47% Favor Government Control of Ideas

[JEROME DA GNOME]

47% Favor Government Control of Ideas

47% Favor Government Mandated Political Balance on Radio, TV (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/47_favor_government_mandated_political_balance_on_ radio_tv)



Welcome to another sign of the coming Brave New World.


Nearly half of Americans (47%) believe the government should require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary


The government decides what is liberal or conservative, and how to balance such.

Are there no other ideas?

Do you not see how they are attempting to frame thought?

Is this not a fallacy?


:gnome:

[The Fool]

47% of americans can believe whatever they wish... do you know why Jerome?

[Piggy]

47% Favor Government Mandated Political Balance on Radio, TV

Less than half of Americans are complete freaking idiots!

Rejoice!!!

[Travis]

Well, 128% of people don't know what ideas are and -37% of all statistics can prove anything which 238% of all people already know!

Jerome, how would such a measure result in government control of ideas?

[Architect]

It amazes me how someone can get upset about people favouring a levelling of the playing field to ensure equal coverage to differing political viewpoints, moreover presenting it as some sort of bizarre censorship or mind control.

[shakes head]

Presumably this is because of yet another recent defeat, this time in the "state sponsored suicide" thread.

[Smoke TNT]

So apparently there is ONLY liberal or conservative, and instead of letting people choose what they want to listen to by voting with their dial, many in the government feel that alternatives should be forced on the public. Isn't that what NPR is for?

[fishbob]

Nearly half of Americans (47%) believe the government should require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary

Political commentary is the public display of other people's partisan opinions. I want all radio and television stations to ban equal amounts - as in 100% - of conservative and liberal political commentary. And lock the pundits in stocks in the public square and pelt them with rotten produce until they learn to shut the hell up.

A little actual news once in a while would be nice though.

[Beady]

Do you not see how they are attempting to frame thought?

First, tell me precisely who "they" are.

[JoeEllison]

It amazes me how someone can get upset about people favouring a levelling of the playing field to ensure equal coverage to differing political viewpoints, moreover presenting it as some sort of bizarre censorship or mind control.

Not surprisingly, it is the people who want to make sure you only hear one viewpoint who are claiming that it is "censorship" to have fairness and balance.

The issue is not censorship, the issue is that the airwaves are public property that is leased to broadcasters. As such, there has until recently been an understanding that there is at least a marginal responsibility to provide the public with useful information. Over the last couple of decades, the entire media has shifted significantly to the right, as profits overwhelmed any concept of responsibility to the public to provide impartial and balanced viewpoints. What's interesting is that the American people are pretty far to "the left" of what the media reports, including most Republicans. Besides Air America, there is not a single significant media outlet that cannot be described as either center or right of center.

47% of Americans think that the radio and TV news should provide NEWS, not partisan spin. I suppose the other 53% want propaganda?

[Piggy]

It amazes me how someone can get upset about people favouring a levelling of the playing field to ensure equal coverage to differing political viewpoints, moreover presenting it as some sort of bizarre censorship or mind control.

[shakes head]

How would that work?

How many possible differing viewpoints are there? Do they all get time?

If you say, no, just "liberal" and "conservative", why are these 2 movements privileged?

If you have to give time to everybody, do you have to give time to the holocaust deniers every time you show a rerun of "World at War"?

If you run a story critical of a crooked politician, would you then be obliged to give air time to his cronies who you know are lying?

A requirement of "equal time" is a violation of the first amendment.

It's a horrible idea.

[Piggy]

Political commentary is the public display of other people's partisan opinions. I want all radio and television stations to ban equal amounts - as in 100% - of conservative and liberal political commentary. And lock the pundits in stocks in the public square and pelt them with rotten produce until they learn to shut the hell up.

A little actual news once in a while would be nice though.

Yeah, no kidding.

[The Painter]

The fairness doctrine used to be in effect. Remember? Radio sucked back then. It was boring and vanilla. On political and controversial issue it was impossible to get all the opposing points of view, so the just stopped doing those stories.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

With all the radio stations out there and the advent of satellite radio, if you can't find an opposing view point, you're just not looking. I don't think we need to repeat the mistake of the past.

[fuelair]

47% Favor Government Control of Ideas

47% Favor Government Mandated Political Balance on Radio, TV (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/47_favor_government_mandated_political_balance_on_ radio_tv)



Welcome to another sign of the coming Brave New World.





The government decides what is liberal or conservative, and how to balance such.

Are there no other ideas?

Do you not see how they are attempting to frame thought?

Is this not a fallacy?


:gnome:Yes J, all your post is a fallacy. Why did you feel a need to ask?:)

[drkitten]

How would that work?

The way that it did for more than 50 years, when the "fairness doctrine" was in force.


How many possible differing viewpoints are there?

Generally, there are two per issue : for and against. It's rather seldom that they get more. That's (part of) why the "impartial" news shows like "face to face" usually have two sides represented.

Do they all get time?

"For" and "against"? Yes. Of course, there may be many different group that are arguing for "for" and for "against," and typically only the major ones will get time; if you have your choice between a Republican senator who is against a treaty, and a libertarian 9/11 truther who lives in his parents' basement who is also opposed, usually the senator will be the one interviewed.



If you have to give time to everybody, do you have to give time to the holocaust deniers every time you show a rerun of "World at War"?

No, there has to be a real debate of public interest for the fairness doctrine to apply. People living in their parents' basement don't usually count.


A requirement of "equal time" is a violation of the first amendment.

No, it's not. Since the airwave spectrum is limited and a "natural monopoly," the government has a right to control broadcasters for content. I think this particular case dates back to like 1930.

[WildCat]

Anyone who thinks the "fairness doctrine" is a good idea really isn't thinking this through.

It was tried once, and was a complete failure. Let the FCC regulate the 7 dirty words, but they have no business regulating content.

Would those of you so upset with Limbaugh and Hannity you'd invoke the fairness doctrine think it's a good idea to do the same for print media and the internet?

Cutting off your nose to spite your face and all...

[WildCat]

Generally, there are two per issue : for and against.
There you go folks! No such thing as the false dichotomy fallacy! It has just been decreed that there are in fact only 2 sides to any issue.

It must be so if someone with the title of "Doctor" says so! :rolleyes:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, how would such a measure result in government control of ideas?

The government would be determining what is 'conservative' and what is 'liberal'.

The government would be determining what is 'balanced'.

The government would be creating the frame for any thought.

:gnome:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It amazes me how someone can get upset about people favouring a levelling of the playing field to ensure equal coverage to differing political viewpoints, moreover presenting it as some sort of bizarre censorship or mind control.

It amazes me how someone can think that government control of debate is not government control of the framing of ideas.

:gnome:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Less than half of Americans are complete freaking idiots!

Rejoice!!!

:D

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Not surprisingly, it is the people who want to make sure you only hear one viewpoint who are claiming that it is "censorship" to have fairness and balance.

:confused:

How so?


