Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?

[SOS2008]

I don't understand how anyone can claim to quantify things like this. I think it's ridicules to try and measure...not only that but how can something that is biased itself take an honest measure of something elses biases?

Then what are you complaining about?

Thats like saying someone is suppose to be altruistic...They are not suppose to be anything except what they want to be and they cannot be everything to everyone so they are what they are to those who want they are selling.

Democracy's only purpose is to ensure liberates are protected from the government. Beyond that I could careless about it so there are a lot of things that are much worse than that...

We've had debate about Political Science and use of the scientific method in this field. One can only do the best, and I have provided data to that end. It would be refreshing to see others doing the same in support of their positions.

FOX has a right to a conservative bias, but then they should promote themselves accordingly. And when a story is found to be inaccurate, they should retract it--like other news organizations do. Do you have a problem with this?

Back to main topic, the problems with profits and competition is addressed in at least one source provided above. That the media can't be relied upon for these reasons does not mean we should be accepting of the problem.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It costs money to run a television station. As such, it is the goal of Fox News, and every other news station, to make money, not to be a watchdog for the people.

That's really too bad since it is the point of having a free press.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I see Fox News much like the Celestine Prophecies or the National Enquirer: People believe it because they want to believe it.

 

[Townsend]

We've had debate about Political Science and use of the scientific method in this field. One can only do the best, and I have provided data to that end. It would be refreshing to see others doing the same in support of their positions.

I see data but what am I to make of it? Is the best one can do in quantifying such things good enough to base laws on that suppress freedoms? I don't think it is and I should hope anyone who actually cares about liberty would take this position as well. To the best of our knowledge we can say almost anything and it is a very slippery slope kind of argument.

FOX has a right to a conservative bias, but then they should promote themselves accordingly.

According to whom? Again we get into the area of personal opinion...

And when a story is found to be inaccurate, they should retract it--like other news organizations do. Do you have a problem with this?

Sort of...I mean morally I think retracting a story is the right thing for them to do but I don't want to impose my morals on others. So strictly speaking I believe it is up to them. If they want to tell complete lies then so be it. If people are too stupid to check with other sources then so be it.

Back to main topic, the problems with profits and competition is addressed in at least one source provided above. That the media can't be relied upon for these reasons does not mean we should be accepting of the problem.

Of course it does because any possible solution to the problem is only a much worse problem.

 

[Townsend]

I see Fox News much like the Celestine Prophecies or the National Enquirer: People believe it because they want to believe it.

Exactly!

If something is clearly BS and people still believe it then there is nothing that can or should be done to fix it.

 

[loseyourname]

Some of the internet sources are great, but often do not have a source for their opinions. So they are just that, opinions.

I'm referring to factual reports. As far as I'm concerned, nobody's opinion is news. I have about 80 RSS feeds on my computer that give me more stories faster than every TV station combined. They also allow me the freedom to read over the story at my own pace, taking time to look up other sources and give careful consideration to what I'm reading. You really can't get any of this with TV. Generally, I only watch TV news if I'm actually looking to be entertained. The political discussion they host are often quite exciting to watch, whether or not I agree with what is being said.

 

[Tide]

This is comical! Not a single person in the whole world is forced to watch the broadcasts of some private companies such as FOX, CNN, CBS or whatever and you're discussing banning what you don't like to hear (even if you DON'T tune in!) - or don't like others choosing to tune in? Amazing!

If there are any relevant questions about FNC one of them should be "Why don't they have a Science & Technology segment?" While I'm at it, why can't you do something about your commentators pushing the intelligent design drivel? Are you listening, Mr. Ailes? :)

But I suppose that just balances CNNs global warming mantra.

 

[Townsend]

Amazing!

Isn't it though...I first read this thread and I was

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is one aspect of this that makes me wonder: The last election has caused great doubt in my mind as to whether or not the US system can work an longer. In fact, in my estimation it has failed. It may well be that the corruption of the neo-cons now, and later, others to be sure, have and will continue to undermine beyond the point of no return, the essence of democracy - an informed citizenry. The golden years of integrity in the news media are over. So what do we do now with infotainment? And who has the time to sort out so many lies?

