Freedom of the Press in danger?

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

Freedom of the Press in danger?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Freedom of the Press in danger?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 5:31:19 AM

Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline

Some Democrats think there is a "market failure" when it comes to talk radio and want legislation that would force the FCC to bring back the fairness doctrine that it abandoned in the late 1980s.
The Fairness Doctrine would require talk radio shows to include commentary from opposing viewpoints and refrain hosts from making their own opinions known. However Democrats only want this to apply to talk radio and not to newspapers or television news....in other words, they only want this to apply to a segment of the media that they do not control nor dominate.

Many Senators, who blame conservative talk radio for the demise of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, have made comments privately that they do intend to introduce legislation that would put the fairness doctrine back in place in an attempt to sideline popular radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh.

Legal analysts say it is unclear whether the fairness doctrine is constitutional. Some argue the doctrine is a violation of the "freedom of the press" clause of the 1st amendment. With a conservative Supreme Court that now appears to be leaning to literal interpretations of the constitution, it does not appear as if the fairness doctrine will be law for very long if it is ever passed by congress.
There is also legal cases already on the books against the fairness doctrine. In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that parts of the fairness doctrine are unconstitutional because it leads to a limit of public debate. Chief Justice Warren Burger said, "government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate." The case was Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo.

But this is type of crap is typical and consistant with an elitist Senate and far-left Democrats that seem to be more concerned with finding ways to silence and limit debate on issues instead of finding real solutions to problems facing the nation. And it won't stop here. Once they get control of the airwaves, they will then set their sights on trying to control the internet.

Since the beginning of civilization, governments have always strived to control and constrict the flow of information. It seems our government today is no different. The greatest danger to a corrupt government is an informed public that constantly watches over the shoulders of their elected officials. And this is why many career politicians in Washington today do not want you to read their bills and watch what they are doing.

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 5:49:22 AM

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

While I have some sympathy with your view, I laughed my socks off at your last paragraph..

Since the beginning of civilization, governments have always strived to control and constrict the flow of information. It seems our government today is no different. The greatest danger to a corrupt government is an informed public that constantly watches over the shoulders of their elected official.

Having listened incredulously to American conservative talk radio, the one thing it doesn't do is to inform the public. It merely confirms the prejudices of listening rednecks as far as I can tell.

However, balanced media does not restrict the freedom of speach, it enhances it, which is why most people who want to be informed look for media that gives more than one side of an argument.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 6/29/2007 5:53:03 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to cyberdude611)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 5:58:04 AM

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Didn't this whole fuckoree start with the comments of Trent Lott? (your basic everyday republican whip?) The airwaves are not the press. In any case you have done this thread before, and it still is a big fuckin' yawner this time. Kinda like re-voting the immegration bill.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to cyberdude611)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 5:58:16 AM

Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

While I have some sympathy with your view, I laughed my socks off at your last paragraph..

Since the beginning of civilization, governments have always strived to control and constrict the flow of information. It seems our government today is no different. The greatest danger to a corrupt government is an informed public that constantly watches over the shoulders of their elected official.

Having listened incredulously to American conservative talk radio, the one thing it does is to inform the public. It merely confirms the prejudices of listening rednecks as far as I can tell.

However, balanced media does not restrict the freedom of speach, it enhances it, which is why most people who weant to be informed look for media that gives more than one side of an argument.

A balanced media does not exist. Everybody has a bias and an opinion. Even people that try to look at both sides all have some kind of underlying bias. I'm not saying that is bad, it's human. What I disagree with is that we have a mainstream media that claims it is neutral when it is not.

The big difference here is that people on talk radio admit they are conservative or liberal. They admit their biases. But in other parts of the media such as newspapers or cable news, these segments claim to be neutral or hold no bias when it is perfectly evident that they do. I disagree with non-written rules of journalism that you have to be neutral to properly report the news. And I disagree with that because it isn't possible. You hire 100 reporters that claim to be unbiased in their reporting to each make a report on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. You are going to have 100 very different reports. All 100 are opinions with some truth sprinkled on top. That's journalism. It is the responsibility of the reader, viewer, or listerner to determine what is accurate. And the best way to get the most accurate picture is to take in information from all 100 of those reports.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 6:11:02 AM