47% of Americans think that the radio and TV news should provide NEWS, not partisan spin. I suppose the other 53% want propaganda?

Then the government must also regulate the content of newspapers and the internet for 'fairness', yes?

If this were to happen, Jerome Da' Gnome would be mandated to receive a much bigger role here at JREF Forums.

:jaw-dropp

[Fitter]

Jerome, please answer Beady's question. Who are "they"?

[Piggy]

The way that it did for more than 50 years, when the "fairness doctrine" was in force.

You think that "worked"?

Generally, there are two per issue : for and against. It's rather seldom that they get more. That's (part of) why the "impartial" news shows like "face to face" usually have two sides represented.

In my world, there are many more viewpoints, and more subtlety to issues, than that.

Not everything is a formal debate.

And the reason those shows usually have 2 sides has more to do with formatting than how many opinions are out there.



"For" and "against"? Yes. Of course, there may be many different group that are arguing for "for" and for "against," and typically only the major ones will get time; if you have your choice between a Republican senator who is against a treaty, and a libertarian 9/11 truther who lives in his parents' basement who is also opposed, usually the senator will be the one interviewed.

But it's not always as simple as "for" and "against".

And the article specifically referenced "conservative" and "liberal". The whole notion that the liberal/conservative views somehow represent true poles is one of the big problems in this country right now.

They don't.

And if you go beyond that to a general "equal time" requirement, if you're doing a story on, say, the farm bill, to whom would anyone be required to give "equal time"? All stakeholders?



No, there has to be a real debate of public interest for the fairness doctrine to apply. People living in their parents' basement don't usually count.

Who decides what qualifies as a "real debate of public interest"?

More to the point, who decides who the valid stakeholders are?

And on top of that, if we're enforcing "fairness", it essentially voids a journalist's right to come to conclusions and present them with reference to the facts. It turns journalists into mere vehicles for the vested interests.


No, it's not. Since the airwave spectrum is limited and a "natural monopoly," the government has a right to control broadcasters for content. I think this particular case dates back to like 1930.

If that's still the caselaw, that political "balance" between the majority movements must be enforced regardless of the actual facts, it's time it was overturned.

[billydkid]

Well, 128% of people don't know what ideas are and -37% of all statistics can prove anything which 238% of all people already know!

Jerome, how would such a measure result in government control of ideas?
I don't know what what Jerome posted is worth, but I think the central point he is trying to make is that a significant portion of Americans are amenable to the idea of their government controlling the flow of ideas which would suggest that a significant number of Americans do not grasp some of the fundamental principles of liberty and a free society. I can't imagine anyone would think that is a good thing. In the same way many Americans seem not to grasp the principle of the rule of law and why adherence to our governing documents is so important. It isn't that the Constitution is some sort of sacred text (which is why there are provisions for it being amended). It is the idea that we are governed by certain principles as opposed to being governed by men - with their whacky and changeable ideas about how we should be governed.

[The Painter]

No, it's not. Since the airwave spectrum is limited and a "natural monopoly," the government has a right to control broadcasters for content. I think this particular case dates back to like 1930.

You can't be serious. Have you ever heard of the 1st amendment?

[Beerina]

It amazes me how someone can get upset about people favouring a levelling of the playing field to ensure equal coverage to differing political viewpoints, moreover presenting it as some sort of bizarre censorship or mind control.

This isn't why politicians want to do this. This is the "reasonable" argument that gets people behind it.


The real reason is to force stations to put on, how shall we say, crappy liberal programming that nobody listens to and thus gets poor advertising dollars. See Air America's woes for examples.


So many stations will now see their revenue drop substantially because of the added burden on their speech. So many'll say "F*** it!" and get rid of all political programming, which of course includes the profitable conservative stuff.


Which is the goal of the politicians pushing the bill.


The whole thing should be sickening to anyone who values freedom of speech.



[shakes head]

I heartily concurr, buddy.

[Beerina]

Part of the problem with people adopting the ethical meme that this is Good For Us is that people feel that they just can't get their views out, and that if they could, The People would see it and recognize it and vote for them more!

But as George Will has pointed out over and over again, The People do see and understand the Left's positions, which is why they have trouble in elections. And the leadership cannot grok that, and thus must find fault somewhere, anywhere, but in that their positions are being heard, loud and clear, and rejected.

That just cannot be! Thus, just as God must exist, there must be another reason for the failures. There must be! There has to be!

[Corsair 115]

47% of Americans think that the radio and TV news should provide NEWS, not partisan spin.I would amend that to read, "47% of Americans think that the radio and TV news should provide NEWS, not infotainment."

I think the problem of news organizations passing off trivialities, rumour, innuendo, speculation, and entertainment as news is of much more significance than partisanship.

[Piggy]

I would amend that to read, "47% of Americans think that the radio and TV news should provide NEWS, not infotainment."

I think the problem of news organizations passing off trivialities, rumour, innuendo, speculation, and entertainment as news is of much more significance than partisanship.

I disagree. I think it's because too many folks have bought into this bogus liberal/conservative dichotomy and they really think life boils down to that, and every question can be approached that way, so it's somehow "fair" to give "equal time" to talking heads for both of these phony camps.

They don't want real news at all. They don't want facts, or multi-sided discussion, or nuance, or detailed investigation.

They've gotten used to the lib/con tennis matches, so they think that fairness resides in simply giving the same number of minutes to each "side".

[Piggy]

The People do see and understand the Left's positions, which is why they have trouble in elections.

Where've you been lately, buddy?

[Piggy]

The real reason is to force stations to put on, how shall we say, crappy liberal programming that nobody listens to and thus gets poor advertising dollars. See Air America's woes for examples.

Air America wasn't a result of this.

In fact, the only recent case I can think of in which the fairness doctrine was attempted to be enforced was at NPR, where the neo-con director wanted every story unfavorable to Bush to be "balanced" by a favorable story.

Some good came of that, btw, but the effort failed, thankfully.

[JoeEllison]

But as George Will has pointed out over and over again, The People do see and understand the Left's positions, which is why they have trouble in elections. Which "the Left" are you talking about? Most Americans agree or are to the left of the Democrats. The Democrats aren't anything like "the Left" though. Maybe that's part of the problem with the media, which is almost exclusively center or right of center. They (and you) have no clue about where most of America stands.

[BPSCG]

But as George Will has pointed out over and over again, The People do see and understand the Left's positions, which is why they have trouble in elections. Or as Ann Coulter says, if Democrats had any brains, they'd be Republicans...

The left wing dominates the media except for AM talk radio. The newspapers are mostly liberal (a survey a few years ago revealed that something like 90% of news reporters identify themselves as Democrats, but of course being Democrats and made of better moral stuff than Republicans, they'd never let their bias seep into their reporting...), the 24-hour news networks are liberal except for Fox (what network does Chris "Obama's speech sent a thrill up my leg" Matthews work for again?), CBSNBCABCPBS news all tilt left.

