Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Liberal Media Conspiracy?
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 5 of 46 (246827)
09-27-2005 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
09-25-2005 12:10 PM


I think that since we are talking about political bias in the news, it is fair to point out that this website you linked to as an information source on political bias in news, RAZD, is sponsored by MoveOn.Org and Center for American Progress, both of which are linked to at the bottom of the Outfoxed homepage.
MoveOn: People-Powered Progress
Page not found - Center for American Progress
So if these left-wing orgs are paying for videos to undermine FOX viewership and bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" (effectively government regulation of the press) to legislate FOX into changing its content, is that not a "Left Wing Media Conspiracy" ? Further, I trust that MoveOn and Air America Radio are now providing a Conservative counter-viewpoint since they support Federally mandated requirements for 'balanced coverage'.
Here's the thing. That the Federal government can punish the media based on how they report (or what they report) is Constitutionally iffy ground. Further, the Fairness Clause (that's what Outfoxed is pushing) dates back to 1949--when you could count broadcasters on one hand and it was theoretically possible for one organization to dominate all news.
In 2005, you can get dozens of channels if you subscribe to cable, many more on satellite, dozens of radio stations for free, hundreds more if you want to pay for them, you have millions of Web sites and blogs, and Internet-based broadcasts. We live in sort of permanent information overload--there is more political commentary of every stripe than any reasonable person can digest in a day. If you are reading this, you have some level of internet access and can contribute to the madness too. Rather than creating a giant bureacracy over at the FCC to regulate the free flow of information, I think it makes more sense to change the channel when you hear or see commentary you don't like.
I thought the FOXBlocker being sold was kind of funny, in that it reminds me of the adult material blockers that can be purchased for home internet accounts. Is FOX like pornography, in that you can start watching it while meaning not to, and become addicted? Is there a need to protect people from it beyond telling them not to watch--hence making it necessary to cut it off before entering the home? Hmm...
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-27-2005 10:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2005 12:10 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2005 10:44 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 09-28-2005 4:53 AM gene90 has replied
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2005 9:34 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 20 by Nuggin, posted 09-28-2005 9:49 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 7 of 46 (246841)
09-27-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by crashfrog
09-27-2005 10:44 PM


quote:
But most of those channels are owned by about five different companies. Same with your radio dial - over half of those stations are going to be Clear Channel-owned. Same with your newspapers; most of those are going to be owned by, or own, your local TV outlets.
That's an excellent point, and it does show that the public should be concerned about how the media operates.
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-27-2005 10:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2005 10:44 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 11 of 46 (246926)
09-28-2005 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Silent H
09-28-2005 4:53 AM


quote:
I can't tell if you actually believe porn is problematic, or are just riffing on the fact that those who would punk on FOX would likely not agree with that argument.
My actual beliefs on porn are off-topic, but in this case I'm arguing the latter.
quote:
In any case you have brought up a potential defense of FOX, without noting that that argument is being used against porn. Right now the gov't does interfere with expression of graphic natures, most especially sexual depictions.
I didn't mention it but was aware of the fact. Censorship of such material, especially coming over subscription-based services like cable instead of over broadcast is also on Constitutionally shaky ground, though I think it begs to be pointed out that censorship of political speech is probably a lot more in line with what the Framers were worried about than censorship of anatomy at the Superbowl.
Having said that, yes, you have TV content ratings, yes you have chips inside those televisions, yes, you have a remote control, and yes you can block channels.
I agree that the same argument applies to porn, although censorship of a political message is more troubling because it brings the state into direct involvement with politics, and therefore a more grievous violation of the freedom of the press.
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-28-2005 09:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 09-28-2005 4:53 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 09-28-2005 11:25 AM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 12 of 46 (246927)
09-28-2005 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by crashfrog
09-28-2005 7:44 AM


quote:
Thanks. I guess I don't really have anywhere else to go with it, though - nobody's challenged the point or anything. I mean I guess I could try to work in an anti-Bush angle, referring to the decisions of former FCC chairman Michael Powell that facilitated further conglomeration of Big Media. But that's taking us off-topic
I'm not opposed to anti-monopoly laws, I see utility in occasionally splitting up big conglomerations and I think this is one to think about.
However, in regards to the Fairness Clause, is there credible evidence of collusion among these corporations to try to only show one side of the political spectrum?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 09-28-2005 7:44 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 09-28-2005 5:54 PM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 17 of 46 (247061)
09-28-2005 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
09-28-2005 11:25 AM