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

I've got to agree that no one is impartial no matter how they try, everyone has their subjective view. However, it isn't only the reporter's job as to what is broadcast or printed but the proprietors/governors and the editor. A decent news organisation has gatekeepers to make sure a story can be replied to or at least is in some way balanced by an alternative view, if not immediately then over time. From what I have heard of conservative talk radio, it is a constant cocophoney of rightwing propaganda. I guess people who take it seriously don't have any respect for their intellect. But more importantly, if there is a total free market in media, that means the rich and powerful will be able to (and do) dominate the news to their own ends. In this respect, making sure there is an alternative view is not a deminishing of free speach but an enhancement of it.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to cyberdude611)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 6:19:51 AM

Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

The argument about media bias always sound to me like the end of a sporting event, where both sides claim to have gotten all the bad calls.

The only bias any media outlet has, is a bias towards gaining more readers/watchers/listeners. Talk radio/television knows the target audience, and sells to it. Print media ... try doing some intern work at a newspaper, before you claim an organized bias. If there is one thing you can categorically say about a newspaper, is that the work "organized" should never be applied to any part of it.

Try this exercise: Take a months worth of your local newspaper, and your very best liberal friend. Each of you go through and highlight every artical that you feel is bias towards the other political party, you from the perspective of a conservative and your friend from the perspective as a liberal. At the end of that month, you will have an almost equal number of articles highlighted. You will be shocked at how many you both identified as biased towards the other side.

(in reply to cyberdude611)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 6:22:53 AM

Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

The argument about media bias always sound to me like the end of a sporting event, where both sides claim to have gotten all the bad calls.

The only bias any media outlet has, is a bias towards gaining more readers/watchers/listeners. Talk radio/television knows the target audience, and sells to it. Print media ... try doing some intern work at a newspaper, before you claim an organized bias. If there is one thing you can categorically say about a newspaper, is that the work "organized" should never be applied to any part of it.

Try this exercise: Take a months worth of your local newspaper, and your very best liberal friend. Each of you go through and highlight every artical that you feel is bias towards the other political party, you from the perspective of a conservative and your friend from the perspective as a liberal. At the end of that month, you will have an almost equal number of articles highlighted. You will be shocked at how many you both identified as biased towards the other side.

Are you making a claim that a paper like the New York Times is fair and balanced?

(in reply to caitlyn)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 6:26:17 AM

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Or the New York Post?

(in reply to cyberdude611)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 6:28:17 AM

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Or the Republic?

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 6:31:07 AM

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

I know the New York Post isn't fair and balanced because the owner, Rupert Murdoch, has admitted that it isn't. I'd love to see his reaction to reading caitlyn's little experiment.

(in reply to mnottertail)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 6:37:03 AM

Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

There is a bias. It is a bias towards selling more papers.

Why don't you try the exercise I outlined. Use the Times if you like.

Why don't you get to know a few people that work for newspapers (I think you would be too old to intern), and find out exactly how disorganized a newpaper really is. Are you aware that the largest single factor influencing an editors choice of stories, is making sure all of his key writers get equal play, so as to stem the constant flow if jealousy (which I know you find shocking, that writers would ever be jealous).

No offense intended, but you are looking for something that you will never see ... fair and balanced. You are like a person trying to buy expensive designer clothing at WalMart. Newspapers don't exist to give fair and balanced reporting ... they exist to sell papers ... and they do this under the tightest deadline limitations that you can possibly imagine.

You can claim bias if you like ... but the idea is just silly. Again, do the exercise, and call me in a month.

(in reply to cyberdude611)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 6:39:20 AM

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Yeah, this whole conversation is abaft the beam in any case Lam. He owns the fuckin' thing and can do what he wants. Same as any other newspaper whether owned by persons or corporations. Radio waves are government controlled as public property, owned by the people, freedom of the press is not an argument that is cogent, congruent or concomitant.

Now, whether the government regulates our property according to the will of the people or in a good steward fashion is an altogether different kettle of fish.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 6:42:58 AM

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

It really depends on which newspaper you're talking about, caitlyn. Maybe you've interned at a newspaper, as you imply, but you can't just extrapolate from that experience and assume that all newspapers in America work the same way. At many newspapers, the largest single factor influencing the editor's choice of stories is not pissing off the people who can fire him.

Maybe you'd care to comment on the Rupert Murdoch thread, where we're discussing precisely this problem?