You want an equal voice on talk radio, fine. But then you'll get Rush Limbaugh on PBS right after Bill Moyers. Or maybe you'll get neither Moyers nor Limbaugh.

You really want that?

[dudalb]

Which "the Left" are you talking about? Most Americans agree or are to the left of the Democrats. The Democrats aren't anything like "the Left" though. Maybe that's part of the problem with the media, which is almost exclusively center or right of center. They (and you) have no clue about where most of America stands.


Joe, you have no clue where America stands if you think most Americans are to the left of the Democratic party.
I think the poster is confusing the lefty buddies he hangs out with with the majority of Americans ..a very common mistake among the hard core ideologues.
And I see that Joe's friendly manner of tdealing hose who disagree with his politics has not changed.......

[dudalb]

It amazes me how someone can get upset about people favouring a levelling of the playing field to ensure equal coverage to differing political viewpoints, moreover presenting it as some sort of bizarre censorship or mind control

Because some of us think that expecting goverment bureaucrats, who are political apointees, to be fair and unbiased is hopelessly unrealistic?
Once again, I admit I just don't get the boundless faith in Big Government that so many Europeans have.
And in the US, that so many of the strong supporters of the "Fairness Doctrine" don't even bother to conceal their joy at the prospect of Limbaugh and his like being forced off the airwaves is indicatative of where they are coming from.

[dudalb]

I would amend that to read, "47% of Americans think that the radio and TV news should provide NEWS, not infotainment."

I think the problem of news organizations passing off trivialities, rumour, innuendo, speculation, and entertainment as news is of much more significance than partisanship.

I 100% agree, but think that having The Government "interfere" to try to change this would make matters worse, not better.
And looking at what kind of news shows get ratings, and which news websites gets the most hits, I would say that a lot of the people who say they want more hard news are saying one thing to pollsters because they feel they should say it, but when it comes to what kind of news they actual watch or read do another...something not unusual at all.
If you want the hard news you can get it without much difficulty on the Internet, but a lot of people who claim they want it really prefer news light,they just won't say so.

[GreNME]

So apparently there is ONLY liberal or conservative, and instead of letting people choose what they want to listen to by voting with their dial, many in the government feel that alternatives should be forced on the public. Isn't that what NPR is for?

No, that isn't what it's for.

Wildcat:Would those of you so upset with Limbaugh and Hannity you'd invoke the fairness doctrine think it's a good idea to do the same for print media and the internet?

For the news or organizations getting paid to cover such subjects? Sure. I'd expect the same scrutiny for people like Olberman as I would for Hannity or O'Reilly.

The reality is that the inability for pundits, new coverage, and new-related commentators to understand things in a more complex manner than their confirmation bias laden and shallow coverage currently allows severely hurts political discourse and even other discussions of news and current events. Far too often things are portrayed in black-and-white that are nothing of the sort, and the lack of nuance in coverage is the reason.

I'm willing to accept that the fairness doctrine that was removed in the 1980's was arguably flawed and insufficient, but having nothing in its place to hold accountability to organizations who have a clear authority on dissemination of information is just plain reckless. FOX can be the favorite whipping boy network to some, but all of the cable news channels have shown a remarkable trend of less and less actually useful information and more and more trash, gossip, and the good-old "if it bleeds, it leads" programming. I wouldn't propose a "totally fair" level of coverage on ideas because I would agree that not all ideas are created with equal validity. By that same token, though, I also don't think the loudest or most pervasive of ideas are always necessarily the most valid or more deserving of coverage than everything else. Rhetoric and bluster tend to be louder than logic and reason in most cases, and most popular commentators nowadays-- Limbaugh, Hannity, Olberman, O'Reilly-- rely on bluster and rhetoric to be heard and they cash in on having their audience be outraged at those who disagree with them.

This isn't why politicians want to do this. This is the "reasonable" argument that gets people behind it.


The real reason is to force stations to put on, how shall we say, crappy liberal programming that nobody listens to and thus gets poor advertising dollars.

Now that's an argument for the CT forums!

[JoeEllison]

Joe, you have no clue where America stands if you think most Americans are to the left of the Democratic party

All you have to do is check the polls on the issues. The American people are generally for everything that the Republicans(and some Democrats) are againST.

Tough luck for you that you're on the wrong side, chum.:D

[The Painter]

All you have to do is check the polls on the issues. The American people are generally for everything that the Republicans(and some Democrats) are again.

Tough luck for you that you're on the wrong side, chum.:D

What?? You said Americans are left of Dems, yet you say they poll with the Republicans, Make up your mind:confused::confused::confused:

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I don't like it because it sets up the whole Rep v Dem dichotomy.

And why is equal time necessarily "fair"?

But I don't think it would be illegal. I mean, the broadcast spectrums are public property licensed to private companies, right?

[JoeEllison]

What?? You said Americans are left of Dems, yet you say they poll with the Republicans, Make up your mind:confused::confused::confused:Check my edit.

[fuelair]

Air America wasn't a result of this.

In fact, the only recent case I can think of in which the fairness doctrine was attempted to be enforced was at NPR, where the neo-con director wanted every story unfavorable to Bush to be "balanced" by a favorable story.

Some good came of that, btw, but the effort failed, thankfully.We found the neo-con idiot on NPR to be, well, an idiot. He seems to still be on though.:jaw-dropp

[BPSCG]

Never mind.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Well, considering that Obama and McCain are both running around 45% in the polls +/- two or three percent, that means that around 90% of the electorate is okay with the Democrats or to the right of the Democrats.

That puts at most about 10% to the left of the Democratic party - the code pinks, the commies, the JoeEllisons.

And if the American people "are generally for everything that the Republicans (and some Democrats) are against," Obama and McCain shouldn't be running neck-and-neck, should they?

But that's assuming that voters are rational and vote based on issues, which I rather doubt :p .

[BPSCG]

But that's assuming that voters are rational and vote based on issues, which I rather doubt :p .Note that the first part of the post you quoted was overtaken by JE's edit, and isn't applicable any more. I killed the entire post.

[JoeEllison]

But that's assuming that voters are rational and vote based on issues, which I rather doubt :p .

If the votes voted on issues, the Republican party would be out of business right now. Why else is McCain's entire campaign based on lies about Obama's position on the issues, flip-flopping on his own positions, and personal attacks? Americans want the troops to come home. Americans want Social Security and other "entitlement" programs. Americans don't think the government should have unlimited spying powers. Bush as less than 30% approval ratings, and Congress wouldn't improve their own rating by acting more like Bush.

The media is unfortunately populated by celebrity millionaires, and run by corporations. Anyone who thinks that is a recipe for a "liberal media" is delusional and lying to themselves.

[Travis]

Ultimately this is one of those things that sound nice in principle but fall apart once you start to hash over how to implement it. There is a lot of intellectual snobbery that bemoans that news that they, personally, find interesting isn't covered more in depth. The issue then becomes why should their interests take precedent over the desires of the majority?