quote:
Again yes and no. When the thing that gov't is trying to address is the violation of the freedom of the press due to essential monopolies (whether actual or practical) by citizens, then there doesn't seem to be a conflict.
Well, it depends on how gov't responds to media monopolies. Splitting them up is something I have no problem with. Forcing certain kinds of content on the press (with the "Fairness Doctrine") is something I find troubling.
Here's an example of part of the Fairness Doctrine rules, from WikiPedia:
quote:
The two corollary rules, the personal attack rule and the political editorial rule, remained in practice even after the repeal of the fairness doctrine. The personal attack rule is pertinent whenever a person or small group is subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations must notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said, and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The political editorial rule applies when a station broadcasts editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulates that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.
FCC fairness doctrine - Wikipedia
This is a quote from an essay on the Freedom of the Press:
quote:
The court went still further when it struck down a Florida statute requiring newspapers that editorially attacked a candidate for elected office to print the candidate's reply. In Miami Herald v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), the Supreme Court held that compulsory publication is as much of a "prior restraint" as prohibiting publication would be. Although the justices acknowledged that the legislators' goal of encouraging the press to provide a forum for competing viewpoints was laudable, they found that the statute impermissibly usurped the rights of editors to express the views of their choice, and might even have the perverse effect of reducing political coverage. "A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution, and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated," Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote.
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0203/ijge/gj03.htm
From Miami Herald Publishing v. Tornillo
quote:
The monopoly of the means of communication allows for little or no critical analysis of the media except in professional journals of very limited readership....
The obvious solution, which was available to dissidents at an earlier time when entry into publishing was relatively inexpensive, today would be to have additional newspapers. But the same economic factors which have caused the disappearance of vast numbers of metropolitan newspapers, have made entry into the marketplace of ideas served by the print media almost impossible. It is urged that the claim of newspapers to be "surrogates for the public" carries with it a concomitant fiduciary obligation to account for that stewardship. From this premise it is reasoned that the only effective way to insure fairness and accuracy and to provide for some accountability is for government to take affirmative action. The First Amendment interest of the public in being informed is said to be in peril because the "marketplace of ideas" is today a monopoly controlled by the owners of the market....
IV
However much validity may be found in these arguments, at each point the implementation of a remedy such as an enforceable right of access necessarily calls for some mechanism, either governmental or consensual. If it is governmental coercion, this at once brings about a confrontation with the express provisions of the First Amendment and the judicial gloss on that Amendment developed over the years...
quote:
Faced with the penalties that would accrue to any newspaper that published news or commentary arguably within the reach of the right-of-access statute, editors might well conclude that the safe course is to avoid controversy. Therefore, under the operation of the Florida statute, political and electoral coverage would be blunted or reduced. Government-enforced right of access inescapably "dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate."
quote:
Even if a newspaper would face no additional costs to comply with a compulsory access law and would not be forced to forgo publication of news or opinion by the inclusion of a reply, the Florida statute fails to clear the barriers of the First Amendment because of its intrusion into the function of editors. A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising. The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials -- whether fair or unfair -- constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed.
Miami Herald Publishing v. Tornillo
http://www.law.umkc.edu/...ects/ftrials/conlaw/tornillo.html
But compare that to Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission:
quote:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has for many years imposed on broadcasters a "fairness doctrine," requiring that public issues be presented by broadcasters and that each side of those issues be given fair coverage. In No. 2, the FCC declared that petitioner Red Lion Broadcasting Co. had failed to meet its obligation under the fairness doctrine when it carried a program which constituted a personal attack on one Cook, and ordered it to send a transcript of the broadcast to Cook and provide reply time, whether or not Cook would pay for it. The Court of Appeals upheld the FCC's position. After the commencement of the Red Lion litigation the FCC began a rule-making proceeding to make the personal attack aspect of the fairness doctrine more precise and more readily enforceable, and to specify its rules relating to political editorials. The rules, as adopted and amended, were held unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals in RTNDA (No. 717), as abridging the freedoms of speech and press.
SCOTUS upheld the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion. Why does the ruling seem to be a 180 from newspaper editorials?
From the ruling:
quote:
(a) The First Amendment is relevant to public broadcasting, but it is the right of the viewing and listening public, and not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. Pp. 386-390.
(b) The First Amendment does not protect private censorship by broadcasters who are licensed by the Government to use a scarce resource which is denied to others. Pp. 390-392.
(c) The danger that licensees will eliminate coverage of controversial issues as a result of the personal attack and political editorial rules is at best speculative, and, in any event, the FCC has authority to guard against this danger. Pp. 392-395.
