts of media proof or anecdotal to justify the belief.
No matter what the media says.
And then people are going to go on the internet, and find groups of like minded people, and talk about it.
Or they're going to go to random discussion boards and forums and argue about it with those of a different belief.
Then some people who rely on random discussion boards and forums for meaningful social interaction are going to start thinking "all" people of similar cant believe the same, only have the same information.
when is speaking out, by public figures or the media, just telling it 'like it is' as opposed to being 'divisive'
Never and always.
where is the balance and consistency?
There is no balance and consistency.
Only struggle to try and find one.
And as soon as you do, you have the option of withdrawing into your own little world and not facing reality anymore, or continuing to struggle and argue and fight.
is freedom of speech and press a danger...or is it a necessity...
They've always been a danger.
That's why they need protection.
Things that aren't dangerous don't need protecting, because no one gives a crap and ignores it.
They are never a necessity except from your subjective perspective, peace of mind, yourself.
it is a right for a reason, I want to see it stay that way
You can't really "change" a right as implied in what you've said here.
You can only suppress or abridge them.
Rights are not granted by government or any ruling body.
what do you think? do you support the reigns being pulled on that right or do you feel its too important to tamper with?
I think rights are kinda absolutes.
Once you start "reigns being pulled" it's just a slippery slope to being tyrannical in your abridging them.
I mean the constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
That's pretty clear. But it's not followed.
I don't "support" any reigns being pulled. But I don't actively oppose the reigns that are pulled. You don't see me with a rifle in a bell tower demanding all speech laws being rescinded, risking my life for it. So obviously I don't feel it's "too important" to tamper with.
its stupid to put others in danger by making ALL information public ALL
There's the rub.
Who decides exactly which information should be withheld?
Why can they be trusted with that power?
What is an acceptable level of danger?
Ingredient information on the side of drain cleaner means suicidal people can know what will cause them harm, or for people to poison others.
But not putting the information there can be dangerous if kids don't know it's poison.
Telling some people there is a DUI checkpoint on a certain route, maybe they drink less or not at all, sober up a little before driving home, knowing they'll have to go through the checkpoint.
Other people they may take the information, drink more, knowing a different route and feeling more secure.
Other than that, the more you try to control information, the more regular and related information becomes disinformation.
Disinformation leads to imbalance and inconsistency very quickly.