RE: Freedom of the Press in danger?

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 12:53:50 AM)
Did you sign a license agreement with the Government, AGREEING to abide by their Regulations, when you purchased your cellphone? No. Did EVERY BROADCASTER in the nation sign a license agreement, with the Government, AGREEING to abide by their Regulations? Yes. It's not about "Freedom". It's about fulfilling your VOLUNTARY COMMITMENTS. If you wanna be free, don't sign the Government's license agreement. Then you are free to broadcast WHATEVER you want.

DeviantlyD -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 1:02:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 A balanced media does not exist. Everybody has a bias and an opinion. True...although those who have ever studied journalism prior to entering the field know that the "ideal" is to present the facts in an unbiased a fashion as possible. IMHO, I think the reason balanced media doesn't exist has more to do with money than anything else. It's always been about which organization can scoop the other and this has resulted in sensationalism. Edward R. Murrow must be rolling in his grave.

mnottertail -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 3:22:22 AM)
There is a great deal of commerce in yellow journalism and red war.

meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 3:50:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 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. What you appear to be proposing is the partizanship which you say you condemn. As for having freedom of speech and freedom of the press covered from both sides, if you are talking about America then you are misinformed. I have never came across a left wing view point in any American media, what Americans call leftwing, to the rest of the world is centrist at best. However, there are more than two sides to a fully rounded debate and the people who own the media don't even want a two sided debate so a fully rounded view is almost impossible in a media that is based entirely on market forces. You really need to get over the peychological impasse you have that market forces some how are a panacea for problems associated with the desemination of news, views and facts. When I say a balanced view, I don't mean some common denominator view but equal access to all views so the mesia is balanced and people have access to all the information and varying opinion so they can be fully informed.

NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 3:53:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: dragone Is Rubert Murdoc a republican or a Democrate? Is Rush Limbaugh a republican or a democrate? Rupert Murdoch is an Australian citizen, so he is neither Republican or Democrat. He is, however, a multi-billionaire who has publicly stated he is arch-conservative, virulently hostile to communism, and only decided to stop plotting the downfall of China when China agreed to allow him to bring his communications networks into the country. From experience in Britain, he will support anyone who will give him favourable treatment with regard to his tax bill. When you say arch-conservative, he's not in the Adam Smith mould - moral sentiment is alien to Murdoch.

Real0ne -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 5:32:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 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. What you appear to be proposing is the partizanship which you say you condemn. As for having freedom of speech and freedom of the press covered from both sides, if you are talking about America then you are misinformed. I have never came across a left wing view point in any American media, what Americans call leftwing, to the rest of the world is centrist at best. However, there are more than two sides to a fully rounded debate and the people who own the media don't even want a two sided debate so a fully rounded view is almost impossible in a media that is based entirely on market forces. You really need to get over the peychological impasse you have that market forces some how are a panacea for problems associated with the desemination of news, views and facts. When I say a balanced view, I don't mean some common denominator view but equal access to all views so the mesia is balanced and people have access to all the information and varying opinion so they can be fully informed. Whats the difference between government and corporation? Can you separate them? If you cannot then how can you say that i have a psychological impasse? If you can puhlease explain. So because eu is like "really" left wing we should be too?, or i should change the way i think about it?, change the line maybe? i do not thinkin terms of left wing and right wing. i have no party that i claim only issues that i do and do not support. I think its important to note here that is was our breaking away from europe and the corresponding corruption which in the first 100 years made the us a country with great prosperity and most respected of all nations. Its leaning to the left which you would call centrist which is bringing us back to the same problems we originally fought to get away from. We have a controlled media and talk show hosts bring to us that which the censored media does not. i do not tune in to a talk show to hear the propaganda pushed by the media shills. Do you like quotes? The business of the New York journalist is to destroy truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon; to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. We are the tools and vessels for rich men behind the scenes. We are intellectual prostitutes." John Swinton, editor of the New York Tribune, called by his peers, "the dean of his profession," was asked on February 26th, 1936, to give a toast before the New York Press Association. "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." Richard Salant, former president of CBS News. The problem of course is that this is in our faces every day and we do nothing about it.