(d) There was nothing vague about the FCC's specific ruling in the Red Lion case and the regulations at issue in No. 717 could be employed in precisely the same way as the fairness doctrine in Red Lion. It is not necessary to decide every aspect of the fairness doctrine to decide these cases. Problems involving more extreme applications or more difficult constitutional questions will be dealt with if and when they arise. Pp. 395-396.
(e) It has not been shown that the scarcity of broadcast frequencies, which impelled governmental regulation, is entirely a thing of the past, as new uses for the frequency spectrum have kept pace with improved technology and more efficient utilization of that spectrum. Pp. 396-400.
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/red_lion.html
Much of that reasoning is based on bandwidth issues in over-the-air broadcasting. In the US, this bandwidth has been considered public property and it is the purpose of the FCC to dole out operator licenses to users of this publicly owned commodity. Further, it is considered the right of the public that broadcast users of their bandwidth operate benevolently by affording 'equal time' to controversial issues.
FOX News is not broadcast television, it is a cable service, paid for by cable subscription, and transmitted along coaxial cable wiring that runs into homes and businesses. I think a strong case can be made that cable-based networks use privately-owned bandwidth and therefore are not applicable to the Fairness Doctrine. Therefore, attempts to censor FOX based on the old Fairness Doctrine logic are misguided.
Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, and the other radio talking heads might ought to be worried, Howard Stern's banishment to Sirius proves that the FCC is still very interested in controlling the "public" airwaves. Of course, as I mentioned there is still an explosion going on avenues of broadcasting. In fact, since the Red Lion ruling there has been the marvelous invention of FM radio, which greatly increased the broadcast quality and bandwidth allocation space for radio networks. Future improvements may come along, like FM digital broadcasts that would have a smaller bandwidth footprint, further negating the necessity of a Fairness Doctrine for the airwaves.
I still think Crashfrog's point about media conglomeration is a good one, but it is discussed in Tornillo.
[ Quoting Holmes ]
quote:
And interestingly enough, along with obscenity (which is usually thrown at porn), there are other classes of speech not covered and they are commercial and libel/slander. It seems to me FOX could very well fit into both those categories.
I don't agree that libel is particularly relevant to the "Fair Doctrine" and Federally-mandated equal coverage. You are correct in saying that it isn't protected by the Constitution. However, to my knowledge it is not enforced against by the FCC, charges of libel are brought through the tort system.
As for what it takes to constitute libel, I again quote that essay:
quote:
Until 1964, under the common law of the United States, libel -- the publication of false and defamatory statements about an individual -- fell outside the protections of the Constitution. But in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), a case decided during the height of the civil rights movement in the United States, the Supreme Court recognized that in order to avoid chilling robust discussion and commentary about the actions of government officials, news organizations must be given breathing space to make some errors, in good faith, without facing liability. The high court ruled that public officials who wish to sue for libel would be required not only to prove that statements were false, but that the publisher either knew they were false or published them with "reckless disregard" for their truth or falsity.
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0203/ijge/gj03.htm
That would be a tough thing to do. Also with public figures, who are going to be libeled constantly (comes with the territory) it isn't practical to sue everybody and it tends to look bad politically.
As for commercial speech, I'm scratching my head at how FOXNews is commercial speech. Definitions of commercial speech:
quote:
Commercial speech doctrine. Speech that was categorized as "commercial" in nature (i.e. speech that advertised a product or service for profit or for business purpose) was formerly not afforded First Amendment freedom of speech protection, and as such could be freely regulated by statutes and ordinances. Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52, 62 S.Ct. 920, 86 L.Ed. 1262. This doctrine, however, has been essentially abrogated. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm. on Human Rights, 413 U.S. 376, 93 S.Ct. 2553, 37 L.Ed.2d 669; Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809, 95 S.Ct. 2222, 44 L.Ed.2d 600; Virginia State Brd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizen Council, 425 U.S. 748, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346.
And:
quote:
United States of America v. Thurston Paul Bell, D.C. Civil Action 02-cv-02159, heard January 25, 2005:
We have defined commercial speech as
“expression related to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience, generally in the form of a commercial advertisement for the sale of goods and services.” U.S. Healthcare, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Greater Phila., 898 F.2d 914, 933 (3d. Cir.1990).
To determine whether speech is commercial, courts should consider whether:
(1) the speech is an advertisement;
(2) the speech refers to a specific product or service; and
(3) the speaker has an economic motivation for the speech.
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 66-67 (1983); In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Prods. Liab. Litig., 193 F.3d 781, 793-794 (3d Cir. 1999). An affirmative answer to each question indicates “strong support” for the conclusion that the speech is commercial.
CITES BY TOPIC: commercial speech doctrine
Except for maybe the "Fair and Balanced" moniker, an advertising claim of the service provided by FOXNews, I'm having trouble defining FOX coverage as any of the above.
Taken with that and the fact that commercial speech is now granted some First Amendment protection, I think the libel category has more potential.
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-28-2005 09:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 09-28-2005 11:25 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Silent H, posted 09-29-2005 5:09 AM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 19 of 46 (247099)
09-28-2005 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
09-28-2005 9:34 PM


