THE BORE

General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: radioheadrule83 on September 09, 2008, 04:27:15 PM

Title: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: radioheadrule83 on September 09, 2008, 04:27:15 PM: In 2003, the Observer newspaper in London did an analysis on all 175 publications then owned by News Corp around the world. ALL 175 of Rupert Murdoch's publications were towing a line that was pro-war in Iraq. Since then Murdoch's empire has only grown, chasing Dow Jones, getting his mitts on WSJ for example. Back then, Conrad Black's empire was pushing a similar view too.

Of course, there are media outlets that lean the other way. These political leanings are commonly known to many of us here. We know who owns the television networks, who owns any given tabloid or broadsheet... and we know that said ownership informs their political coverage. With that in mind, most of us go to the appropriate places we trust for our news and editorials and we decide the truth for ourselves. My worry is that when you let certain individuals and leanings become so dominant in a society, people become less able to exercise that judgement. They are bombarded from a number of sources that share the same root, or the same funding. Whether it be a media giant's empire, PACs or 527 organisations. When the livelyhoods - or even the very lives - of Americans and innocent people around the world are at stake, should we really accept that kind of inteference?

The first amendment is all well and good -- but I personally look on in horror at how media-money is allowed to intefere in politics over there. Safeguards are needed to ensure the media doesn't propagandise the public and violate the US constitution.

You can argue the first amendment: that the best weapon against political speech, is political speech itself. But lets not kid ourselves - money talks, and it talks so loud as to sometimes drown out other voices worth hearing. Money can distort speech, it can denigrate speakers, it can shape what we know and when we get to know it. In the face of a mighty media giant, your free speech is at risk of becoming futile speech.

If you've got Viacom, General Electric, Disney / Buena Vista, News International, News Corp all having financial interest in who sits in the Oval Office - you need to make sure that doesn't effect their news coverage. Because journalism should have integrity. It should strive to be impartial. News should not be entertainment. It should not concern itself with the cult of personality, or be aiming for ratings with drama. It should be about facts and objectivity, or the pursuit of those things. It CERTAINLY shouldn't be opinion in the guise of facts. No reputable news anchor or talking head should be raising their voices above guests or telling them to shut up. They can challenge them, but there's a line to be drawn. Commentary programmes should generally be seperate from news coverage. If you ever visit the UK, I strongly recommend watching a few hours of BBC News 24 or even Sky News (Murdoch owned).

There is NO WAY:

- any televised arm of Murdoch's empire (or anyone else's empire) would be able to get away with half the things you see demonstrated on foxattacks.com here in the UK ...
- Clear Channel used its radio stations to organise pro-war rallies in the US. Again, this would not be possible in the UK. It would be flat out against the law.
- private interests would not be allowed to pool funds and funnel them into television advertising with a view to influencing a general election. There ARE lobbyist groups here and unions that go out and vie for political support throughout the country, but they're not allowed to do it over the airwaves. Our political parties disclose their donations openly, and they get allotted equal opportunity to broadcast "party political broadcasts" which are clearly labelled before and afterwards as having come from that particular party.

Vis a vis lies, "mis-speaking" and generally misleading people - I don't know what you guys have over there, but when a complaint of such things is made here, we can complain to OFCOM, our media/communications regulator. If any complaint is upheld - OFCOM have the power and authority to fine, force a public retraction / apology or shut people down in a heartbeat. We have legislation in place for the benefit of competition and to curb information monopolies... if you own 20% of the newspaper industry for example, you are not allowed more than 20% of a television license. ie. Murdoch isn't allowed to own more than a certain stake in our commercially funded public broadcasting (terrestrial) channels. He owns Sky TV, which is hugely popular throughout the country, yet his channels are clearly kept in check in a way that the Fox Network in the United States is not. I want to know why that is. Is nobody proposing the bills to do this?

MSNBC / Olbermann trying to provide some sort of counterbalance to Fox & co isn't the answer in my view. Under a Democratic President, they could even be just as obnoxious and dangerous as Fox has been this last 8 years.

The media is something that should be both loved and feared. Its an amazing tool in this information age, but its also a dangerous animal. When some voices, and some information, finds itself relegated to political forums, foreign news outlets and blogs on the internet -- I'd say its time to worry. Or at least show an interest in this.

The whole point of the US' founders mandating a seperation of powers (legislative/executive/judicial) was so that tyranny or self-sustaining inequity of power could not take hold. I say that where polticians and private interests aren't able to get influence in congress, the white house or in the law courts -- they simply abuse their money and the media to get it.