Marc2b -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 5:02:35 PM)
quote: Did you sign a license agreement with the Government, AGREEING to abide by their Regulations, when you purchased your cellphone? No. The cell phone company did, though. If the government can regulate the airwaves, then surely they can tell the cell phone companies what they can and cannot allow over the airwaves (after all, isn't that what you're advocating the government do to the broadcasters) – and reserve the right to listen in. Once again (I feel a headache coming on), it is not a question of what the government could do but should do. quote: Did EVERY BROADCASTER in the nation sign a license agreement, with the Government, AGREEING to abide by their Regulations? Yes. It's not about "Freedom". It's about fulfilling your VOLUNTARY COMMITMENTS. If you wanna be free, don't sign the Government's license agreement. Then you are free to broadcast WHATEVER you want. You’re still focusing in on intentions and not results. It boils down to this, do you want the people to be able to listen to what they want or do you want the government to decide for them? You want the government to use it’s authority (an authority I have repeatedly agreed they have) to force the people to listen to things they don’t want to. In theory. I hate having to repeat myself here but it seems I have to. The people will instead, be turning the knob to off when the government mandated shit comes on. This in turn will send the broadcasters looking for something the public will listen to and will not be in anyway controversial and political (in order not to run afoul of the Fairness Doctrine). Which also means that shows the public does like will be taken off the air. You will not have succeeded in your intention of bringing the people more political discussion but will instead have achieved the opposite – less political discussion. Therefore, if a person advocates the Fairness Doctrine (have you ever noticed how government laws usually mean the opposite of their name?) I can only presume one of two things. A, they’re not that intelligent and, despite the best of intentions, don’t understand that the results will be the opposite of their intentions. Or B, they do understand what the results will be and depriving the public of the political shows they are listening to is the real intention ("because, God damn it, they’re listening to the other guys and not to us!"). The first can be forgiven. The second cannot. You cannot say you believe in freedom while wanting to deprive people of their choice of radio programs. If that is the case then you are no different than any right winger who wants to restrict speech for his purposes. I prefer a different route. The government should increase freedom of choice by allowing the public to decide what they will or will not listen to. There is only one way to achieve this. Let the free market rule. Let the broadcasters decide what shows to air or not to air based upon the public’s response to them.

dragone -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 6:18:42 PM)
Hi Marc; John Swinton said it all, and said it best, in his toast speech in 1936;( there it goes, someone dreging up history again); basically the free market will not bring fairness to the media; it will always (the media) be the lap dog for the rich, and their agenda. The gov controls, thereby owns, the airwaves by virtue of licensing. Indiviually, we are zip. Opps, time for "I Love Lucy' again.

dragone -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 6:23:59 PM)
Thanks for the info, about Murdoc. Really appreciated. Murdoc, by virtue of his wealth, then decides that his views are what is to be presented to the public, right? He creates the news as he wants it to be, and any opposition to his views are silenced. Is that not correct? He buys the leading media outlets, all over the world, thereby owning what opinions are to be given to be believed.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 6:33:50 PM)
The only people in favor of the fairness doctrine are liberals. And the reason why is because their ideas cannot compete against conservative talk radio on the free market. Air America is the perfect example....it went bankrupt because no one was listening to it. But like I said, there is no way this Supreme Court is going to allow the fairness doctrine to stay on the books if it is ever passed. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1970s that the fairness doctrine is unconstitutional if it leads to a limit of public debate.