 

[loseyourname]

False nostalgia, Ivan. Look back to the days when New York was run by Tammany, Chicago was run by gangsters, the LAPD did whatever it wanted to and asked no questions. Look at the early days of press sensationalism, especially at all the Hearst papers. Everything you're concerned about has happened before, and much worse than now. There never were any "Golden Years" and we are certainly not moving in the direction of more corruption over anything but a very narrow span of time.

 

[SOS2008]

I see data but what am I to make of it?

1) Open your eyes, 2) read the data, 3) evaluate it, 4) draw conclusions (like Pop Tart instructions? ) This is an academic forum.

This is comical! Not a single person in the whole world is forced to watch the broadcasts of some private companies such as FOX, CNN, CBS or whatever and you're discussing banning what you don't like to hear (even if you DON'T tune in!) - or don't like others choosing to tune in? Amazing!

If there are any relevant questions about FNC one of them should be "Why don't they have a Science & Technology segment?" While I'm at it, why can't you do something about your commentators pushing the intelligent design drivel? Are you listening, Mr. Ailes? :)

But I suppose that just balances CNNs global warming mantra.

No one in this thread is advocating the banning of FOX News. If I repeat this over and over again, will it catapult the propaganda?

IMO there needs to be both conservative and liberal news to achieve balance, but personally I think it is more affective when presented round-table style. Nonetheless, as I've said, the problem isn't that FOX News is conservative, rather that it promotes itself as "fair and balanced" which has been documented as untrue. Even false stories in the Enquirer have been exposed resulting in law suits. The comparison is made in this weblog:

But let’s say Fox—the ratings leader in cable news for seven straight quarters—has 50 percent of the bodies available at CNN, but the same 24 hours of news to fill. We would expect that difference to show up somehow in the news formula. How? Well, you can repeat yourself more often. This brings marginal costs for a minute of recycled news closer to zero. But dilution is a bad solution because we then have less reason to watch you. So how do you do news that costs less per hour, and gives viewers more reason to watch? Gross says:

"It wasn’t that they were toeing some political line… it was that the facts of a story just didn’t matter at all. The idea was to get those viewers out of their seats, screaming at the TV, the politicians, the liberals — whoever — simply by running a provocative story."
----------
Now remember Fox News Channel’s lineage, which is entertainment. Why do the searchlights remain in the news logo at Fox? Top left corner: go look. What is that? It’s imagery handed down from Twentieth Century Fox, the fabled Hollywood studio.

CBS, NBC, ABC (entertainment companies too) gave birth to news divisions at a time when “public service, at a loss if necessary” was a serious starting point— and for hard-headed, practical reasons. Imagine: the threat of government regulation and even—so wild, this part—losing your license if you gave really terrible service in news. Don’t laugh. That was a big deal then (early 1960s).

By the time Fox came into the game (1990s) these were not serious threats. So the birth certificate lists Hollywood and Politics (via Ailes), parents. The baby is Fox journalism. High minded public service was not, as it is said, present at the creation. If you don’t understand why that is a point of pride at Fox, then you don’t get what the operation is about. This gives Fox a different feel, an edge, and the edge is the subject of Gross’s letter.

Simply by running a provocative story. Almost all Murdoch properties identify themselves to us by means of the oldest marketing strategy there is: shock and awe, hype and miracle, outrage and scam, the language of screaming headlines. It’s not just information with more excitement pumped into it (although that is true too) but also excitement as information. Get those viewers out of their seats. It’s the wow effect. It’s the tabloid mind. It’s the blare. (Fox is louder than other networks, volume wise. Ever notice that?) It’s the hype level per unit of information. There’s swelling music on all news networks; when it swells to extremes it’s Fox. All networks employ eye candy. If everyone who can be eye candy is eye candy, then it’s probably Fox.

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2003/11/01/gross_fox.html

Bye bye to public service, hello to profitability.

 

[Townsend]

1) Open your eyes, 2) read the data, 3) evaluate it, 4) draw conclusions (like Pop Tart instructions? ) This is an academic forum.

Ok...lets look at the data and see what conclusions we can make...

I'll repeat your data here so no one has to look back to get it.

