|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Liberal Media Conspiracy? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I appreciate your post. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3852 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk 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. This affects the facts that they present how? You are assuming that these left wing organisations are just as eggregarious in their disregard for truth in reporting as Faux News, and this is demonstrable false when you compare the beliefs of people that {watch\listen} to the various shows with the actual facts of the cases in question. Do you think sponsoring the disemination of truth alters the truth depending on the sponsoring organisation? Certainly it colors opinions that they present, perhaps the topics covered, but facts are without poitical boundaries.
I think it makes more sense to change the channel when you hear or see commentary you don't like. But do people who see commentary that they like know that what they are being fed is a narrow view and ignores contradictory evidence? When half the people think WMDs were found and that there was a link between Al Quieda and Iraq -- and they watch Fox news -- Versus the population with the most accurate facts at hand -- watch\listen to pbs stations and use the internet to look at multiple sources. Are we seeing bias being fed to the gullible an honest truth being found by those willing to look for it? Edited by RAZD, : . by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3852 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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... Well, I'll tell ya. My 80-something Grandmother watches Fox news exclusively and as a result has a very skew view of what's happening in the world. We all can agree that there is a great deal of debate on a lot of topics, but she's come away from FOX with information which is simply wrong. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3852 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I'm not claiming that FOX said those things, though I suspect even a little amount of digging with find Hannity spouting that garbage.
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. As to good old grams, she's batty. But she's getting these opinions from someplace
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3852 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
in this case I see a causative relationship as being unsubstantiated. Except that if you ask her why she thinks these things, she'll say she saw it on Fox
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3852 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I'm differentiating FOX News (Hannity, O'Reilly et al) and FOX (Simpsons, Malcolm in the Middle)
FOX News is force feeding the falsehoods. FOX Broadcast network is much the same as ABC NBC or CBS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
That was a lot of info, and I assume took some time to put together, so I appreciate the effort.
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. 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. And indeed I do think that splitting monopolies (or better yet restricting media ownership to a reasonable level) is a preferable method. I do agree that issues have begun to change now that bandwidth is becoming less of an issue with expanding media forum. And I do agree that cable is selective and so less open to regulation than broadcast over airwaves (though I disagree with your assessment that FOX is only cable, they certainly have a broadcast channel in Chicago and it is as odious a news propaganda tool as the cable version). However, I think what is being lost in this theoretical discussion is what is being addressed. Its too easy to argue it away by looking at the effects, as if that is all that is happening. I guess its sort of missing the forest for the trees kind of thing. 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. Opinions are one thing (and frankly I don't care so much what O'Reilly and Hannity says as they are editorial/opinion), but facts are another. The public does tend to assume a "purity" in the facts they are getting from a news source. And shouldn't they to some degree? 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. And I want to make something else clear as well, from the wiki article on FD...
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. This is specifically addressing character assassination. I am uncertain how attacking persons is a contribution to POLITICAL discourse. That is really about issues and not about the people presenting them to be enacted. Given the power of gossip, I don't quite see the harm in requiring media which target the person, to allow a response by that person. If FD restrictions will have the chilling effect you eluded to, which is a stifling of political reporting which focuses on the person rather than the issue because some editors would like to have a policy of unchallenged rumour-mongering, then I am less than worried about its effects.
it is not enforced against by the FCC, charges of libel are brought through the tort system. 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. I don't want to see everyone under the gov'ts thumb when they voice an opinion, even in mass media. But the factual inerrancy, or twisting of facts, especially in regard to personal attacks are something that can be dealt with. (On top of the other issue, which is monopoly of message in media).
published them with "reckless disregard" for their truth or falsity Whether for sales figures or from an actual political agenda, I think this is a fair statement regarding FOX. They certainly have a reckless disregard in how they present the material, which appears to drive people to conclusions sometimes opposite of what factual evidence they have to deliver on a subject.
(2) the speech refers to a specific product or service; and (3) the speaker has an economic motivation for the speech. 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. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3852 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: And, is FOX News the source of your grandmother's odd views?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3852 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
holmes writes: Essentially their news programs are advertisements for politicians. Which raises the question: Should consumer protection laws similar to those restrictive of false advertising be put in place to regulate political advertising?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024