I'm not advocating censorship. I'm advocating some regulation. Here in the UK, we're not perfect. When Murdoch ditched John Major in favour of Tony Blair in 1997, it was a turning point in British Politics. And we have all sorts opinionated stuff too, we have talk shows and panels were right lays into left and vice versa... but what I'm saying is - its never presented under the guise of news. Its never claimed as "fair and balanced". It is what it is. And as I've mentioned - companies aren't allowed to participate in electioneering so blatantly.

I don't live in America though. What are your views?
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: I'm a Puppy! on September 09, 2008, 04:40:24 PM: no. the media does what sells.

If people stopped being ignorant and stood up en masse and turned it off and stood against it then the news would be better.

Issue is that anyone smart enough to care get their news from the internet and other sources whilst everyone else watches TV news and TV news will do what sells and the people that can't be bothered to fact check for themselves outnumber those that do BY FAR.

The problem is Americans not taking their responsibility as citizens seriously and opting for the easy way out and do as their told/sold. Blaming the media for the issues is like blaming McDonalds for obesity. Sure it's ok to rant about it once in a while and decry it, but to say it's the root is just not true.
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: MrAngryFace on September 09, 2008, 04:42:42 PM: Quote
MSNBC / Olbermann trying to provide some sort of counterbalance to Fox & co isn't the answer in my view. Under a Democratic President, they could even be just as obnoxious and dangerous as Fox has been this last 8 years.

That's kinda the idea of a counter-balance, is it not? ;)
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: radioheadrule83 on September 10, 2008, 12:03:11 AM: Quote from: ronito on September 09, 2008, 04:40:24 PM
no. the media does what sells.

If people stopped being ignorant and stood up en masse and turned it off and stood against it then the news would be better.

Issue is that anyone smart enough to care get their news from the internet and other sources whilst everyone else watches TV news and TV news will do what sells and the people that can't be bothered to fact check for themselves outnumber those that do BY FAR.

The problem is Americans not taking their responsibility as citizens seriously and opting for the easy way out and do as their told/sold. Blaming the media for the issues is like blaming McDonalds for obesity. Sure it's ok to rant about it once in a while and decry it, but to say it's the root is just not true.

The culture of business being more important than impartiality is so well ingrained... if that wasn't the case, I might have agreed with you.

I say you COULD blame McDonalds for obesity and other health problems if McDonalds was the dominant provider of food. If it bordered on some kind of monopoly. As it is, its just one of many providers of convenient fast food.

What I'm saying is that consolidation and common ground between the big media providers may represent a threat, a real and present danger, to American democracy.

What I believe you have over there (and I might be misinformed), borders on ideological monopoly. Can you imagine Edward Murrow and others trying to battle McCarthyism with the likes of Fox News around? Dissent and protest used to be the very essence of patriotism, now they land you in a bath of tar and feathers under the label "Liberal", where liberal is some kind of dirty word. And of course, the more extreme publications and networks that reinforce that view claim to be a counterbalance to an almost laughably fictive "liberal media". Has anyone who ever called the media "liberal" bothered to look up what it means and consider why that would be an insult?

"A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority"... in economic terms it can refer to laissez-faire policy, support of the free-market and the gold standard. It was also a set of 19th Century Roman Catholic and Protestant movements that favoured democracy, free intellectual inquiry, and stressed the ethical and humanitarian elements of the theology. In any case - being a liberal used to be a good thing. These are old-school Republican ideals are they not?

I say certain media outlets do NOT do what sells... they say and do what they want to sell. They say what they want to say and show what they want to show -- and its all packaged up in tested, successful entertainment vehicles that they know will work. They propagate it through sister publications, they bring in their own experts, they negotiate talking points with political allies, and have talking heads evangelise all of that opinion and political perspective as news. And they do it well.

The very idea that people "smart enough" should have to use the Internet to paint as accurate picture as possible of whats going on in the world is horrifying. Honestly? THANK GOD we do have the Internet. The American media are united in their freedom to act against the ethics of journalism, and against the idea of providing a real news service, when and where it is clearly in their own self-interest to do so.

Let me mention again a couple of ways in which broadcasting is different here in the UK. Again, I'm not saying we've got it figured out perfect either, but maybe it will help illustrate why I hold these views about what I've seen and heard about American media:

Commercial PBSs (public service broadcasters) in the UK are forced to outsource their news coverage to specialised companies. It helps ensure that their news partners have no financial stake in the ratings / commercial side of the actual channel airing their news. The BBC, being the only non-commercial PBS, is allowed to create its own news coverage, but it is answerable to the tax payer. All channels in the UK are answerable to an independent regulator.