Reports, polls and studies
A report released in August 2001 by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, titled "Fox: The Most Biased Name in News", which states that, despite his claims to the contrary, The O'Reilly Factor host Bill O'Reilly is conservative; and compared guests on Fox's Special Report with Brit Hume with those on
CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports:

......white...male...Republican...conservative
Hume (Fox)...93%...91%...89%.....71%
Blitzer (CNN)...93%...86%...57%......32%
----------
A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2005 found that, in covering the Iraq War in 2004, 73% of Fox News stories included editorial opinions, compared to 29% on MSNBC and 2% on CNN. The same report found Fox less likely than CNN to present multiple points of view. On the other hand, it found Fox more transparent about its sources.

Ok...now we can clearly see that Fox news is reporting mostly pro conservative points. I don't see anything more or less than just that...

So Fox says that they are fair and balanced...What does that mean? There is not one specific meaning since like most of the English language, it can mean different things to different people.

To me it means that the news they are reporting is being presented in a "Fair and Balanced" way. Not that they are presenting both sides of the story or that they are covering all points of view.

So from my point of view you would really need to proved that the way in which the news is being reported is NOT being reported in a fair and balanced way. Which gets into opinions...

Of course in some people's opinion "Fair and Balanced" means they are reporting all points of view...To me if that is the message you want to convey then you say just that, because it is possible report all sides of the story and still not be fair and balanced. For example MM's documentary was neither fair and balanced nor did it present all point of views and even if he took the time to present his documentary from all point of views, it would not be fair and balanced because it would be a story with his slant on it...

So your data is meaningless unless you can prove that your interpretation of the meaning of "Fair and Balanced" is the correct one that we should accept.

 

[Townsend]

Bye bye to public service, hello to profitability.

It never was a public service to being with so there is nothing lost...

 

[Townsend]

No one in this thread is advocating the banning of FOX News.

The title of the thread is advancing the idea of banning FNC...

If I repeat this over and over again, will it catapult the propaganda?

You can repeat as long as you like but clearly there are people here who are in fact advocting the banning of FNC. If that was not the case then the title of this thread would not be, "Should Fox News be Banned."

 

[SOS2008]

The title of the thread is advancing the idea of banning FNC...


You can repeat as long as you like but clearly there are people here who are in fact advocting the banning of FNC. If that was not the case then the title of this thread would not be, "Should Fox News be Banned."

The title is posed as a question that is not reflected by the actual content of the thread, but I guess you fell for it like FOX's "fair and balanced" tag line. Or maybe I missed someone's post "advocating the banning of FNC" and you could point this out with a direct quote in which this is stated.

 

[loseyourname]

IMO there needs to be both conservative and liberal news to achieve balance, but personally I think it is more affective when presented round-table style.

Personally, I think that only factual reports constitute news, and that the facts should be presented without any slant to begin with. Giving equal time to the two most popular forms of bias isn't my idea of ideal journalism.

Bye bye to public service, hello to profitability.

Another case of false nostalgia. Just take a closer look at history. Jefferson had affairs with his slaves. Lincoln suspended the writ of habaeas corpus. Roosevelt lied to take us to war with Spain so that we could acquire colonial possessions. Harding appointed every single friend he ever had to cabinet positions even though none were qualified. Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling. And it gets far worse when you consider more local levels of politicians. Part of the reason they were able to do this and get away with it is that nobody was able to find out. The major difference between now and then is that now it is a lot more difficult to engage in questionable behavior as a government official without the story leaking out over some outlet or other. The availability of information is one of the defining features of the present age.

So go ahead and lament the demise of the press all you want. The fact remains that media are more of a watchdog now than they have ever been.

 

[Townsend]

The title is posed as a question that is not reflected by the actual content of the thread, but I guess you fell for it like FOX's "fair and balanced" tag line. Or maybe I missed someone's post "advocating the banning of FNC" and you could point this out with a direct quote in which this is stated.

I see...you're running out of arguments so you resort to denigrating the individual instead the argument. I love you too, sos...

 

[SOS2008]

Personally, I think that only factual reports constitute news, and that the facts should be presented without any slant to begin with. Giving equal time to the two most popular forms of bias isn't my idea of ideal journalism.

Agreed that just the facts without any spin would be nice.