[Smoke TNT]

Anyone seen this:

FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080812160747.aspx)

[Piggy]

We found the neo-con idiot on NPR to be, well, an idiot. He seems to still be on though.

I was talking about Ken Tomlinson.

[drkitten]

You can't be serious. Have you ever heard of the 1st amendment?

Absolutely. So has the Supreme Court, when they decided that very issue, back in 1930 or so. The First Amendment is not absolute, and the limited nature of the airwave spectrum make it reasonable for the government to intervene precisely to preserve access to all parties in the name of the First Amendment.

I can track down the case if you insist.

[drkitten]

In my world, there are many more viewpoints, and more subtlety to issues, than that.


I'm sure there are. Enjoy your world; I prefer mine, which is reality-based instead of idiologically based. (And, yes, I do know the standard spelling of "ideology," but First Amendment absolutism isn't based upon "ideas" but "idiocy.")

[Piggy]

I'm sure there are. Enjoy your world; I prefer mine, which is reality-based instead of idiologically based. (And, yes, I do know the standard spelling of "ideology," but First Amendment absolutism isn't based upon "ideas" but "idiocy.")

You've got to be kidding me.

You think I'm an ideologue? Or an idiot?

Why?

Because I recognize that the world is not a formal debate, and that public dicussion is not limited to propositions of "for" or "against" a proposed conclusion?

Get real.

[Piggy]

I'm sure there are. Enjoy your world; I prefer mine, which is reality-based instead of idiologically based. (And, yes, I do know the standard spelling of "ideology," but First Amendment absolutism isn't based upon "ideas" but "idiocy.")

I'm not a First Amendment absolutist, and have given no indication of being one.

[drkitten]

You think I'm an ideologue? Or an idiot?


No, of course not. I merely point out that you're expressing the ideas of an ideologue AND an idiot.

[Piggy]

No, of course not. I merely point out that you're expressing the ideas of an ideologue AND an idiot.

Which ones, particularly?

Seriously, I don't get where you're coming from.

[Smoke TNT]

So, if someone happens to express an idea without an opposing viewpoint, then what? They should be fined for their thoughts, shut down?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

First, tell me precisely who "they" are.

Whom ever happens to be in power at any particular time.

Now, do you see how "they" can frame thought with the power of determining what is 'balanced' concerning any topic?


:gnome:

[The Painter]

Absolutely. So has the Supreme Court, when they decided that very issue, back in 1930 or so. The First Amendment is not absolute, and the limited nature of the airwave spectrum make it reasonable for the government to intervene precisely to preserve access to all parties in the name of the First Amendment.

I can track down the case if you insist.


So you're saying that communication (radio , TV wait no TV in the 30's, etc) hasn't changed in the last 80 years? How many radio stations did a city have back then 1 or 2? The market has changed radically since then. To use rulings from the 30's is ludicrous. Unless you also want to get rid of alcohol and maybe go back 10 more years and repeal women's right to vote. That was OK back then too.

I can't believe you think the government has the right to tell a radio station what to say. How about newspapers? TV? I guess you would be happy with all these being run by the government. Maybe you think freedom is a bad thing.


access to all parties

Have you ever watched the public access channels? Is that what you want?

[volatile]

Ultimately this is one of those things that sound nice in principle but fall apart once you start to hash over how to implement it. There is a lot of intellectual snobbery that bemoans that news that they, personally, find interesting isn't covered more in depth. The issue then becomes why should their interests take precedent over the desires of the majority?

Whilst not perfect, the BBC in Britain manages to work to a "fairness doctrine" of sorts with not many problems. When instances of bias do arise (as they inevitably will), they are dealt with by a regulatory committee. It is possible to have a news services that is Fair and Balanced.

[Travis]

Whilst not perfect, the BBC in Britain manages to work to a "fairness doctrine" of sorts with not many problems. When instances of bias do arise (as they inevitably will), they are dealt with by a regulatory committee. It is possible to have a news services that is Fair and Balanced.

I don't know, having opposing viewpoints on everything that gets reported could just be absurd. What do you do when you're reporting on some breakthrough with gravity? Do you find the one loon in the country who doesn't believe in gravity and give him equal air time with so called "gravity believers?"

[volatile]

I don't know, having opposing viewpoints on everything that gets reported could just be absurd. What do you do when you're reporting on some breakthrough with gravity? Do you find the one loon in the country who doesn't believe in gravity and give him equal air time with so called "gravity believers?"

No. Why would you?

Seriously, you should read the BBC Editorial Guidelines (http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/fairness/) - they produce an excellent news service that is as close to non-partisan as it is probably possible to be.

The most salient section is probably http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/impariality/

"In practice, our commitment to impartiality means:


we seek to provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide range of subject matter and views broadcast over an appropriate time scale across all our output. We take particular care when dealing with political or industrial controversy or major matters relating to current public policy.
we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented.
we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so.
we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply.
we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects.
the approach to, and tone of, BBC stories must always reflect our editorial values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact on the perceptions of our impartiality.
our journalists and presenters, including those in news and current affairs, may provide professional judgments but may not express personal opinions on matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters.
we offer artists, writers and entertainers scope for individual expression in drama, arts and entertainment and we seek to reflect a wide range of talent and perspective.
we will sometimes need to report on or interview people whose views may cause serious offence to many in our audiences. We must be convinced, after appropriate referral, that a clear public interest outweighs the possible offence.
we must rigorously test contributors expressing contentious views during an interview whilst giving them a fair chance to set out their full response to our questions.
we should not automatically assume that academics and journalists from other organisations are impartial and make it clear to our audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint."

[The Painter]

It is possible to have a news services that is Fair and Balanced.

And that would be fine. In fact that would be desired. The problem is this fairness doctrine does not only apply to the "news". It applies to everything. Rush Limbaugh and Ron Kuby are not news shows. They are opinion and entertainment. Neither show could exist under the rules of "fairness".

[volatile]

Just realised what is probably the most important difference between British and American political reporting - "Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters."

That's at the heart of what being impartial really means. That commitment is codified and enforced (by the Trustees), and at the heart of presenting fair and balanced news. Bill O'Reilly (or Keith Olbermann, for that matter) could never get a job on the BBC.

[The Painter]

Bill O'Reilly (or Keith Olbermann, for that matter)

They are not news shows.

[Architect]

Just realised what is probably the most important difference between British and American political reporting - "Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters."


I to have to agree with Volatile on this one. The BBC, but also the other main UK networks, all have a committment to balanced programme-making which works very well. The policies are in the public domain and there are appeal and complaint mechanisms for those who feel aggrieved.

You might be interested to learn that we also have, amongst other things, a Press Complaints Commission in order to ensure that standards are upheld in the published media. And just to prove it's a wide spectrum, the Daily Fascist Mail still gets published. Unfortunately.

