DedicatedDom40 -> RE: How come Hannity doesn't get fired? (2/3/2009 10:16:34 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy ...legally there is no burden on US broadcasters to tell the truth, it's a different regime to the one you're used to. Whether or not one defines Hannity as irresponsible, his words are covered by the US laws regarding free speech. There is no legal burden on people there to speak responsibly. Free speech applies when Hannity stands on his own property and talks. But when he enters the private property of others, his speech can be limited. Its no different than Walmart refusing people who want to hand out leaflets to shoppers as they exit the stores. "Free speech" would not apply. In this case, Fox allows him to speak on their property and use their conduit over the airwaves. The airwaves were always considered government property, and in exchange for private enterprise using those airwaves to make money, they were OBLIGATED to do nonpartisan news. Historically, news bureaus never were profit centers, instead, they were a 30-minute "public service announcement". It was always considered a financial loss for TV stations to do the news, but they accepted that loss as a requirement for the right to broadcast over public-owned airwaves. At some point (during the Reagan years?), the law was changed to allow news bureaus to become profit centers of their own. Out went the traditional news gathering techniques. Good, old fashion news gathering that required "shoe leather on concrete" became too expensive, and in came the cheaper paid commentators (like Hannity) on 24 hr news channels giving recycled opinions, rumor and half-truths. Along with this, the private companies have (wongly) started acting more and more like they own the airwaves. This landscape can be changed (again) with the right political will, and free speech issues would not hinder such change, just like they didnt before. It would be important to not allow any change back to previous standards to go too far. The Fairness Doctrine would be a disaster in the making, only because it would include new media venues like the internet along with traditional TV and radio, and as such, it would be a monumental, blundering first step in regulating content on the internet.
|
|
|
|