Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Liberal Media Conspiracy?
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 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

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 32 of 46 (247241)
09-29-2005 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by gene90
09-29-2005 7:31 AM


Heheheh... always glad to have someone arguing against me for greater freedom of speech. It's a rarity.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Absolutely correct and I couldn't agree more. 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.
This touches on the subject of conglomerate media, but we don't have to address it just in that context. Large media outlets (networks) are more than just a guy with a printing press. They are entities which shape debate of large percentages of the population.
That said, my libertarian tendencies are making me weak and I'm finding it hard to defend forced "fairness" rather than making sure people (or entities) cannot dominate speech entirely.
In that case, the victims of libel should sue. Libel, as I said before, is not a regulatory issue, but a tort issue.
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?
Sometimes papers are forced to write a retraction. How is that different, other than in the timing?
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.
Well I find this rather ironic.
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."
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.
Honestly, your argument in this case fails as there is no such claim to freedom of speech, we haven't had that for decades, and in recent years FOX itself has been supportive of limits... as long as it was not itself.
It feels sort of like hearing that I can't complain about Mein Kampf being sold everywhere by the Nazis, because free speech is so important, while they hold massive rallies burning my books and putting me and my friends in jail.
FOX does this, and not CNN or MSNBC?
We are talking about something very specific. Yes FOX does what I am talking about, no CNN does not, and I do not know about MSNBC.
This is not the same thing as collusion not to show FDR in a wheelchair, or the press ignoring JFK's sexual infidelities. This is where single entities engage in near direct partnerships with political figures or entities, and so have their economic and political interests tied together.
Just because we have not seen this exact phenomena before does not mean it is not there and not something that needs to be dealt with in some way. The robber barons were essentially a new phenomena at the time, as well as industrialist exploitation, and we had to curb some freedom of the owners to make sure the rights of others were not trampled.
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.
An ignorant populace can do a lot of damage. Large entities pretending to be media outlets, but instead being partisan propaganda ministries, shut out actual debate.
It is a power play.
Ultimately this will cause greater harm than simply letting the media be what the media always has been: an outfit that has Constitutional protections against gov't meddling of their content.
What is the great harm that will come from asking massive media outlets to allow rebuttal when they print (or whatever) personal attacks on someone? That they may not go for personal attack stories in the future?
Okay I'm sort of devil's advocating at this point, but I do feel there is a more serious issue, which cannot be waved away with using refs to the Constitution. The first amendment is so sorely trod upon at this time, unless we are willing to make speech really free, then certainly the probs we are addressing here are more important than some of the probs we already have regulated... in the name of protecting people from speech.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by gene90, posted 09-29-2005 7:31 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by gene90, posted 10-02-2005 3:40 PM Silent H has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 33 of 46 (247267)
09-29-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by gene90
09-29-2005 6:48 AM


Re: FOX addiction
Yup

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by gene90, posted 09-29-2005 6:48 AM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 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

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 35 of 46 (248432)
10-03-2005 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by gene90
10-02-2005 3:40 PM


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.
Okay, I see the differentiation more clearly. Not that the other is wrong, just that it would be wrong to view it as applying to something other than restricted arenas (EMs) and in this case EMs are not restricted when we are discussing cable.
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.
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.
Or we could make sure that when articles dealing with personal attacks on an individual are made, that the person is notified so they can factcheck it, or even better, give them space to deal with the personal issues.
I'm still not quite sure how that is so invasive on an editor or publisher. Having been in media for the last couple years I am not seeing that that would be so onerous, and if anything gives you more content. What would an editor have to disagree with?
It really seems like you are suggesting that producers who wish to make personal attacks should be allowed to do so in a way that goes unchallenged and in a way that may poison the public well against a person, without that person knowing. Sort of saying sneak attack character assasinations are a worthy part of debate, and themselves should not be checked by the simple allowance of a person to have some recourse to a public hearing.
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.
We would have to clarify how the papers are "forced". By threat of a lawsuit? By regulators? Or by journalistic integrity?
Integrity would be great, but then integrity would have already negated the reason for this kind of regulation. Lawsuit is not as useful as regulatory act.
Font sizes?... 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.
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.
I am not arguing that we should further gut freedom. I am talking about equality which is actually within the constitution. If editorial and production rights are sacrosanct then that should apply to sexual imagery as well.
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.
However, I don't see hypocrisy, blatant as it may be, as being itself an argument against free speech.
No, but equality in enacting/enforcing regulations is. The question is whether there is a right to effect the media based on public concerns. Despite my being very open on this topic, I do believe at some point there may be practical concerns that suggest regulation as an answer. This sort of regulation is much more necessary and falls within my acceptable region of regulation, than the limits we impose on adult material.
And again, you have sort of denied the obvious. You keep acting like I do have my rights. This is not the case. It is not well we should support the KKK despite the fact that they'd ban us once they got into power. We are at the point where the KKK are in power and have banned us, and are using control of media to further their interests.
At that point, the argument we need to support freedom is blatantly false as that is NOT what we are discussing. We are then discussing how much leniency we are going to give those in power to protect their power.
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 is going to be a bit hyperbolic, but imagine jews being maligned in Nazi germany by papers and radio media and being told if they have any problems they should take it to the courts. When the people in charge are helping shape public discourse and sentiment with slander that you have no ability to challenge, then what good will a court be to you... if you could even afford to broker the challenge?
Now as hyperbolic as that sounds, we are clearly not at that stage, we should keep that in mind as we are dealing with future issues. Given the reality of the power of large media to shape opinion and effect lives, why is requiring notification and ability to respond so heinous or debilitating to freedom of media when they make personal attacks?
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.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by gene90, posted 10-02-2005 3:40 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by gene90, posted 10-19-2005 4:43 PM Silent H has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 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