There are sometimes suggestions on this site that democracy can represent mob rule, and that the American constitution is in someway superior to the common law rights in the UK because it upholds the rights of the minority. Nevertheless when it transpires that European countries do, in fact, have laws and regulatory issues designed expressly to protect such minority rights we are chastised for in some way contradicting fundamental liberties.

It seems to me that there is a pot ---> kettle issue here.


ETA: Incidentally, party political television advertising is kept to set time limits and frqeuence in the run up to elections in order to ensure that the party with the biggest chequebook doesn't have an unfair advantage. Smaller parties are guaranteed airtime based on a sliding scale proprotionate to vote share and, before anyone asks, it's not stopped smaller parties such as the SSP from (a) getting on the tv and (b) garnering votes. Shock Horror - UK in fair electoral system scandal!

[Architect]

I don't know, having opposing viewpoints on everything that gets reported could just be absurd. What do you do when you're reporting on some breakthrough with gravity? Do you find the one loon in the country who doesn't believe in gravity and give him equal air time with so called "gravity believers?"


Don't be ridiculous. Do you have a useful comment to make?

[JFrankA]

I disagree. I think it's because too many folks have bought into this bogus liberal/conservative dichotomy and they really think life boils down to that, and every question can be approached that way, so it's somehow "fair" to give "equal time" to talking heads for both of these phony camps.

They don't want real news at all. They don't want facts, or multi-sided discussion, or nuance, or detailed investigation.

They've gotten used to the lib/con tennis matches, so they think that fairness resides in simply giving the same number of minutes to each "side".

I think this hits the nail on the head.

I've seen arguments where people are defending FoxNews and others are defending CNN while more are defending MSNBC. And they will stick with their news channel and agree to it no matter what. I don't know if the news was ever balanced, but nowadays I feel the public who watch the news want the complicated issues boiled down to a thirty second explanation, the most exciting tragedy, the next thing to be afraid of, the person to judge as "I'm better than that person", and cute puppies. And the news is providing this in different flavors, like candy. (Would you like Republican or Democrat flavor?)

I've been looking, for a long time now, some kind of news source which isn't so bent by one side or another and is more complete. I haven't found it yet.

[Travis]

Don't be ridiculous. Do you have a useful comment to make?

I did say it was "absurd" didn't I?

Seriously though, what about issues that aren't divided into a conservative/liberal dichotomy? Do you simply not report on such things and stick to polarizing subjects on which both sides strongly disagree?

[volatile]

They are not news shows.

So?

[volatile]

I did say it was "absurd" didn't I?

Seriously though, what about issues that aren't divided into a conservative/liberal dichotomy? Do you simply not report on such things and stick to polarizing subjects on which both sides strongly disagree?

Did you read the Editorial Guidelines, and the excerpt I posted? It explains in detail how the commitment to balance works in practice.

[Piggy]

Absolutely. So has the Supreme Court, when they decided that very issue, back in 1930 or so. The First Amendment is not absolute, and the limited nature of the airwave spectrum make it reasonable for the government to intervene precisely to preserve access to all parties in the name of the First Amendment.

I can track down the case if you insist.

If I'm not mistaken, the fairness doctrine was thrown out in 1987.

[Smoke TNT]

Did you read the Editorial Guidelines, and the excerpt I posted? It explains in detail how the commitment to balance works in practice.

Well, since the BBC is balanced, impartial, and never reflects bias from their reporters, it looks like someone went through a whole lot of trouble (http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/) to compile years worth of lies.

[volatile]

Well, since the BBC is balanced, impartial, and never reflects bias from their reporters, it looks like someone went through a whole lot of trouble (http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/) to compile years worth of lies.

Did I say it was complete impartial at all times? Not at all - indeed, the BBC's own published guidelines are explicitly designed with the fact that humans are not infallible in mind.

All parties have a right to reply, there is considerable oversight of both editorial policy and behaviour and the system is set up to balance human fallibility as much as possible.

Even if imperfect, this system is considerably better than not even having the intention to present a balanced and impartial set of current affairs programming, isn't it?

[Architect]

Well, since the BBC is balanced, impartial, and never reflects bias from their reporters, it looks like someone went through a whole lot of trouble (http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/) to compile years worth of lies.

Is that the best you can do? I've seen better in Private Eye. You might want to look up PE, btw. It's sufficiently mainstream that its editor is on television every week, being controversial (and looking like Jimmy Sommerville).

[Architect]

I did say it was "absurd" didn't I?

Seriously though, what about issues that aren't divided into a conservative/liberal dichotomy? Do you simply not report on such things and stick to polarizing subjects on which both sides strongly disagree?

No, your analogy is ridiculous because broadcasting in the UK already runs a fairness system and we don't have the kind of absurd example you give. The proof of the pudding is, after all, in the eating.

[The Painter]

Even if imperfect, this system is considerably better than not even having the intention to present a balanced and impartial set of current affairs programming, isn't it?

And there it is. I Knew it was coming. The standard line from the Brits, "we're better than you". Once again you're wrong. The BBC blows.

[Architect]

And there it is. I Knew it was coming. The standard line from the Brits, "we're better than you". Once again you're wrong. The BBC blows.

My, what a particularly inciteful and detailed post. Look, there's some sort of potato product on your shoulder.......

[volatile]

And there it is. I Knew it was coming. The standard line from the Brits, "we're better than you". Once again you're wrong. The BBC blows.

Hey, I'd be willing to be shown wrong, if you'd care to explain my error. As it stands, it strikes me that the BBC provides some of the best news, current affairs, music and entertainment programming in the world, plus the best news website in the world, all free of advertising breaks, corporate interests, political aims and product placement and with a systematic and codified approach to presenting high-quality, factual, unbiased, non-partisan content.

What's so good about the alternatives? I'm all ears.

[Architect]

In all fairness, though, they do inflict Andy Peters on us.

[fuelair]

And that would be fine. In fact that would be desired. The problem is this fairness doctrine does not only apply to the "news". It applies to everything. Rush Limbaugh and Ron Kuby are not news shows. They are opinion and entertainment. Neither show could exist under the rules of "fairness".
Oh, rats, Rush Limbaugh having to play with himself instead of millions of idiots. That would be a crying shame!!!

[volatile]

In all fairness, though, they do inflict Andy Peters on us.

Andi Peters? He's a producer at Channel Four!

Now of you were gonna moan about Graham Norton, I'd agree you had a point. :)

[Architect]

Andi Peters? He's a producer at Channel Four!

Now of you were gonna moan about Graham Norton, I'd agree you had a point. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andi_Peters

Shooting would be too good for him.

[Kiosk]

The BBC is better than the American news networks in many ways, but it offers a good illustration of the impossibility of true impartiality.

What you get, rather than outright political bias, is what might be called an establishment bias: a refusal to challenge certain positions that suit the major political parties, and the almost total absence of any views that might constitute such a challenge ("impartiality" involves playing safe). As a result, the Beeb ends up with a political position whether it likes it or not - it's just that this position is determined by the major political parties rather than the BBC itself. It cannot take seriously any concepts which undermine certain orthodoxies, and to people on both sides of the fence, this will always be seen as bias.