The USA is orders of magnitude larger than the UK, and its media is proportionally bigger too, but I see no reason why honest, reasonable regulation - by an independent body - couldn't be possible. Again, I'm not advocating censorship, I'm advocating a responsible news media, one that plays by some rules.

I would go so far as to say a body of this type could be so important for your children, and your children's children, that you could consider it the fourth branch of government, responsible for upholding the integrity of the country and the US constitution.

Because if you allow politicians to have dubious unchecked relations with interests/media, if media companies have a financial interest in influencing the American political discourse, if they can curry favour with swathes of the public by becoming mouthpieces for already-large and powerful political parties/groups... if they can adopt far-left/right policies they would otherwise have no interest in as a result -- then you're asking for trouble. You're asking for the country to be propagandised in my book. In a worst case scenario, you're allowing media industries' to wield unprecedented influence -- will we look back on American history someday and lament that it had its own Goebbels or Riefenstahls?

News should be news. Nothing more.
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: TVC15 on September 10, 2008, 12:10:06 AM: The US needs some sort of equivalent to the BBC. The people selling "news" in the US have proven themselves to be pretty untrustworthy. Once again, the free market fails.
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: Human Snorenado on September 10, 2008, 12:15:27 AM: Yup, the biggest problem with the news in America is that the public is being catered to. They're dumb and don't know what's good for them. Anyone who says I'm being a typical librul scumfuck, well fuck right off. It's fucking true.

A close second is that four fucking companies own ALL OF THE NEWS. All of it. Disney, GE, Viacom and crazy ass Rupert Murdoch. Thank the telecom act of '96 for that. Guess who co-sponsored it? John fucking McCain. Awesome. Of course, Bubba's dumb moderate, DLC shilling ass signed it into law.
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: laesperanzapaz on September 10, 2008, 12:28:32 AM: i have one, simple, unfortunate, but true answer:

libertarianism

aka, political conservatism

aka, extreme individualism, to the extent that what Murdoch has acheived, or what Oil Company CEO [insert name] has acheived, was done so because he earned that acheievment.

And men like murdoch is to be left alone. Why? the sheer, blind, extreme antagonism against almost any kind of governmental interference or regulation.

The market reigns supreme. Or so they preach. Let not the inefficient, taxmoney-wasting government dictate others, let the invisible hand lead the private sector to fulfill elementary, basic needs.

Why do so many hold onto private health care?

why do so many hate on PBS? [besides the 'librul bias' attack]

why do people love free trade a la NAFTA, without the level of pan-national government oversight, a la EU?

Just as the communism is the extreme left, libertarianism is the extreme right, and you see it in all its glory here, right now. Made in America.

Lemme repeat the key points:

- individualism
- hatred of government
- the glorification of the market.
spoiler (click to show/hide)
- HOME
[close]
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: Fresh Prince on September 10, 2008, 01:05:06 AM: Murdoch :bow2 :usacry

Even the name sounds evil
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: Loki on September 10, 2008, 01:23:07 AM: You tend to make really good, thoughtful posts, radioheadrule83. That's all I wanted to say. :)
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: Mandark on September 10, 2008, 01:28:06 AM: Quote from: Loki on September 10, 2008, 01:23:07 AM
You make some giant-ass posts, kid. I like that. Brings back memories.

Fixed!
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: Loki on September 10, 2008, 01:31:35 AM: Quote from: Mandark on September 10, 2008, 01:28:06 AM
Quote from: Loki on September 10, 2008, 01:23:07 AM
You make some giant-ass posts, kid. I like that. Brings back memories.

Fixed!

:lol

I knew someone would say that -- and of course you were there laying in wait! :D In fact, I toyed with the idea of saying "...and not because of my affinity for large blocks of text" in my original post but decided against it. :P

Note to self: never leave an opening when you can close it yourself. :D
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: Loki on September 10, 2008, 01:40:04 AM: Quote from: Genghis Cohen on September 10, 2008, 01:31:38 AM

Really?

Yes, really. Well, at least until Mr. Small Balls showed up. ;) :P
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: TVC15 on September 10, 2008, 01:40:55 AM: Ah man, Loki, I love you and miss you.
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: Loki on September 10, 2008, 01:43:12 AM: Quote from: TVC 15 on September 10, 2008, 01:40:55 AM
Ah man, Loki, I love you and miss you.