Another case of false nostalgia. Just take a closer look at history. Jefferson had affairs with his slaves. Lincoln suspended the writ of habaeas corpus. Roosevelt lied to take us to war with Spain so that we could acquire colonial possessions. Harding appointed every single friend he ever had to cabinet positions even though none were qualified. Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling. And it gets far worse when you consider more local levels of politicians. Part of the reason they were able to do this and get away with it is that nobody was able to find out. The major difference between now and then is that now it is a lot more difficult to engage in questionable behavior as a government official without the story leaking out over some outlet or other. The availability of information is one of the defining features of the present age.

So go ahead and lament the demise of the press all you want. The fact remains that media are more of a watchdog now than they have ever been.

True that questionable behavior has always existed and that technology has allowed more awareness of public official's activities. But as stated in the quote in my last post, there used to be higher standards in the news industry. Also there is increased competition and profitability (as you originally pointed out).

Dan Rather lost his job over a report that could not be proven factual, yet Bill O'Reilly gets away with it on almost a daily basis because FOX executives encourage it to keep ratings high. I realize people think the stories in the Enquirer are real, but the number of people who think FOX News is real if frightening. I guess it gets back to the poor education in this country. Still "buyer beware" is a sad scenario in regard to the news.

 

[edward]

I am somewhat surprised that people who claim that they never watch Fox news, would claim to be aware of Fox news tactics. Making comparisons of Fox news to anything in the past, especially anything prior to the "information age" is oranges and apples.

A year-long study by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)[8]

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

reported that Americans who relied on the Fox News Channel for their coverage of the Iraq war were the most likely to believe misinformation about the war, whatever their political affiliation may be. Those mistaken facts, the study found, increased viewers' support for the war.

The study found that, in general, people who watched Fox News were, more than for other sources, convinced of several untrue propositions which were actively promoted by the Bush administration and the cheerleading media led by Fox, in rallying support for the invasion of Iraq.

Quote from:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

 

[loseyourname]

I am somewhat surprised that people who claim that they never watch Fox news, would claim to be aware of Fox news tactics. Making comparisons of Fox news to anything in the past, especially anything prior to the "information age" is oranges and apples.

The point being made is not specific to Fox News. I'm only responding to this lament that people have for the "good 'ol days" of responsible journalism wherein people were informed and able to keep their government from doing bad things. Those days never existed. It is much more difficult today for any politician to get away with corruption and lying than at any time in the past, mostly because information is so freely available and disseminated through such a wide variety of sources; very quickly, too.

As to your study, are you claiming a direction of causation here? Are people supporting the war because they watch Fox News? Or are people who support the war simply more likely to watch Fox News? People have believed the lies of politicians for thousands of years and have supported irresponsible actions for just as long. Fox didn't create a market of poorly informed conservatives who will criticize nothing that Bush does; they simply tapped into that market.

 

[loseyourname]

Look at the statements I've responded to by bringing up the past, Ed:

"The golden years of integrity in the news media are over."

"Bye bye to public service, hello to profitability."

Neither statement is specific to Fox News, unless you're trying to tell me they're the only news outlet on the market that occasionally spreads misleading information.

 

[edward]

As to your study, are you claiming a direction of causation here?

It wasn't my study

But the University of Maryland's study did show that those who depended on Fox news for their primary source of information did in fact have a higher percentage of people who believed the misinformation about the war.

This can be dissected a thousand ways and nothing will change the facts here.

 

[loseyourname]

It wasn't my study.

But the University of Maryland's study did show that those who depended on Fox news for their primary source of information did in fact have a higher percentage of people who believed the misinformation about the war.

This can be dissected a thousand ways and nothing will change the facts here.

Do you see what I'm saying, though? Showing a correlation between two events does nothing to tell which caused the other. You cannot say that people believe misinformation about the war because they watch Fox News. Not from this data alone.

There are other hypotheses that could explain this data. Among them:

1) People who are gullible and stupid are more likely to watch Fox News.

2) People who watch Fox News are largely Republican, and want to believe good things about a Republican administration, and so are more likely to believe in falsities that paint the administration in a positive light.

3) People who largely rely on a single source of information are often misinformed in general.

There are plenty of other possible hypotheses as well. If you're going to put forth one over the other, you'll need further evidence to make your case.

There is one more thing that the study (at least the portion you've quoted) does not address. That is other kinds of misinformation. Showing a correlation between false beliefs about the war and the watching of Fox News is nice, but what about other false beliefs? Are Fox viewers more likely to believe these than people who mostly view other cable news networks?