So, when politicians from both sides take a liberal stance (e.g. on gay rights, multiculturalism, access to abortion), the BBC reflects that; when they take a right-wing position, let's say on social security, or trade unions, or a foreign war, the BBC will not feature any views which oppose this orthodoxy either, except perhaps in a ten-second snippet. As a result, on any given issue, only the "establishment" position comes across - and rather than keeping everyone happy, this infuriates the left and the right in equal measure, both sides convinced that the BBC leans the other way.

Both sides have a case, maybe, but which has the stronger case is impossible to say, as it will always come down to one's own political beliefs. Those on the hard right complain that the corporation blanks all discussion of mass immigration as anything other than a positive thing, and that its refusal to demonise British Muslims amounts to absurd political correctness. The left will point to coverage of the build-up to the Iraq war, where the Bush/Blair line was never questioned in news bulletins, and the anti-war position (indeed, any kind of dissent whatsoever) was conspicuous by its absence. The right howls in protest at the BBC's total acceptance of the anthropogenic theory of climate change; the left is outraged by its refusal to acknowledge the slippery behaviour of corporations and government in dealing with it. The right are convinced the BBC is a shill for New Labour, which they see as on the left; the left are convinced the BBC is a shill for New Labour, which they see as on the right. So it goes on.

Even outside their straight news output - i.e. in areas where individuals have editorial control - the BBC gets slaughtered. Their documentaries most commonly seem to lean left (as documentary makers in general tend to come from that side), while their political comment/opinion shows seem to lean right (accepting the conclusions of right wing think tanks as gospel truth, etc). This is impartiality of a sort, but it doesn't satisfy anyone. The hard right sites like BiasedBBC, and the hard left sites like Medialens, are perpetually up in arms... about different items. I'm sure the whole impartiality thing could be handled better, but I have no idea how, and quite frankly neither does anyone at the BBC.

[volatile]

If you're pissing off the right and left in equal measure, then you're obviously doing something right. :)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If you're pissing off the right and left in equal measure, then you're obviously doing something right. :)

No, you are spewing the company line.

Read Kiosk post, it is well written and correct.

:gnome:

[The Painter]

Oh, rats, Rush Limbaugh having to play with himself instead of millions of idiots. That would be a crying shame!!!

You forgot Ron Kuby. Try to get it right, I know that's hard for you, but try.

[fuelair]

You forgot Ron Kuby. Try to get it right, I know that's hard for you, but try.
I have no idea (or care) what a Ron Kuby is. I only know of Limbaugh because he was in the news a lot and clearly an unter-slime-mold. I have no idea, on the other hand, what you mean/intend re: try to get it right. I suspect, though I could be wrong, that I do not care.:)

[fuelair]

I was talking about Ken Tomlinson.
Juan Williams is the one I am familiar with.

[Piggy]

Juan Williams is the one I am familiar with.

Tomlinson was the chairman, not a commentator. He attempted to enforce fairness, as I understand the situation, by requiring that any stories critical of Bush be "balanced" by stories praising Bush.

And when you're dealing with the worst president in history, that's a tall order.

But I will say that Tomlinson did have some good repercussions. There's still some blatantly biased commentary -- like the one I heard recently where the reporter openly characterized his coverage of a McCain speech as a "balance piece" that he was "forced" to do... apparently he would have rather been in Europe with Obama -- but I do hear a wider variety of opinion on NPR news now.

Not that it was horrible before, mind you. I'll take NPR news and the News Hour with Jim Lehrer over just about anything else out there.

[volatile]

No, you are spewing the company line.

Read Kiosk post, it is well written and correct.

:gnome:





What's so good about the alternatives? I'm all ears!

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What's so good about the alternatives? I'm all ears!

Free press.

Do you honestly believe that it is good for government to determine what information, and how it is portrayed, that citizens consume?

:gnome:

[Architect]

Do you honestly believe that it is good for media barons and multi-national corporations to determine what information, and how it is portrayed, that citizens consume? Do you hoestly believe that, for example, the Rupert Murdochs of this world can be trusted - in the absence of a regulatory regime - to give us clear, unbiased information? Without favour or partiality?

If you do, then you are very, very naive.

[volatile]

Free press.

Do you honestly believe that it is good for government to determine what information, and how it is portrayed, that citizens consume?

:gnome:

As usual, you've not read anything anyone's said, have you?

The BBC is not controlled by the government, not does the government "determine what information, and how it is portrayed, that citizens consume". So, I'll ask you again to firstly read the links I provided to the BBC's Editorial Guidelines, and then to explain to me what's better about the alternatives.

Make your case. Use paragraphs. Do not resort to rhetorical questions. If you really are serious about debates, this has the potential to be an interesting thread. For once in your life, make an argument, make it clearly and make it good. We'd all appreciate it.

[Travis]

Well, I've long been of the opinion that the US government, via the FCC, should have absolutely no say, and I mean no say whatsoever, in what gets broadcast over the airwaves. So long as what is broadcast isn't itself illegal, like child porn for example, then it can be broadcast. You see, ultimately the broadcasters are going to tailor their programming to reflect the desires of their expected viewers so the relevant question is why it's the governments business to force them to try to appeal to demographics they may have no desire to try and attract? Why should Fox News be "forced" to appeal to liberals and why should MSNBC be "forced" to appeal to conservatives? The "balance" is already innate in the very existence of the different channels tailoring themselves to the different demographics. You don't want to watch neo-cons applauding themselves? Fine, don't watch that channel and go watch the one that burns neo-cons in effigy during every commercial break.

Dictating balance won't result in finer broadcasting it will result in us having a whole lot of bland broadcasting with edgier, potentially transformative, broadcasting nonexistent.

[The Painter]

I only know of Limbaugh because he was in the news a lot and clearly an unter-slime-mold

You are implying that you've never heard the Limbaugh show, and yet you seem to have a very strong opinion of him based only on what others have told you. Not first hand information. That's just superficial. Superficial is exactly what radio would be under the "fairness doctrine". You'd like that.

[volatile]

You see, ultimately the broadcasters are going to tailor their programming to reflect the desires of their expected viewers

This is why your position makes no sense at all. Media forms opinion, not reflects it. Any psychology textbook will tell you as much. Any advertising exec will tell you as much. Hell, any media tycoon will tell you as much.

Dictating balance won't result in finer broadcasting it will result in us having a whole lot of bland broadcasting with edgier, potentially transformative, broadcasting nonexistent

The British example proves otherwise, in my opinion.

[volatile]

Superficial is exactly what radio would be under the "fairness doctrine". You'd like that.