:'( :-[ :-*

I've been anti-social lately. Hope you're doing well. :)
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: Mandark on September 10, 2008, 02:01:54 AM: Having read most (all? I don't know; I was kind of skipping around) of those posts I'll say that I'm very leery of any regulation on speech by the government. I'm a lot less leery of regulating ownership to keep the news media from becoming too consolidated.

What creeps me out is the amount of advertising in this area that is targeted specifically at policymakers in the federal government. It's weird to imagine someone taking out ads in a paper or on the radio while caring about less than 1% of the people who will see it.

Russia has a weekly fake news supplement in the Post that's about ten pages big. It's funny that they think this will change the attitudes of the opinion leaders in DC but scary that they might be right.
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: TVC15 on September 10, 2008, 02:20:00 AM: Quote from: Mandark on September 10, 2008, 02:01:54 AM
Having read most (all? I don't know; I was kind of skipping around) of those posts I'll say that I'm very leery of any regulation on speech by the government. I'm a lot less leery of regulating ownership to keep the news media from becoming too consolidated.

This is why I mentioned the BBC, which is easily one of the best news sources in the world. Government funded, but largely independent. I'd suppose PBS could fill those shoes. . .if the government gave it some fucking funding.
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: Eric P on September 10, 2008, 08:54:23 AM: Quote from: The Card Cheat on September 10, 2008, 12:15:27 AM
Yup, the biggest problem with the news in America is that the public is being catered to. They're dumb and don't know what's good for them. Anyone who says I'm being a typical librul scumfuck, well fuck right off. It's fucking true.

A close second is that four fucking companies own ALL OF THE NEWS. All of it. Disney, GE, Viacom and crazy ass Rupert Murdoch. Thank the telecom act of '96 for that. Guess who co-sponsored it? John fucking McCain. Awesome. Of course, Bubba's dumb moderate, DLC shilling ass signed it into law.

the telecom law gave me my job and my last job and the one previous and will give me my next one (most likely).

i appreciate a great deal of what was done, but i also feel that consolidation was a good thing for us as a country.
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: Human Snorenado on September 10, 2008, 09:05:19 AM: Quote from: Eric P on September 10, 2008, 08:54:23 AM
Quote from: The Card Cheat on September 10, 2008, 12:15:27 AM
Yup, the biggest problem with the news in America is that the public is being catered to. They're dumb and don't know what's good for them. Anyone who says I'm being a typical librul scumfuck, well fuck right off. It's fucking true.

A close second is that four fucking companies own ALL OF THE NEWS. All of it. Disney, GE, Viacom and crazy ass Rupert Murdoch. Thank the telecom act of '96 for that. Guess who co-sponsored it? John fucking McCain. Awesome. Of course, Bubba's dumb moderate, DLC shilling ass signed it into law.

the telecom law gave me my job and my last job and the one previous and will give me my next one (most likely).

i appreciate a great deal of what was done, but i also feel that consolidation was a good thing for us as a country.

While I'm happy you have a nice career, I fail to see how the consolidation is good for anything other than keeping the corporations rich and America dumb. Feel free to prove me wrong, tho.
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: Eric P on September 10, 2008, 10:22:36 AM: whoops

left out the word "not" in that sentence

i am against monoculture
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: Human Snorenado on September 10, 2008, 10:23:24 AM: Haha, ok that makes sense. No harm, no foul.
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability to
Post by: etiolate on September 10, 2008, 08:07:19 PM: Media and advertising has become very large, very fast. It isn't just free speech, it is overbearing speech, controlled by a small handful of large companies. The people don't revolt, because the dark truth is that the youth and populace rely on TV more for their learning than they do the failing public education or college system.

So it's not just that its spewing crap, but spewing mountains of crap that is inescapable. Someone brought up blaming McDonalds for obesity. This is how I see it, beyond the fact that a few people control all media, is that it is these companies primary goal to be the sole source of a need, and the more they succeed the closer they come to that goal. McDonalds puts its self everywhere. The business wants you to always come to them, so there will eventually be no choice. Obvious shit I know, but it matters. When you go back to obesity or health, you look at California banning trans fat by 2010. Is this the Government stepping in too much? Not in reality. The thing id, trans fat is nearly unavoidable, and certainly unavoidable if you are poor. Companies making trans fat oils want to be everywhere, so they push it and they companies they push it to want to be everywhere as well. The people complained, people like me can TRY to avoid eating in protest, but it is nigh impossible. So the consumer is unable to 'correct' things and so they take it to the government.