quote:
This affects the facts that they present how?
Since part of the topic is FOX's right-wing bias, I think it's fair to point out the left-wing bias of Outfoxed.
quote:
Do you think sponsoring the disemination of truth alters the truth depending on the sponsoring organisation?
It doesn't necessarily (it would be the Genetic Fallacy if I claimed otherwise), but it pays to know where your facts are coming from.
Your use of MoveOn would be like me using Newsmax.
quote:
But do people who see commentary that they like know that what they are being fed is a narrow view and ignores contradictory evidence?
I don't know--are they intelligent adults that can reason for themselves? Or does the government need to run over the First Amendment to protect them from themselves?
Should we censor Art Bell while we're at it? He has his followers...
quote:
When half the people think WMDs were found and that there was a link between Al Quieda and Iraq -- and they watch Fox news --
And if I polled CNN viewers to see what percentage think Hurricane Katrina was a direct result of Global Warming, do you think I would get a higher percentage or a lower percentage than amongst FOX News viewers. (See the Global Warming thread).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2005 9:34 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-28-2005 10:00 PM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 21 of 46 (247103)
09-28-2005 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Nuggin
09-28-2005 9:49 PM


Re: FOX addiction
quote:
"Osama is in Iraq" "We found weapons of mass destruction" "Iraq attacked us on 9/11" Those kind of things.
You could say she's a little batty, but she's been pushed there by Fox
Okay. When did FOX claim those things? And can you prove that FOX caused her to believe this, and not senility?
I readily believe you that people who believe that Iraq attacked us on 9/11, and that bin Laden is hiding out there, are more likely to watch FOX than CNN or MSNBC--because these misunderstandings are common in right-wingers and FOX appeals to a right-wing audience.
But correlation does not prove causality. I am sure that there are some people with similar misunderstandings (but different political alignments) that watch other networks.
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-28-2005 09:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Nuggin, posted 09-28-2005 9:49 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Nuggin, posted 09-28-2005 9:54 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 23 of 46 (247105)
09-28-2005 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Nuggin
09-28-2005 9:54 PM


Re: FOX addiction
quote:
I'm not claiming that FOX said those things, though I suspect even a little amount of digging with find Hannity spouting that garbage.
/Maybe--I wouldn't completely rule that out.
quote:
What I am saying is that people that watch FNC tend to ONLY watch FNC. It's the only source of info they have. So addictive like porn? Ya.
Hah hah-okay. Is it so addictive though that left-leaners need to install filters? (I'm not really serious with this question, I was poking a little fun at the comparison earlier. I presume the point of the filters is to give the boycott of FOXNews more weight with cable providers and advertisers).
quote:
But she's getting these opinions from someplace
And obviously you suspect a causation between viewing FOX and having those incredibly erroneous views. I'm not surprised by a correlation but especially in this case I see a causative relationship as being unsubstantiated.
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-28-2005 10:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Nuggin, posted 09-28-2005 9:54 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Nuggin, posted 09-28-2005 11:40 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 25 of 46 (247142)
09-28-2005 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Nuggin
09-28-2005 11:40 PM


Re: FOX addiction
quote:
Except that if you ask her why she thinks these things, she'll say she saw it on Fox
You also said:
quote:
I'm not claiming that FOX said those things, though I suspect even a little amount of digging with find Hannity spouting that garbage.
I could use a little clarification. Are you arguing that that came from the FOX Network or not? (And should we include the talking heads like O'Reilly and Hannity with that or not?)
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-29-2005 12:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Nuggin, posted 09-28-2005 11:40 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2005 2:57 AM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 28 of 46 (247198)
09-29-2005 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Nuggin
09-29-2005 2:57 AM