Another thing to address would be to find out how many people actually have their opinions changed based on news reports of any kind. Are beliefs actually shaped by the news, or do people simply use the news to confirm beliefs they already hold for one reason or another, believing the stories that make their case and ignoring those that do not? Are Fox viewers any more likely to engage in this form of selective reasoning than viewers of other stations?

I know I'm being a real lawyer here, and people hate lawyers, but there is a reason our legal system is so exacting. Intuitive connections are not always correct. As with science, we need to be more rigorous when building a case of any kind.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I’m not advocating banning FOX News. My comments are in reference to existing laws and regulatory agencies.

I never accused you of wanting Fox News banned SOS.

First are the laws regarding truth in advertising:

http://www.poznaklaw.com/articles/falsead.htm

On what basis does FOX News substantiate their claim of “fair and balanced” news? In fact there is immense documentation to the contrary.

The issue I have here is that One: Going after Fox legally for false advertising, especially without any damages except to say that it offends you that they use that tag line, is asking the government to decide what is fair and balanced in the news. Like I said previously, I do not want our government making such decisions. and Two: Do you really want our government spending millions of dollars to make an inquiry for the sole purpose of making Fox change it's tag line? Look through some commercials and ads and tell me just how many of the tag lines you see that stand up to criticism. Should I sue Miller because they advertise that their beer tastes great when in fact it tastes like watered down monkey piss?

Regarding privacy and active versus passive inflow of media into American homes, here’s an article in the SF Chronicle criticizing Bush for signing the Do-Not-Call bill:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/02/EDGAM21ROV1.DTL

Ummmm... I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with this or how it refers to any legal definition of "active vs. passive inflow of media".
I did see this though that doesn't seem to jive with your argument...

"In applying the First Amendment to commercial speech, the Supreme Court has rejected the highly paternalistic view that the government should be involved in assessing the value of, and determining, what consumers should and should not hear,"

The Supreme Court has said it is not constitutional for the government to dictate to publishers and newspapers about what is and is not acceptable to print (with exception of libel laws). However, the government regulates and licenses broadcasters (which involves physical property):
http://www.benton.org/publibrary/piac/sec2.html

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/journalism.html

Otherwise the FCC does not intervene, if even then. But it seems to me that reports by the insider Fox News producer, Charlie Reina would qualify. There are those against such regulations, and those for it:

http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15326926CLP0603_03?prevSearch=authorsfield:(Raphael,C)

I'm not sure how to achieve balance between the "watchdog" role of the media and serving the public interest, which also includes promoting democracy via an informed public.

So what you are saying is that there already is regulation of the nature I object to and that it is failing, as I predicted it would, because an influencial media outlet who happens to have the right political alignments is going unpunished.
Perhaps a better question to ask would be: How many media outlets are being unfairly penalized due to these regulations? or What are these people doing if not penalizing the people who ought to be penalized? (getting hard-ons over Janet Jackson's exposed mam, whining about homosexuals being portrayed on public broadcast television, things like this maybe?)

 

[SOS2008]

I never accused you of wanting Fox News banned SOS.

I know, and a Yankee Dime to you.

The issue I have here is that One: Going after Fox legally for false advertising, especially without any damages except to say that it offends you that they use that tag line, is asking the government to decide what is fair and balanced in the news. Like I said previously, I do not want our government making such decisions. and Two: Do you really want our government spending millions of dollars to make an inquiry for the sole purpose of making Fox change it's tag line? Look through some commercials and ads and tell me just how many of the tag lines you see that stand up to criticism. Should I sue Miller because they advertise that their beer tastes great when in fact it tastes like watered down monkey piss?

False advertising is not the same as libel in regard to damages--it just has to be untrue, and the tag line has been documented as untrue. I don't view beer to be as important as accurate information to the public under the guise of news.

Ummmm... I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with this or how it refers to any legal definition of "active vs. passive inflow of media".

It's hard to find information on advertising methods online, but what I'm trying to get at is that some forms of media are invasive to the privacy of one's home -- a position supported by Bush in the Do-Not-Call bill. And part of the difference is purchasing a telephone (or TV -- i.e., private property) and paying the phone company (or cable or satellite company -- i.e., utility bill) and having some control of that.