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Are you aware that the largest single factor influencing an editors choice of stories, is making sure all of his key writers get equal play, so as to stem the constant flow if jealousy (which I know you find shocking, that writers would ever be jealous).

(in reply to caitlyn)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 6:52:40 AM

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

And it won't stop here. Once they get control of the airwaves, they will then set their sights on trying to control the internet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

I've got to agree that no one is impartial no matter how they try, everyone has their subjective view. However, it isn't only the reporter's job as to what is broadcast or printed but the proprietors/governors and the editor. A decent news organisation has gatekeepers to make sure a story can be replied to or at least is in some way balanced by an alternative view, if not immediately then over time. From what I have heard of conservative talk radio, it is a constant cocophoney of rightwing propaganda. I guess people who take it seriously don't have any respect for their intellect. But more importantly, if there is a total free market in media, that means the rich and powerful will be able to (and do) dominate the news to their own ends. In this respect, making sure there is an alternative view is not a deminishing of free speach but an enhancement of it.

who is going to weigh in on "what" to what degree is balanced? How about ommission? That and it does not matter because we have both freedom of speech and freedom of press, covered from both sides.

Thats where it goes alright, internet next, the press is nothing compared to the internet! None of us would have heard all those bombs going off and seen the blown out basements of 911 prior to them blowing them all to hell if not for the net and talk show hosts! It would have been ommitted! Minor oversight by the major media.

The last thing we want is balanced! Its a cancer that is almost as bad as partisonship.

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 6/29/2007 6:54:39 AM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 8:21:33 AM

Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline

An axiom in journalism is, "if it bleeds, it leads".

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

There is a bias. It is a bias towards selling more papers.

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE

http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to caitlyn)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 9:34:18 AM

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

Let's try to keep BROADCAST and PRINT separate here.

You don't need a license to print and sell newspapers.

You *DO* need a license to lawfully operate a broadcast transmitter.

And THERE IS NO GUARANTEE FROM THE GOVERNMENT THAT THAT LICENSE WILL BE PROFITABLE.

And regulating the broadcast to ensure profit is the worst kind of WELFARE imaginable.

It their BUSINESS MODEL is profitable, REGULATION BY THE GOVERNMENT WON'T CHANGE IT.

And if it does tank because of regulation, THEIR MODEL WAS A FAILURE.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Vendaval)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 9:49:17 AM

Posts: 215
Joined: 5/29/2007
Status: offline

Is Rubert Murdoc a republican or a Democrate? Is Rush Limbaugh a republican or a democrate?

(in reply to cyberdude611)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 10:06:31 AM

Posts: 215
Joined: 5/29/2007
Status: offline

You are exactly right on the pandering; talk whatever, radio, TV panders to the viewers predjudices, and for the sponsor's products. Limbaugh, made it a career bashing Clinton 24/7 in every media market, radio, TV, print. He got rich, fantasically so. Became one of the most powerful political speakers, authority on all political issues of modern time...factual or not. Was he bias?...Was he fair in his journalistic comentary? Is Rupert Murdoc bias in his views?

What have these people to gain from what they present to the public? Since the government controls the airwaves, by issuance of license; just how fair and unbiased are they, or will they be?

It is the wise puppetmaster that gives his subjects the illusion of freewill.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 10:19:34 AM

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

General and in extension of this:

Above and beyond this, of course is you watch tv, go stuff your face when the tampon commercials come on. I think you will do the same when the leftist liberal traitorous democratic commie pinko fags come across the airwaves for their bit.

Lets not hit the doom and gloom button too many times fellers, she's wearin' really thin.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 6/29/2007 10:20:05 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to farglebargle)

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 6/29/2007 10:36:57 AM

Posts: 3607
Joined: 1/6/2005
From: Arkansas, U.S.A.
Status: offline

Well who decides what is an opposing viewpoint on talk radio? The problem with the Fairness Doctrine is that it is vague. There are never just two viewpoints on any issue. So how exactly do you apply the law? Does it apply to all radio communication? If you are a HAM or a CB radio user, do you have to have someone sitting next to you to offer an opposing viewpoint when you articulate an opinion over the airwaves? The Fairness Doctrine is a stupid regulation that is unenforceable. There are too many variants, and all it will do is cost money and clog the legal system with endless lawsuits.

< Message edited by slaveboyforyou -- 6/29/2007 10:38:26 AM >

(in reply to mnottertail)

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Freedom of the Press in danger?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.113