Seems you missed my post, Painter. The BBC is far from superficial. Indeed, given that its output is not designed to be reflective of a singular corporate viewpoint, it is often able to approach subjects in ways other media structures are unable or unwilling to. So, I'll ask again:

Hey, I'd be willing to be shown wrong, if you'd care to explain my error. As it stands, it strikes me that the BBC provides some of the best news, current affairs, music and entertainment programming in the world, plus the best news website in the world, all free of advertising breaks, corporate interests, political aims and product placement and with a systematic and codified approach to presenting high-quality, factual, unbiased, non-partisan content.

What's so good about the alternatives? I'm all ears.

Snipes and one-liners will, I suspect, be insufficient to convince me of your position. You'll need to spell out, in some detail, why the alternatives to the BBC model are preferable from the point of view of the consumers, or the audience. Care to try?

[Beerina]

Where've you been lately, buddy?

Well, up until recently :)

[Architect]

For those who missed it, JdG will not be around for a while to defend (cough cough) his OP. He's been suspended. Again.

Don't all go crying yourself to sleep, now.

[billydkid]

Do you honestly believe that it is good for media barons and multi-national corporations to determine what information, and how it is portrayed, that citizens consume? Do you hoestly believe that, for example, the Rupert Murdochs of this world can be trusted - in the absence of a regulatory regime - to give us clear, unbiased information? Without favour or partiality?

If you do, then you are very, very naive.Well, that's just it, isn't it? Who owns the air waves? It may be a moot point in the age of cable and air waves may be an anachronism - but in the day the monopolies over the air were (as all monopolies ultimately are) by the inhibition of competition through legislation crafted specifically to do that at the behest of the big broadcast companies. I am not actually sure how it actually works - who decides who has access to the radio airwaves, for example. I can't set up my own radio station and just start broadcasting and the question becomes why? I agree that whole Rupert Murdoch thing is an issue, but how did it get that way? Did it get that way through the free competition of ideas and the best ideas won? Not hardly.

There are mountains bureaucratic regulation involving broadcasting and virtually none of that legislation was put in place to make it easier for unestablished people or organization to get in on the broadcasting game - just as virtually none of the regulation in place for anything from hair cutting to selling hot dogs has been put in place to foster competition. There is a purpose to all the red tape and government regulation and almost none it has been instituted to promote a free or fair market in which people with different ideas or without connections have a decent shot at competing.

There is the expression "barriers to entry" and to a very large extent those barriers are the result of government intervention to protect existing interests. To me, the idea of wanting the government to mandate fair media is another example of using government to correct a problem that government itself created - and created deliberately and with the intention of stifling competition and free access. Governments will always on the whole serve the interests of the influencial and the powerful - in short, the interests of those who are rich which amounts, at heart, to stifling competition.

[Travis]

This is why your position makes no sense at all. Media forms opinion, not reflects it. Any psychology textbook will tell you as much. Any advertising exec will tell you as much. Hell, any media tycoon will tell you as much.

.....and what is inherently wrong with that if a bias is stated and apparent? What this proposes is to make bias subtler and potentially more nefarious because of the supposedly regulated impartiality.

Also a problem I have with this is that people always assume it will be the competing ideologies that will suffer. You tell person A, who is liberal, about this and the first thing they think is "yay, that will show that conservative network." What person A doesn't consider is that their own favorite, liberal, network would be reworked too, to be more conservative. This doesn't occur to them because they have assumed their ideology was right, and therefore above being corrected. "They can't make my network more conservative, it's liberal, which is the correct ideology, that wrong conservative network is the one that needs fixing!"

You can swap the liberal/conservative labels and my point remains. Why make certain networks more appealing to a demographic they are not trying to get as viewers.

In a different medium, consider this, what would be the point in putting conservative content into Mother Jones and, conversely, what would be the point in putting Liberal content into National Review?

[Travis]

For those who missed it, JdG will not be around for a while to defend (cough cough) his OP. He's been suspended. Again.

Don't all go crying yourself to sleep, now.

Heh, funnily enough I hadn't noticed.:p

[autumn1971]

Well, I've long been of the opinion that the US government, via the FCC, should have absolutely no say, and I mean no say whatsoever, in what gets broadcast over the airwaves. So long as what is broadcast isn't itself illegal, like child porn for example, then it can be broadcast. You see, ultimately the broadcasters are going to tailor their programming to reflect the desires of their expected viewers so the relevant question is why it's the governments business to force them to try to appeal to demographics they may have no desire to try and attract? Why should Fox News be "forced" to appeal to liberals and why should MSNBC be "forced" to appeal to conservatives? The "balance" is already innate in the very existence of the different channels tailoring themselves to the different demographics. You don't want to watch neo-cons applauding themselves? Fine, don't watch that channel and go watch the one that burns neo-cons in effigy during every commercial break.

Dictating balance won't result in finer broadcasting it will result in us having a whole lot of bland broadcasting with edgier, potentially transformative, broadcasting nonexistent.
Actually, the deregulation of the media markets has already taken care of that.
Assuming that you are of my generation (the last to remember phone cords), think about the radio stations of your youth; we may have only had a few, but they were all different, and often locally produced.
Think about daily newspapers; most small cities had at least two competing papers.

Now think about the current "market of ideas".
Most medium to large cities have only one major print daily, or have two owned by the same company.
Radio is essentially ClearChannel or Viacom. Hell, look out your window while you drive to work- most of the billboards are owned by ClearChannel or Viacom.
The idea that we have a choice of media is an illusion, and it is an illusion that is very invested in the current false dichotomy.
All of that being said, I want to have biased news sources. I just want them to admit it.
I have no problem with the entire major media empire being right-wing (except on social issues, where large cities have progressive slants), I just want the host to say that the business report is going to assume that what is good for GM is good for the country. If I hear it that way, I am aware of what to look for in a second opinion.
Pretending to be without bias is stupid and insulting to the intelligence of consumers. Have as much bias as you want, but stop pretending to be neutral.
So I guess I'm against the idea of "equal time", as it dilutes the (possibly horribly biased) message of the medium.
/drunk/

Autumn

[autumn1971]

Well, that's just it, isn't it? Who owns the air waves? It may be a moot point in the age of cable and air waves may be an anachronism - but in the day the monopolies over the air were (as all monopolies ultimately are) by the inhibition of competition through legislation crafted specifically to do that at the behest of the big broadcast companies. I am not actually sure how it actually works - who decides who has access to the radio airwaves, for example. I can't set up my own radio station and just start broadcasting and the question becomes why? I agree that whole Rupert Murdoch thing is an issue, but how did it get that way? Did it get that way through the free competition of ideas and the best ideas won? Not hardly.

There are mountains bureaucratic regulation involving broadcasting and virtually none of that legislation was put in place to make it easier for unestablished people or organization to get in on the broadcasting game - just as virtually none of the regulation in place for anything from hair cutting to selling hot dogs has been put in place to foster competition. There is a purpose to all the red tape and government regulation and almost none it has been instituted to promote a free or fair market in which people with different ideas or without connections have a decent shot at competing.