So what you are saying is that there already is regulation of the nature I object to and that it is failing, as I predicted it would, because an influencial media outlet who happens to have the right political alignments is going unpunished.

And that's good?

Perhaps a better question to ask would be: How many media outlets are being unfairly penalized due to these regulations? or What are these people doing if not penalizing the people who ought to be penalized? (getting hard-ons over Janet Jackson's exposed mam, whining about homosexuals being portrayed on public broadcast television, things like this maybe?)

I'm not aware of any media outlets being penalized. I think you're referring to Parents Television Council. Claims are that these complaints were artificially generated, and if so, these can't be taken seriously.

 

[Manchot]

The issue I have here is that One: Going after Fox legally for false advertising, especially without any damages except to say that it offends you that they use that tag line, is asking the government to decide what is fair and balanced in the news. Like I said previously, I do not want our government making such decisions.

As I have now mentioned three times in this thread, the government would not have to decide what is fair and balanced to prosecute. They would just have to show that the executives do not have a good faith belief that they are fair and balanced, and this is easily proven by those daily memos. For example, if I were to throw together some random tonic and say that it cures cancer, then I am committing a crime, even if it turns out that it does cure cancer.

 

[Burnsys]

there should be a limit on the number of media a single person can own,
How many radios, newspapers, tv chanels etc does rupert own? it almost as state controlled tv, but in this case rupert isn't elected by the people in free elections.

 

[loseyourname]

there should be a limit on the number of media a single person can own,
How many radios, newspapers, tv chanels etc does rupert own? it almost as state controlled tv, but in this case rupert isn't elected by the people in free elections.

Given the trouble that Fox television programs have had with the FCC over the years, and with would-be censors in Congress like Joe Lieberman and pundits like Tipper Gore, I would not call Rupert Murdoch's media empire 'state-controlled.' Fox has distributed government-criticizing material from the X-Files to Revenge of the Sith, and lewd material that the government did not like from The Simpsons to Married with Children. Rupert Murdoch is interested in one thing: making money.* He's not trying to make the country conservative. He just tapped into a market that no one else was tapping into. Before FNC, there was no predominantly conservative television news station. Had the situation been reversed, he probably would have developed a liberal news station.

*Actually, one other thing he's always been interested in is outdoing Ted Turner. Turner buys the Braves, Murdoch buys the Dodgers. Turner creates CNN, Murdoch creates FNC.

 

[Burnsys]

Anyway loseyourname, whatever their interests are (Ruppet, Turner). It's clear they can manipulate all of theyr audience (i would like to know which percentage of the entire populations consume their products) for what they want, today is money and power, tomorrow who knows, and they don't have to say what their interests are, they can do it in a deceptive manner, they don't have to answer to anyone..

* who tell you He's not trying to make the country conservative ? at leats he ensures all his reporters are conservatives.. and how do you know what is his agenda?? you have no way to know it for sure. that is the problem, he can trick all his audience for his personal gain.

Do you understand what i am saying?? he has TO MUCH POWER over TO MANY PEOPLE... and he use it to gain even more power.. that is bad...

 

[loseyourname]

* who tell you He's not trying to make the country conservative ?

It's just an inference. Pretty much everything Fox is responsible for distributing, with the exception of FNC, is liberal.

 

[SOS2008]

As I have now mentioned three times in this thread, the government would not have to decide what is fair and balanced to prosecute. They would just have to show that the executives do not have a good faith belief that they are fair and balanced, and this is easily proven by those daily memos. For example, if I were to throw together some random tonic and say that it cures cancer, then I am committing a crime, even if it turns out that it does cure cancer.

Thank you for re-stating that and providing a good example.

Anyway loseyourname, whatever their interests are (Ruppet, Turner). It's clear they can manipulate all of theyr audience (i would like to know which percentage of the entire populations consume their products) for what they want, today is money and power, tomorrow who knows, and they don't have to say what their interests are, they can do it in a deceptive manner, they don't have to answer to anyone..

* who tell you He's not trying to make the country conservative ? at leats he ensures all his reporters are conservatives.. and how do you know what is his agenda?? you have no way to know it for sure. that is the problem, he can trick all his audience for his personal gain.

Do you understand what i am saying?? he has TO MUCH POWER over TO MANY PEOPLE... and he use it to gain even more power.. that is bad...