Re: FOX addiction
quote:
FOX News is force feeding the falsehoods.
And, is FOX News the source of your grandmother's odd views?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2005 2:57 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Nuggin, posted 09-29-2005 11:09 AM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 29 of 46 (247202)
09-29-2005 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Silent H
09-29-2005 5:09 AM


quote:
First of all let me say I have troubles with the gov't passing anything which could be called a "fairness doctrine" and do not like the idea of forcing content.
Wisely so, I think. In a system such as ours governments should not lightly interfere in how issues are portrayed in the media. It opens doors to state control and voter manipulation.
quote:
Public media, particularly mass public media (though we can leave conglomeration out for this discussion), is a resource. It is a public knowledge resource. The ease with which it can be used for misinformation (propaganda) and character assassination (gossip), is vast and can have real world effects.
One could view this almost as a well of public drinking water owned by a private company. How much contamination would we allow before setting in controls.
I see the analogy, but in this case the private owners of the well have a Constitutional right (upheld by SCOTUS) to put whatever they want in the water.
This interpretation of the First Amendment tends to negate the perceived public benefit of such regulation as being fairly irrelevant.
True, there are limitations on the First Amendment, but if we were to begin further limiting it whenever it was seen to advance the public good, there are lot of organizations promoting pernicious doctrines that would be silenced long before we got to FOX News.
From Justice White's concurring opinion in Tornillo:
quote:
The Court today holds that the First Amendment bars a State from requiring a newspaper to print the reply of a candidate for public office whose personal character has been criticized by that newspaper's editorials. According to our accepted jurisprudence, the First Amendment erects a virtually insurmountable barrier between government and the print media so far as government tampering, in advance of publication, with news and editorial content is concerned. A newspaper or magazine is not a public utility subject to "reasonable" governmental regulation in matters affecting the exercise of journalistic judgment as to what shall be printed. We have learned, and continue to learn, from what we view as the unhappy experiences of other nations where government has been allowed to meddle in the internal editorial affairs of newspapers. Regardless of how beneficent-sounding the purposes of controlling the press might be, we prefer "the power of reason as applied through public discussion" and remain intensely skeptical about those measures that would allow government to insinuate itself into the editorial rooms of this Nation's press...
I mentioned the difference between the distinction between print media and broadcast media, based on the public ownership of EM spectrum bandwidth.
I don't think the ruling applies only to editorials, either:
quote:
The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials -- whether fair or unfair -- constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed.
In effect, if you own a newspaper you are protected by the First Amendment to say whatever you want, and to cover or not cover whatever issues you want.
quote:
The public does tend to assume a "purity" in the facts they are getting from a news source.
Right, but public assumption of unbiased news sources does not give the government authority to ensure "equal coverage" of everything.
quote:
And shouldn't they to some degree?
Given the fact that media has always been more or less colored by the opinions of the media's owners and cater to different readerships, I don't think so.
That is not to say that good journalism is not desirable. However, to expect that the media give totally unbiased coverage of everything is unrealistic. Further, to expect the government to step in on this has been ruled un-Constitutional, except where bandwidth ownership applies.
quote:
I think libel here is very much an issue, leading almost to the level of incitement. FOX, as an example, is very fast and loose with facts, and even when it does get the story straight by mentioning the truth somewhere, it is treated more of as a caveat to an avalanche of misinformation. And when it gets that bad, the people are themselves affected by the libel.
In that case, the victims of libel should sue. Libel, as I said before, is not a regulatory issue, but a tort issue.
quote:
This is specifically addressing character assassination. I am uncertain how attacking persons is a contribution to POLITICAL discourse.
It's still protected speech.
Further, we have:
[Quoting WikiPedia]
quote:
The political editorial rule applies when a station broadcasts editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulates that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Which has Tornillo all over it.
quote:
This is true, and some might consider not using the courts as a form of prior restraint. But again, I go back to the well analogy. There is no sense that water quality testing or required purification processing to reach a certain level of purity is untoward constraining to business if it involves public health. And such regs are better than waiting around for people to sue each and every time they get sick.
But in this case it is not water we are filtering, but speech.
The First Amendment means that freedoms of speech exist, even when it is not perceived to be in the public good. It's easy to enjoy that freedom when your speech is protected, the real test of belief in that freedom is whether or not you recognize that all the pinheads out there get the same priveliges.
quote:
I'm baffled how you don't see these as fitting FOX. Politicians are products, or supplier of services, which FOX has interest in and does have an economic motivation for supporting.
Essentially their news programs are advertisements for politicians. And they get payback with support (interviews/access) from those politicians, which allow them more material so they can sell more of their own product.
FOX does this, and not CNN or MSNBC?
Isn't that how the media has always worked? It's how FDR kept the press from running pictures of him in a wheelchair.
However, if politicians are selling us a service, then it makes *all* political speech commercial, doesn't it? I am having a hard time seeing a court sold on that. What it does is invite government regulation into political stumping--just imagine Bush-appointed FCC types policing every word issued by John Kerry in the 2004 election.
Ultimately this has potential for greater harm than simply letting the media be what the media always has been: an outfit, sometimes grossly opinionated, that has Constitutional protections against gov't meddling of their content.
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-29-2005 09:42 AM
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-29-2005 09:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Silent H, posted 09-29-2005 5:09 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Silent H, posted 09-29-2005 9:56 AM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 31 of 46 (247213)
09-29-2005 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Funkaloyd
09-29-2005 8:13 AM