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 37 of 46 (253268)
10-20-2005 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by gene90
10-19-2005 4:43 PM


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.
That simply is not true. If it were true then states could just as well run our markets, using customer demand to shift production goals. Capitalism and even socialism recognize that singular entities, when they control sufficient quantities of a market, usurp the power of demand.
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.
Forcing an editor to include a rebuttal whenever they say something that isn't positive about somebody doesn't increase content
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.
But then again, can't this be limited in scope based on the nature of an article? Not just that they said something negative, but as I suggested, a personal attack not based on public issues?
Is the candidate going to be able to write a rebuttal to everything every editor writes? Hardly.
Uhhhhh... That actually argues for why there should be restraint under law. Remember the original argument was that if a person disagrees then they can simply use the press in the same manner and rebut using a different source. The only difference between the dilemma based on my position vs yours, is that while a person may not choose to rebut every single article, at least they will have the option to do so and a platform to do so.
Your model not only has the candidate having to right rebuttals to every editor, but also having to do the legwork of finding everything written negatively about them, and find some venue to make a rebuttal.
In a lockout of media diversity which we are seeing, that last option may never occur, or may only occur in the frame of talking heads shouting you down, outgunned by design 3 to 1.
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.
Heheheh... they already have and they lied (and though I am not a celeb it is not something I would mind being known for). You are right I cannot keep track of such things, that is why notification would be helpful.
I understand why you would feel that way. But it isn't a logical argument. It sounds a little like sour grapes.
It may sound like sour grapes, but it isn't and it is logical. Once you set up a precedent of when a State can interfere with free speech, then logically all equal cases can also have free speech interfered with by the State.
You did not argue that there was a difference, and simply used "sour grapes" to make my position sound cheaper. If there is a difference, please explain it. Here it is again...
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.
AND it seems to me that propagandistic character assassination, combined with the growing power of limited media empires, is a serious public concern. Indeed unlike adult entertainment it actually poses a threat of reducing the free speech rights of others.
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.
Hahahahahahaha. Okay look, I agree that that should be the case. But there are two issues which counteract that argument:
1) This is NOT how free speech is treated in the US right now. I have already shown you that this is not the case. Thus appealing to this idea, when in fact the very people you are intending to defend are championing the opposite quite successfully, makes my eyebrows shoot up. You can't get me with the flag waving routine, when my nuts are in a vice.
I might point out that if the above were true, the media would be a hell of a lot different than we have today. That would essentially dictate the end of the FCC, and allow kiddie porn, not to mention porn of any and all variety across any medium at any time. You and I both know that is not the case at all.
2) We already have solid evidence that in general people are incapable of filtering false information, especially if it is placed repeatedly in prominent media sources. If not recognizing that truth from history, just look at the Iraq War. What % of the population believed in the fictions that were being cooked up about Iraq, despite overwhelming counterevidence? Many still believe there is a connection between Iraq and 911, based on misinfo spread by Fox.
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?
If you favor the former, as soon as you get FOX on your side and their propaganda vice off my nuts, I'll start warming up to that as a practical solution. Until then State control of media should be enforced equally.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by gene90, posted 10-19-2005 4:43 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by gene90, posted 11-02-2005 5:53 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 38 of 46 (254435)
10-24-2005 11:02 AM