This is a huge issue:

In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation.

In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.

http://www.corporations.org/media/

This site provides many good links, and I would add to that The Project for Excellence in Journalism, which publishes an exhaustive analysis of news reporting every year. The latest one is here: http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/

 

[BobG]

This site provides many good links, and I would add to that The Project for Excellence in Journalism, which publishes an exhaustive analysis of news reporting every year. The latest one is here: http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/

Good site!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

False advertising is not the same as libel in regard to damages--it just has to be untrue, and the tag line has been documented as untrue. I don't view beer to be as important as accurate information to the public under the guise of news.

Again: Do you really want our government spending millions of dollars just to get Fox to change it's tag line? Personally I'd rather be trusted to decide for myself whether or not Fox is "Fair and Balanced" just as I'd rather trust my own taste buds to determine whether or not Miller "Tastes Great".

It's hard to find information on advertising methods online, but what I'm trying to get at is that some forms of media are invasive to the privacy of one's home -- a position supported by Bush in the Do-Not-Call bill. And part of the difference is purchasing a telephone (or TV -- i.e., private property) and paying the phone company (or cable or satellite company -- i.e., utility bill) and having some control of that.

Fox does not have an Orwellian Vidscreen in your home. FNC does not ring up your TV when ever they report the news. They do not invade the privacy of your home in any fashion. When you buy a phone you give others the opertunity to make contact with you regardless of any decision you have made. Purchasing a TV is solely for the purpose of you listening in on broadcasts made by television stations at your own discretion. This is entirely under your control.

So what you are saying is that there already is regulation of the nature I object to and that it is failing, as I predicted it would, because an influencial media outlet who happens to have the right political alignments is going unpunished.

And that's good?

No. It's what happens when the government is involved in this sort of thing. People like Howard Stern get harrased on a regular basis and people like Rupert Murdock are untouchable. Looking at this situation what do you think will happen when and if you get the government to start cracking down on this sort of thing? More than likley the little guy without any pull or political influence is going to get screwed over while the untouchables go on being untouchable. Even if it does get taken to them most likely even the smallest battles against these people will be hard won.

I'm not aware of any media outlets being penalized. I think you're referring to Parents Television Council. Claims are that these complaints were artificially generated, and if so, these can't be taken seriously.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2037/is_200408/ai_n6326395
FCC judging reports of "indecency" in various TV shows such as Friends and Will and Grace, 36 of such reports reviewed and rejected. They apparently wade through about a million complaints per year.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/%5Cnews.aspx?id=12000
FCC focuses on ads that fund websites for children's education and entertainment.
I do believe that children should be protected from being exploited as consumers but I looked at some of these sites and they do not look that bad to me.
http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/frontpage_lead/story/20667
http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/1257

So this is some of what the FCC is up to in regards to content and licensing. When I tried to find anything in regards to an investigation of FNC by the FCC I found nothing. Though I did find this which would seem to indicate that Fox has some connections...
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200107/msg00173.html

So this is the sort of thing that happens when you put such regulation into the hanbs of the government. If the FCC were dominated more by liberals rather than conservatives Fox might actually get investigated but what sort of problems might we have then?

http://www.corporations.org/media/

This site provides many good links, and I would add to that The Project for Excellence in Journalism, which publishes an exhaustive analysis of news reporting every year. The latest one is here: http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/

You do realize don't you that if you go over the ownership stats in your second link they don't seem to jive really with what the first link claims? The only areas where it is about accurate are movies, music, and possibly television. Funny enough I rarely hear complaints about consolidation in the movie and music industries which are by far the worst examples and hear mostly about consolidation in radio which has probably the least amount of consolidation.

 

[SOS2008]

Again: Do you really want our government spending millions of dollars just to get Fox to change it's tag line? Personally I'd rather be trusted to decide for myself whether or not Fox is "Fair and Balanced"

Where is your source for how it will cost millions of dollars to enforce truth-in-advertising laws, and why should FOX be an exception? You may be fine with a "buyer beware" news environment, but many people (myself included) are concerned about the negative affects on our democratic society, and the impact is VERY different from beer commercials. Sorry you can't see this.