quote:
Which raises the question: Should consumer protection laws similar to those restrictive of false advertising be put in place to regulate political advertising?
I'm afraid that if you do that there is potential for the party in power to oppress a minority party by selectively enforcing laws.
In the US, the FCC administrator is appointed by the President.
Plus you have questions of enforcement, who decides what claims are legitimate advertising? It's only the fairly subtle claims that the public might actually need protection from, and these will be hard to prove, and subject to partisanship by whoever happens to be running the agency at the time. In effect, the whole political debate going on in the country at large would have to play itself inside the government before ads can run.
You have an issue of the "ends justify the means". It might not be worth it if you're running for the local school board, assuming anybody would care anyway at that level, but if you're running for the Senate or the White House it could be argued that being elected justifies a regulatory slap on the wrist. Especially since certain legal immunities are enjoyed while in office.
In addtion, you have third-parties interest groups that advertise on behalf of candidates but are independant of that candidate. False claims could be made of what a party will do in office, and then plausibly denied by the candidate when elected. Policing every claim made by these interest groups would be like whack-a-mole, they, unlike the parties themselves, could disappear, move money elsewhere, and start back up weeks later with a new name.
Finally, if you trust the voter to choose the right officials for the job, then it is implied that you already assume that the voters are smart enough to make reasonable decisions on their own. I'd like to think that that means they can separate fact from rhetoric. Clearly this is sometimes too much to ask, but it is an assumption that we already make in representative systems of government. Therefore it is problematic to assume that it is necessary for the state to decide that it needs to "help" the people choose leadership in this manner, and worse, could be a gateway to greater evils.
I don't think it would work out in America, though on the face of it it sounds like a good idea.
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-29-2005 09:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Funkaloyd, posted 09-29-2005 8:13 AM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 34 of 46 (248253)
10-02-2005 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Silent H
09-29-2005 9:56 AM