Berlusconi's media control of Italy points out problems
There was an interesting article on Berlusconi's control of Italian media at CNN. He has been putting pressure on essentially the only free channel in Italy, to drop people critical of himself and his administration.
This seems a bit funny as he himself dominates Italian media...
Berlusconi's Fininvest company controls Italy's three largest private television stations, its largest publishing house and its largest advertising agency. As prime minister, Berlusconi also has an indirect say in the running of RAI.
Yes, free press can mean no free press when taken too far, as has now been recognized by a media watchdog org...
In its 2004 media report, the U.S.-based Freedom House, said press freedoms were deteriorating in Italy and ranked the country 74th in its global league table -- beneath African countries such as Mali, Ghana and Benin.
"Italy was downgraded to Partly Free in 2003 due to an unprecedented concentration of media ownership and a resulting increase in and misuse of political pressure on media outlets," the Freedom House report said.
Now here's the interesting part, and what is critical to the debate thus far. Remember the argument has been that equal time was a bad thing to force on editors and owners. Well Italy right now has equal time laws and Berlusconi wants them removed so that he can dominate all media going into elections...
The prime minister denies using this predominance to dictate programming and is determined to change media laws to let his Go Italy party run election campaign adverts on television.
Under the terms of a 2000 law, known by its Latin tag Par Condicio, Italian parties are given equal access to the media during the run-up to general elections in the shape of free broadcasting slots. Paid adverts are banned.
Berlusconi wants to see U.S.-style free-for-all advertising. His opponents fear that as Italy's wealthiest man, he will be able to bankroll a mega advertising campaign, while opposition parties have to pay Berlusconi's companies for airtime.
See where there can be a big problem?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 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

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5834 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 40 of 46 (273686)
12-28-2005 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by gene90
09-28-2005 9:42 PM


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).
Fox news viewers believe ridiculous things like "there is no evidence for global warming"
Honestly, anyone who takes fox news seriously is either criminally stupid or simply incapable of critical thinking. I personally watch NPR or BBC since they are the only even reasonably non-biased news programs out there. Fox, MSNBC, CNN are all newstainment and pretty much devoid of any intellectual content.
The liberal media bias is a lie... and a stupid one at that. If you believe in it you don't even understand the meaning of the word liberal.
I have to say though, these things do make a nice filter for people.. if you hear someone say "liberal media bias" you can be 99% sure they have no intelligent thoughts in their head

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by gene90, posted 09-28-2005 9:42 PM gene90 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 46 (274447)
12-31-2005 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
09-25-2005 12:10 PM


http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/2005/12/27/
enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2005 12:10 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 42 of 46 (474789)
07-11-2008 12:20 AM


Bump
Just annoyed about the unsupported assertions of a liberal media, both in this forum and in the U.S. in general.
Moose

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Jazzns, posted 07-11-2008 12:34 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 43 of 46 (474790)
07-11-2008 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Minnemooseus
07-11-2008 12:20 AM


Re: Bump
This was a great anecdotal day for great counterexamples for this.
John McCain has an adviser call American's whiny for complaining about the economy and dodges questions about birth control. Either of which had Obama done would have been in the news all day.
Yet what do we hear about? Jessie Jackson saying mean things about Obama and what that means for how Obama is alienating African-Americans.
W T F ???

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-11-2008 12:20 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-11-2008 12:55 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 46 (474838)
07-11-2008 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Jazzns
07-11-2008 12:34 AM


Re: Bump
John McCain has an adviser call American's whiny for complaining about the economy and dodges questions about birth control. Either of which had Obama done would have been in the news all day.
Yet what do we hear about? Jessie Jackson saying mean things about Obama and what that means for how Obama is alienating African-Americans.
He said he was going to cut his balls off...? I don't think qualifies as simply "mean" coming from the good reverend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jazzns, posted 07-11-2008 12:34 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Jazzns, posted 07-11-2008 5:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 45 of 46 (474859)
07-11-2008 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
07-11-2008 12:55 PM


What if the tables were turned?
Take McCain's week and flip it. Pretend that an adviser to Obama had said those things, or that Obama was unable to articulate his position on contraceptive or Obama made a joke saying that we could kill Iranians by exporting more cigarettes to the country.
Can you honestly tell me that he would have been given the free ride that McCain is being give right now as we speak?

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-11-2008 12:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2008 3:29 PM Jazzns 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