Fox does not have an Orwellian Vidscreen in your home. FNC does not ring up your TV when ever they report the news. They do not invade the privacy of your home in any fashion. When you buy a phone you give others the opertunity to make contact with you regardless of any decision you have made. Purchasing a TV is solely for the purpose of you listening in on broadcasts made by television stations at your own discretion. This is entirely under your control.

I understand there are different levels of media invasion. I brought this up as another debate regarding the media and the First Amendment, and debates about the Internet are even greater at this time. There is a difference in regulation because of private property and consumer desire for control. I see nothing wrong with requirements for things such as equal time, public service announcement, etc., and without these things what do you think would happen in this profit-oriented industry?

The links you provided are a result of conservatives, particularly the religious right, and not the same thing as maintaining a high standard for news, educational programs, etc. to keep our society informed and educated.

You do realize don't you that if you go over the ownership stats in your second link they don't seem to jive really with what the first link claims? The only areas where it is about accurate are movies, music, and possibly television. Funny enough I rarely hear complaints about consolidation in the movie and music industries which are by far the worst examples and hear mostly about consolidation in radio which has probably the least amount of consolidation.

There may be an error between sources, and I'm glad to see someone on here bothering to do some research. The point about media monopoly remains relevant.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Where is your source for how it will cost millions of dollars to enforce truth-in-advertising laws, and why should FOX be an exception? You may be fine with a "buyer beware" news environment, but many people (myself included) are concerned about the negative affects on our democratic society, and the impact is VERY different from beer commercials. Sorry you can't see this.

Enforcing truth in advertising means taking the false advertiser to court not just knocking on their door and telling them to cut it out. Fox will fight it and can afford to do so. The FTC will have to meet them at the same level in the court room, which will require probably more than Fox will be spending, in order to win the case. It will be a long drawn out process. How much do you think it will cost?
And what are the negative effects of this tag line? Do more Americans watch and believe Fox news simply because of this tag line? Do you think more people think Miller tastes great because their commercials say so?
I'm sorry if you don't get the comparison that the content of these tag lines have little meaning when it comes down to it. Fox can change their tag line to something else and people will still watch and still believe and they will still be doing what ever damage they are doing, just with a different tag line. And this would be the case after you have spent tax payers money to make them change it and tied up the courts with this case when they could have been spending that time and money helping people who have claims of financial loss and physical injury and real direct tangible damages due to false advertising. There are people out there suffering because of false advertising. I want my money to go to them and help them not a bunch of morons who can't figure out that their news isn't "fair and balanced".

I understand there are different levels of media invasion. I brought this up as another debate regarding the media and the First Amendment, and debates about the Internet are even greater at this time. There is a difference in regulation because of private property and consumer desire for control. I see nothing wrong with requirements for things such as equal time, public service announcement, etc., and without these things what do you think would happen in this profit-oriented industry?

In a profit oriented industry, for the most part, companies try their damnedest to give their consumers what they want so they can continue making profits. THIS is consumer control. The FCC forcing diversification of content is government control and it does not necessarily work to the benefit of anyone company's consumer base. Seriously, corperations are more so at the mercy of their consumers than the government is at the mercy of it's citizens.

The links you provided are a result of conservatives, particularly the religious right, and not the same thing as maintaining a high standard for news, educational programs, etc. to keep our society informed and educated.

The point is that the FCC are responsable for these things and because of our government and the people in power are predominantly right leaning this is what we are getting out of them. They aren't doing their jobs and they are in fact hurting accessability for smaller operations as opposed to the ones like Fox.
It's actually fortunate for us that the FCC haven't been on the ball with standards for news because those in power would likely have done some pretty scary things.
The information we have access to is one of our greatest freedoms. It means that even if our government is lying to us we can find the truth. Giving the government the power to regulate that information to me would have to be one of the biggest mistakes we could ever make. The lack of regulation may make things like FNC allowable but it also means that telling the truth and telling it how it is will also be allowable and the government won't be able to take that away from us easily.

There may be an error between sources, and I'm glad to see someone on here bothering to do some research. The point about media monopoly remains relevant.

Media monopoly is worst in entertainment. And I'm not ok with it in either sphere (entertainment or information) but we need to go after the big boys if you're going to strike fear into the insofar lesser demons. Nobody wants to think ill of these industries though because the faces that represent them are the ones that they love the most.