quote:
Arguing from scotus, as if to say that a position is correct, is a bit circular. If I disagree with the position, then I disagree with the scotus.
You mean this isn't Law & Order? Okay, I'll give it a rest as an Authority argument then, which is rather fallacious anyway. Though it was fun to have important people seemingly agree with me, and they summarized the position I hold much more eloquently.
quote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are currently making an argument that one decision is right and another wrong, which creates and inconsistency. It seems to me that we are simply disagreeing on which decision we favor.
I don't think so...some cases were that newspaper editors could not be forced to give equal time to all candidates because it went against the First Amendment. Red Lion *seems* to be an inconsistency because it was ruled that Fairness Doctrine (applied to broadcasters) was Constitutional. However, much of that argument was based on the premise that the EM spectrum bandwith belongs to the People, and that the FCC can distribute it to the media but retains the right to force users of the public bandwidth to act benevolently.
With that understanding, the two rulings make sense: with the media normally being given First Amendment protection, even for biased journalism, except that when the media uses a finite resource that belongs the People then the FCC can regulate on how that resource is used.
I made the argument that since (with the exception of the broadcast wing of FOX News that you mentioned) FOX News is mostly cable, running on privately owned bandwidth, it is likely to be treated more like a newspaper.
And further, that technology is advancing to produce more channels and news sources, further reducing the need for the Fairness Doctrine.
quote:
HOWEVER, there are other lessons to be learned. When public discussion is based in large part on evidence provided by singular sources, then you have a private entity controlling the press and discussion, rather than the gov't, and I'm not sure how that is any better.
Again, I acknowledge this as a valid concern.
quote:
Have you ever tried to sue anyone? It is tough and the damage that is done in libel may never accurately be able to be paid back. Would it not be lower cost all around to have a person be allowed to address factual statements made by a paper, where there are differences?
First Amendment issues aside, I tend to think that this infringes on the rights of editors and on privately owned publishing companies to control the content of their own newspapers. Newspapers are, after all, private property. But I am making the assumption you refer to non-slanderous comments here.
For slander, you could either have lawsuits like we do, or the FCC can monitor every media outlet there is and factcheck every single thing published. That won't be easy, and it sure won't be foolproof. I'm more concerned about non-slander being censored though than the simple recognition that no law can be enforced with impunity.
Maybe you could find a way to do this better, assuming that SCOTUS changed its stance on the issue that it has developed over the past few decades.
quote:
Sometimes papers are forced to write a retraction. How is that different, other than in the timing?
We would have to clarify how the papers are "forced". By threat of a lawsuit? By regulators? Or by journalistic integrity?
quote:
My gf and friends, and myself to some extent, have been involved in sexually graphic media. In some cases it is overtly political commentary, yet in no case is it unregulated. It is regulated from top to bottom, and even the very things you say can be limited. Heck it its worse than that. You are forced to say specific things, and give out personal info, and cannot even have your cover art and design be your own specifications (if you have ANY sexual material, even your font sizes are chosen by the gov't at this time)... all for the idea of "protecting the public."
Font sizes?
I guess the 'obscenity' elements in court decisions means that they've got you pinned down. Still, I think that if you're using privately owned bandwidth/media and as long as nobody's rights are getting infringed upon in the process, the same logic I use for FOX applies.
However, I don't quite understand how an observation that we don't have "real" freedom of speech is an argument in favor of further gutting the freedom of speech. Sure, it shows that it is done...but I already have full faith in the government's ability to erode any freedom from the Constitution.
quote:
So I don't get that privilege at all. And one of the largest mouthpieces for depriving our free speech rights is FOX, and the politicians they support by manipulating facts and engaging in character assassination.
It really is hypocritical to hear any whining coming from that quarter and on that issue. Hell, FOX was for censoring anyone that was against Bush, for the sake of protecting the US during a time of war.
That's right. Like I said, everybody likes free speech when it applies to them, sometimes it's tempting not to be consistent when it applies to others. I bet the KKK loves to be able to rally at public buildings. I bet if they somehow came to power free speech would be one of the first things to be suppressed.
However, I don't see hypocrisy, blatant as it may be, as being itself an argument against free speech.
quote:
In this case, a fraud is being perpetrated, just as much as bad quality water, or drugs which may not be safe. And this actually has the potential to do more harm.
I think the best way to deal with that would be just that: by treating it legally as fraud rather than through media regulation. That's what "large entities pretending to be media outlets" would literally qualify as.
I don't claim that proving sufficient evidence AND public harm in a courtroom to significantly change FOX News would be an easy thing to do. But if the evidence is strong enough to support further regulating of all media, over SCOTUS's prior precedents, it ought to work against Murdoch's people.
This message has been edited by gene90, 10-02-2005 03:45 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Silent H, posted 09-29-2005 9:56 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 10-03-2005 6:08 AM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 36 of 46 (253112)
10-19-2005 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Silent H
10-03-2005 6:08 AM


