|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Liberal Media Conspiracy? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: My actual beliefs on porn are off-topic, but in this case I'm arguing the latter.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: 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: FCC fairness doctrine - Wikipedia This is a quote from an essay on the Freedom of the Press:
quote: http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0203/ijge/gj03.htm From Miami Herald Publishing v. Tornillo
quote: quote: quote: 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: SCOTUS upheld the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion. Why does the ruling seem to be a 180 from newspaper editorials? From the ruling:
quote: 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: 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: 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: And:
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: /Maybe--I wouldn't completely rule that out.
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: You also said:
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: And, is FOX News the source of your grandmother's odd views?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: Right, but public assumption of unbiased news sources does not give the government authority to ensure "equal coverage" of everything.
quote: 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: In that case, the victims of libel should sue. Libel, as I said before, is not a regulatory issue, but a tort issue.
quote: It's still protected speech. Further, we have: [Quoting WikiPedia] quote: Which has Tornillo all over it.
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: Again, I acknowledge this as a valid concern.
quote: 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: We would have to clarify how the papers are "forced". By threat of a lawsuit? By regulators? Or by journalistic integrity?
quote: 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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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 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: Interesting.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: What if I told you it probably shouldn't do either?
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024