farglebargle -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 6:34:43 PM)
quote: Did EVERY BROADCASTER in the nation sign a license agreement, with the Government, AGREEING to abide by their Regulations? Yes. It's not about "Freedom". It's about fulfilling your VOLUNTARY COMMITMENTS. If you wanna be free, don't sign the Government's license agreement. Then you are free to broadcast WHATEVER you want. You’re still focusing in on intentions and not results. It boils down to this, do you want the people to be able to listen to what they want or do you want the government to decide for them? Actually, The People don't get a choice except to turn the station off. The question you ask, would properly be asked, Do you want the Artificial Legal Entities created by The People, to be able to decide, WITHOUT The People's input, what they carry on The People's airwaves? I say, "NO". Artificial Legal Entities need to obey their Creator, The State. If they don't like the rules, get out of the business. Here's another aspect. You want Half Deregulation. Would you accept the idea of doing away completely with Broadcast licenses, and permitting ANYONE with a transmitter, to go ahead and broadcast freely? In other words, you seem to want this 1/2-assed solution, where they're Licensed, but Unregulated. Could you accept life without a FCC?

farglebargle -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 6:37:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 The only people in favor of the fairness doctrine are liberals. And the reason why is because their ideas cannot compete against conservative talk radio on the free market. Air America is the perfect example....it went bankrupt because no one was listening to it. But like I said, there is no way this Supreme Court is going to allow the fairness doctrine to stay on the books if it is ever passed. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1970s that the fairness doctrine is unconstitutional if it leads to a limit of public debate. I'm not a liberal, but I believe that if an Artificial Legal Entity, created by the State, AGREES to go by FCC Regulation, then that is their obligation. If they don't like the Regulations, give up their Licenses. Hell, if you're a REAL CONSERVATIVE, you'd suggest to get rid of the FCC entirely, and allow ANYONE to set up a transmitter, or access to cable tv channels as per local franchise rules.

luckydog1 -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 6:51:00 PM)
Cell phones also fall under FCC regulations, and you did sign a contract for service. So farg is agrguing that if the people(state) wants to listen in thats a ok. Our airwaves and all that, we can make any rule we want. You can buy a cell phone and not activate it, no contract, you can by a transmitter and not broadcast either. Same must go for cars, you agree to obey the rules, if the people(state) want to stop and search cars, its A ok. Hell the Government owns the sidewalks and streets also, so they can enforce any rule they like there? By the way, where in the Constitution are the Feds empowered to create a board of judgement of political speech, Did I miss that clause or is that an implied power?

farglebargle -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 6:54:33 PM)
Where does it say they can regulate the airwaves at all?

farglebargle -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 6:56:59 PM)
quote: So farg is agrguing that if the people(state) wants to listen in thats a ok. With a properly issued warrant from a court with jurisdiction, who would disagree?

luckydog1 -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 7:00:15 PM)
No farg, you are arguing they can make any sort of rule they want, including no warrants. And which clause allows the creation of a board of Judgement of Political Speech? I missed your answer....

luckydog1 -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 7:07:19 PM)
Where does it say they can regulate the airwaves at all? That falls under rules of interstate commerce, general welfare, and the right of the Gov to pass laws needed to fufill the basic duties. the airwaves are regulated because they are usefull. you cant broadcast over police and ambulance channelss, or millitary. You can't scramble other peoples transmissions, there are reasons any jack ass can not just set up and transmit anything they want, some transmissions are harmfull to peoples health. But the FCC does not exist to limit political speech. No where in the constitiution is the concept of limiting political speech advocated, in fact the opposite is true. And the USSC has agreed with me on this for alomost 100 years now. To enforce the Fairness doctrine would require the Gov to listen and judge somehow every political broadcast. How would that actually be accomplished other than a board of censorship?

Marc2b -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 7:09:58 PM)
quote: Hi Marc; John Swinton said it all, and said it best, in his toast speech in 1936;( there it goes, someone dreging up history again); basically the free market will not bring fairness to the media; it will always (the media) be the lap dog for the rich, and their agenda. The free market isn’t about fairness in results. That would be an impossibility. What we must seek is equality of rights. The right to speak is not the right to be heard. Yet even the rich would have some constraints upon what they will or will not put on the air (or in print). If they people don’t like, it won’t sell.