So, something from outside has to come in to fix the situation because it is not a free market, it is a herd market that seeks to limit choice.
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: laesperanzapaz on September 10, 2008, 08:37:28 PM: Quote
Having read most (all? I don't know; I was kind of skipping around) of those posts I'll say that I'm very leery of any regulation on speech by the government. I'm a lot less leery of regulating ownership to keep the news media from becoming too consolidated.

fear of government monopoly on news is a valid criticism/concern. no question about that.

what is stupid is when people say that is the ONLY kind of monopoly, and oh so conveniently neglect to mention how private entities can become just as bad and encompassing a monopoly on the news [or health care, or whaterver etc]
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: HyperZoneWasAwesome on September 10, 2008, 10:16:53 PM: Quote from: TVC 15 on September 10, 2008, 02:20:00 AM

This is why I mentioned the BBC, which is easily one of the best news sources in the world. Government funded, but largely independent. I'd suppose PBS could fill those shoes. . .if the government gave it some fucking funding.
Its probably no accident that the NewsHOUR on PBS is more informative than an entire day of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox all put together.

You struck nerve there with me. That one of the most distinguished mentally-challenged things our government does is constantly undercut NPR, PBS, and any other organization that dissemenates actual information instead of partisan political bullshit just because they want to keep people stupid so they don't figure out that "across the board tax cuts" really means "fuck you, you poor pieces of shit". :maf

I heard that the democrats want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine should they get a big enough majority in the election. I don't believe it could happen in today's media climate (Sean Hannity, no longer a fascist, now a freedom of speech advocate), but I sure wouldn't mind too much if the FCC grew a pair and did something about the rampant editorializing and conjecture that now eats up far too much of the public's attention.
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: radioheadrule83 on September 11, 2008, 11:46:14 PM: I just read up on the fairness doctrine... it sounds like the FCC used to perform the exact same functions OFCOM do in the UK when it comes to this "fair and balanced" issue, but abolished it when media channels increased.

What I think people should be arguing now, is that although back then, there were only three channels and now there are hundreds -- a great many of those channels are owned by the same people or share the same financial interests.

After reading some senate squabbling on this (Dems saying "isn't it fair that the electorate get properly informed of both sides of a debate?" and Reps saying "government shouldn't decide whats fair")... if its not right for the FCC to decide what's fair in political coverage, why is it ok for them to decide an accidental glimpse of Janet Jackson's tit on TV warrants a fine? Or generally decide the bounds of public decency?

Sen Norm Coleman (rep) actually tried to get the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine codified, so the FCC couldn't bring it back even if they wanted to... and here's why he took that position:

Quote
“In this day and age, reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine is not about equal balance, as its supporters claim. It is about muzzling broadcasters. I believe it is a dangerous proposition for the government to be in the business of rationing free speech and determining what is fair."

Here's the thing norm - broadcasters are muzzling themselves! They're omitting information pertinent to debates the electorate care about. THEY'RE the ones rationing free speech and determining whats fair.

Who would they rather have decide whats fair? Broadcasters owned, at the top, by men who are openly partisan, or an FCC made up of republicans AND democrats?
Title: Re: Is American media law (or lack of) the biggest threat to global stability today?
Post by: Olivia Wilde Homo on September 12, 2008, 12:16:10 AM: I think people who are smart enough will know not to really trust the media.

I think if you were to ask 100 people on the street if you think there are people (in the government, media, both, etc.) that want to keep you from knowing things, at least 95 will say "Yes." It isn't like Bill O'Reilly is powerful enough to convert minds; it is that the minds that would listen to O'Reilly go to him instead. The media only cares about making profit. If there is a market for intelligent newscasting, one will be made. However, sex sells and idiocy sells.

This isn't just an American thing. Europeans in general seem pretty swayed by Actor-Politicians. Sarkozy being a big one; Berlusconi is another one. Tony Blair's "New Labour" campaign tried to glamorize the system. No matter where you go, it is the same thing. It is more of a worldwide issue than a United States issue.

I don't know the solution either. There is unbiased news broadcasting (PBS) but nobody watches it. The options are there in the US but people are going for the brain candy instead. All I know is that I'm not big enough to stop it so I don't give a fuck. O'Reilly's boycott on France was a huge joke and I don't think anyone cared the next day. In a month, nobody knew or cared about why Hannity spent so much time in Florida. I wouldn't expect people's intelligence to rise with better news reporting. They will just whine that they are telling them what to do. Then they will flip to ESPN. Assuming they don't already.