Liberal Media Conspiracy?

I'm not sure, but sort of assume that you are for as little gov't control over media as possible. Yet I find your defense of Fox, under this flag a bit odd. 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.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.If the gov't is not in constitutionally iffy grounds by limiting communications through tools like the FCC, then how could they be on iffy ground with respect to FOX? And factual sources of news is arguably more important than entertainment, and so regulation of that at least makes sense (if one is about to regulate anything).Crash has already raised another important point with regard to the false diversity of media, so I'll let him continue that angle though I agree completely. That is an issue which raises very interesting questions for libertarians/traditional conservatives.I'll stick with the fact that we already have censorship of media.

---

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

No problem, I just meant if there was going to be an argument on that bit, I'd rather just watch you deal with it, than get into it myself, since you already started strong and I'd likely have little to add. See, my feeling at this point is that we are on almost the same page regarding this issue. I'll just throw in my support.

---

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

Well yes and no. They had no clue about mass media so you are correct that they'd not have worries about its censorship. But I don't think it's fair to say they cared more about the censorship of political speech than any other kind.If anything that seems a bit self serving of an argument. Granted political speech plays a more critical role in every day life, if we are going to live in a democracy. However pursuit of happiness and general liberty was considered just as important for the individual even if it was less critical on a day to day basis.If what you say is true then religious broadcasting, and things like holiday (esp secular) specials would be up in the air for censorship. Or what about any cooking show? Or sports programs?If we get at critical only speech then politics, language, and math would be the only things protected. As soon as we range beyond that, porn becomes covered as much as anything else. 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.It is true that Congress is not supposed to violate it, but that does not mean that private citizens should be allowed to through other mechanisms.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.

---

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

That was a lot of info, and I assume took some time to put together, so I appreciate the effort. 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... 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. 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). 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. 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)

Heheheh... always glad to have someone arguing against me for greater freedom of speech. It's a rarity. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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)

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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)

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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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)

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... Yes, free press can mean no free press when taken too far, as has now been recognized by a media watchdog org... 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... 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)