Marc2b -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 7:50:25 PM)
quote: Actually, The People don't get a choice except to turn the station off. Or tuning into another station. Either or, the station not being listened to will have to act fast to find out what people do want to listen to. That’s the free market! If you want corporations to obey the will of the people, make them accountable to the will of the people - on their bottom line! quote: The question you ask, would properly be asked, Do you want the Artificial Legal Entities created by The People, to be able to decide, WITHOUT The People's input, what they carry on The People's airwaves? But they do have the people’s input! Remember those knobs you can turn?! quote: I say, "NO". Artificial Legal Entities need to obey their Creator, The State. But what should the rules be? Rules that increase the people’s choices, or decreases them? Rules that increase corporate profits (more jobs, more tax revenue) or decrease them (less job, less tax revenue)? quote: If they don't like the rules, get out of the business. They will. That's my point! quote: Here's another aspect. You want Half Deregulation. Would you accept the idea of doing away completely with Broadcast licenses, and permitting ANYONE with a transmitter, to go ahead and broadcast freely? In other words, you seem to want this 1/2-assed solution, where they're Licensed, but Unregulated. Could you accept life without a FCC? Any argument can be made to seem absurd by taking it to the extremes. I don’t want half regulation or no regulation or half-assed solutions. I want freedom of choice. I want the free market. I don’t want people with a political ax to grind interfering with the free market. I can’t quite put my finger on what exactly is pissing you off. Is it corporations making profit? Is it too many people listening to conservative radio shows and not listening to liberal radio shows. What?

Noah -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/1/2007 7:58:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b ... I prefer a different route. The government should increase freedom of choice by allowing the public to decide what they will or will not listen to. There is only one way to achieve this. Let the free market rule. Let the broadcasters decide what shows to air or not to air based upon the public’s response to them. This presupposes that a free market is the best guarantor that each citizen will have access to the broadcast media content he wishes to consume, doesn't it? All across the United States there exist groups of people who would like to listen to music programming beyond what the local markets presently offer. Given the economics of broadcasting over a limited bandwidth, the free market has determined that todays typical programming will prevail. This typically presents stations which on any given day play from a list of 20 or fewer recent releases, or some package of "oldies". These are formats which appeal to the most lucrative demographics, evidently. Depending on the size of a market, a tip of the hat may be given to a few other slightly less juicy but still lucrative demographics. Every person who is not a member of any of those key demographics is more or less abandoned by the free market, when it comes to radio music programming., as it seems to me. Do you disagree? The free market so far never has assured that each of us can choose what want in terms of broadcast music, insofar as I can tell or remember. The lowest common denominator tends to be served, and then some cherry-picking goes on in terms of giving niche service to those best able to reward advertisers. And there the scope of the whole commercial broadcast enterprise tends to stop. I think that with some care a useful analogy can be drawn to the presentation of polictically oriented programming. People who are unattractive to advertisers will not have programming produced and presented to them by the free market. This is so in regard to music and it is so in regard to non-political talk programming. Should we expect the picture to be altogether different and ever-so-much fairer when the free market is put in charge of providing forums for political speech with enough variety that each citizen can choose what he prefers? Your contention, Marc, that the free market will let everyone decide what sorts of programming they will hear seems pretty naive, even pollyannish, to me. Not that I'm agains poly, mind you. But then again I don't hear many radio stations offering programming targetted to that demographic. A notion which I feel needs stress in this discussion is that citizens who are unattractive to advertisers are just as much citizens, and just as much co-owners of the airwaves which commercial broadcasters use to make their millions. It is almost axiomatic, especially in the face of broadcast bandwidth limitations, that some groups will be systematically underserved or even abandoned outright by the free market in broadcasting. I don't see a perfect resolution. I don't know what would constitute the fairest use of these public resources. It does occur to me that during the decades when the previous rules were in place, no political persuasion seemed to get a lock on this commonly-owned resource. In addition, during that interval political power moved back and forth between the major parties pretty frequently. If the notion of presenting opposing opinions was really so dangerous to democracy as some some here imply--not that you've made this implication, Marc, I wonder why democracy didn't whither and die when indeed there was some good faith effort to present a listener or viewer with paired, opposing views which they might freely evaluate and choose between.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875