quote:
Fox is more than just Cable however, and cable is sort of monopolistic with regard to conveyance of news. It is different than a bunch of different people with their own transmitters, and in the end power of money could end up restricting content available.
I think market pressure, combined with advances in technology, would tend to keep that in check. Monopolies, like any other businesses, exist to sell a product. Ultimately it is demand that dictates what products are sold.
quote:
I'm still not quite sure how that is so invasive on an editor or publisher.
The argument was made that newspapers have cost limitations on how much content they can produce. Forcing an editor to include a rebuttal whenever they say something that isn't positive about somebody doesn't increase content, unless the paper is going to increase in size. If it isn't, then other content must be removed to accomodate the rebuttal. Because this silences something else that would have been reported on, it's a First Amendment issue.
Further, I'm not sure how much of a practical benefit this would have anyway. Say an editor writes something disparaging about a presidential candidate. How often does that happen during an election cycle? Is the candidate going to be able to write a rebuttal to everything every editor writes? Hardly.
For example:
quote:
If FOX says something about me, I may never have any equal chance to address it, and go down in flames because of it. No lawsuit is likely going to change that.
If FOX ever were to say something about you, it would mean that you were a national celebrity, and probably not for anything you'd want to be known for (guilty or not). I doubt you would even be able to keep track of the editorials written about you.
quote:
Yes font sizes. Anyone that has graphic sexual content in the US will no longer be able to control even the look of their product. Or I suppose can, but within very limited ranges.
Interesting.
quote:
Since we (as a community) have decided and FOX in particular has championed the idea that editorial desires are NOT sacrosanct if there are public concerns, I am merely pointing out that the issues we are discussing are far more serious and problematic and so deserving of regulation than adult material.
It is to point out the hypocrisy involved, and to pose a challenge. If my free speech rights are going to get removed (I mean they are already removed) then I WILL support equal action against those that have poisoned the well against me.
I understand why you would feel that way. But it isn't a logical argument. It sounds a little like sour grapes.
Saying that rights don't really exist as it is not an argument in favor of further eroding those rights.
quote:
You have yet to outline what negative effects that regulation would have, besides the ephemeral idea that a producer should be able to produce whatever they want, when that is already not a reality.
As for as the question being about how lenient we should be in an imperfect world (where we don't have full recognition of the First Amendment) it should be as lenient as possible all around, and where regulation occurs there needs to be a profound and well-documented need, with the understanding that the problem cannot be corrected in any way other than government regulation. The burden should not be on editors to prove that they will be harmed, the burden should be on the government to prove that there is a pressing need that is not going to be reduced by technology and that real harm is being done right now,that people on the whole are not intelligent enough to filter what they hear on television, and that it cannot be corrected in any other manner than by regulation.
As for ephermal ideas, that's pretty much the whole Bill of Rights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 10-03-2005 6:08 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 6:07 AM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 39 of 46 (256319)
11-02-2005 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Silent H
10-20-2005 6:07 AM


quote:
If people have no conception that there are alternatives, because they are fed only from one source which says these are all they have, then a box is created for consumers' heads.
Basically, I think the fundamental question is whether or not the people can make up their own minds. It seems that you argue they aren't, and I argue that they are (knock on wood, these same people elect our gov't representatives).
I think it's a classical example of individual decision vs. the nanny state.
quote:
Yes it does, by its very nature it adds content. But what you are suggesting is that the diversity of topics becomes limited. And though not directly stated, your comments do bring up the issue that this would limit the amount of coverage media can deliver, if it means that for almost every article they must have a counter article. Imagining one case of having to include a rebuttal (which is kind of what I was imagining) is much different than say 100 to 1000 rebuttals which my more accurately reflect the number of stories in a paper.
After a couple of weeks of thought I'm considering coming down on the issue of character assassination, since that "right" is already suspect, as in libel/slander. But I still think editors should have a right to use their papers as political expression.
quote:
IF the State may interfere with free speech, including wholesale editorial and artistic issues based on public concerns, THEN that would open the door to forcing rebuttals on the media as much as anything else.
What if I told you it probably shouldn't do either?
quote:
I guess I'd like a more consistent stand from you on this topic. Are you for a true libertarian approach with any and all media free to operate with any content? Or is it that some limitations are okay for moral reasons as long as conservative media empires do not get challenged when they engage in pure propaganda?
To be clear, I'm no libertarian, but somewhat influenced by their ideas.
I don't think society is going to end if you AND FOX are deregulated. I still think we should draw the line where you have actual enticements to commit crime (the books on how to be a hitman, etc.) I would like to keep the laws against child pornography because sometimes children are actually used in the production rather than digitally faking the footage. In that particular instance I think the physical safety of a minority outweighs the speech issues of the peddlers. As for your standard-issue obscenity/adult movies, that genie came out of the bottle a long time ago. As for Howard Stern, I don't mind him being on broadcast radio--as long as Rush can still stay there and spew whatever he wants.
At any rate, the "moral reasons" should be because of physical safety of certain individuals, not because Stern said a bad word. This arrangement wouldn't be the most comfortable for me but I think it's the most consistent with the Constitution and that's what counts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 6:07 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024