There is the expression "barriers to entry" and to a very large extent those barriers are the result of government intervention to protect existing interests. To me, the idea of wanting the government to mandate fair media is another example of using government to correct a problem that government itself created - and created deliberately and with the intention of stifling competition and free access. Governments will always on the whole serve the interests of the influencial and the powerful - in short, the interests of those who are rich which amounts, at heart, to stifling competition.
Well, until your last paragraph, you are a little mixed up on the "cause v. effect". It is those who were given the first advantage in the market who forced the "government" regulations to secure their position. The reason that you cannot freely broadcast is the "regulations" concerning the franchising of the airwaves. Amazingly, these regulations are very favorable to the most powerful broadcasting companies.
I have said this before, and I will repeat it often, the "market" sets prices.
That's it.
Nothing else.
It doesn't even do its one task very effectively, as it can only come arbitrarily close to a natural price by determining which "external" costs to be of "market value".
There is no way to imagine a capitalist market that encourages competition; to the contrary, a capitalist market will be dominated by those entities who are the most effective at stifling any new ideas.

[WildCat]

Media forms opinion, not reflects it.
Really? Do you think that you'd become a Rush Limbaugh conservative by listening to his show?

[Architect]

No, but I believe that people who get their news principally from (say) the Daily Mail or the Daily Record are reading stories shaped by the paper's political positions and hence having their own views and opinions subtly steered.

[uk_dave]

Free press.

Do you honestly believe that it is good for government to determine what information, and how it is portrayed, that citizens consume?

:gnome:

Someone already determines what information is consumed by the public.

If it is not government than it is either an owner/directors of the news corporation or the market place.

If it is an individual or group of directors, how are they to be held accountable if they introduce bias?

If it is the market place, is it healthy for people to be able to shape the news they want to see or hear? Isn't it necessary for us to see things we may not be confortable with?

And if it's the market place driven by advertising, how do we reconcile a large advertiser having influence over what is and isn't portrayed, especially if what is proposed to be shown is contrary to their best interests as a business? (For example a news report about polution, the culprit who may well be a major sponsor of the network presenting this news).

At least if the government has some control over the way news is presented it is democratically accountable.

You already defer some aspects of public life to individuals, such as judges, so why do you consider a government body tasked with ensuring fairness in broadcast news (and ensuring that the networks do not shy away from difficult news or pander to the desires of their sponsors), a body which would be democratically accountable and open to public scrutiny, such a bad thing?

Or does the means to own/control a network automatically bestow upon those people the abilty to judge what you should or shouldn't see?

[Kiosk]

Should maybe point out that, despite my minor grumbles about the BBC, I think it works better than the American system. It's just a long way from perfect.

For anyone who doesn't know, we have four major TV news providers in the UK: BBC, Sky News (cable news station owned by Murdoch), ITV and Channel 4 (independent, commercial TV stations). The BBC is pretty much middle of the road. Sky News, as you'd expect, leans slightly to the right (though to nowhere near the same degree as FOX).

ITV and Channel 4 both get their news from the same organisation: ITN. But they're light years apart - ITV runs a tabloid-style news service which often tilts to the right, and focuses on "human interest" stuff like paedophile scares and celebrity gossip, rather like a TV version of the Daily Mail. Channel 4 offers hard news with a liberal slant, rather like a TV version of The Guardian. This is clearly deliberate; these approaches were chosen to complement the channels' general programming (ITV = lowbrow light entertainment, Channel 4 = middlebrow / educated-liberal / youth-oriented).

Still, whatever their channel of choice, most people do consider the BBC the definitive news service. There's a small but vocal band of right-wing Little Englanders convinced the BBC is run by Communist eggheads (despite its close historical ties to the security services - the BBC files of suspected far-leftists were once tagged with a coded symbol understood only by top brass, which basically meant "this guy's a Red - keep an eye on him"). There's an even smaller band of ultra-leftists who think their news bulletins are actually scripted by MI5 (which is quite a stretch). But when a big news story kicks off, the BBC is where most people turn instinctively. This is partly down to tradition, and the BBC's not-always-deserved reputation for competence, but it's also because most people want their serious news without an obvious political slant. They choose their newspaper to match their political orientation - there's no other option - but they still turn to the BBC for objectivity.

This is sensible, most of the time. It gets a little trickier in wartime, or with stories relating to countries classed as "official enemies" or "official allies". This is when the BBC really looks like a state broadcasting service, and it's sometimes not pretty. But again, it's better than the alternative: I certainly can't imagine a news service owned by corporate interests behaving any differently, but I can certainly imagine it being far, far worse.

Anyway, this doesn't quite relate to the OP: the BBC doesn't offer an equal mix of conservative and liberal political commentary. The out-and-out opinions heard on BBC news programmes are overwhelmingly conservative, just as they are on American TV. In fact, it's often the very same talking heads. It's just that, unlike on many US networks, this is not reinforced by a blatantly conservative slant in the presentation and the news agenda. It's a funny kind of balance. It's not all that great, but I'd say it works better than any alternatives I've seen so far - in the real world, that is.

[Smoke TNT]

No, but I believe that people who get their news principally from (say) the Daily Mail or the Daily Record are reading stories shaped by the paper's political positions and hence having their own views and opinions subtly steered.

Interesting. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1048939/TV-reporters-showing-Talibans-humanity-says-BBC-presenter.html)

[WildCat]

No, but I believe that people who get their news principally from (say) the Daily Mail or the Daily Record are reading stories shaped by the paper's political positions and hence having their own views and opinions subtly steered.
Ah yes, a smart guy like you won't be influenced, it's the ignorant common folk who must be protected from incorrect political views.

[WildCat]

Should maybe point out that, despite my minor grumbles about the BBC, I think it works better than the American system. It's just a long way from perfect.

For anyone who doesn't know, we have four major TV news providers in the UK:
And are there actual talk shows that exist not for news but specifically for presenting opinions?

And it's blatantly obvious what proponents of the "fairness doctrine" actually want - the suppression of political views they don't agree with.

[Piggy]

The easiest way to get yourself manipulated by the media is to believe in political and social philosophies, dogmas, parties, movements, and idealism.

[doobiedoright]

Which "the Left" are you talking about? Most Americans agree or are to the left of the Democrats. The Democrats aren't anything like "the Left" though. Maybe that's part of the problem with the media, which is almost exclusively center or right of center. They (and you) have no clue about where most of America stands.



You can not possibly be saying that cnn,msnbc,cbs and so forth are right of center?
You must be blind and crazy!
they are very left of center and very proud of it!

[Tony]

You can't be serious. Have you ever heard of the 1st amendment?

He is serious. If the first amendment matters, why cant someone say "**** Jesus" on national TV during prime time?

Im not saying I agree with the fairness doctrine, but if you allow government regulation of the airwaves, dont be upset when it comes back to bite you.

[Tony]

they are very left of center and very proud of it!

Support this with objective evidence. I dare you.

[Suddenly]

When objective reality contradicts conservative dogma, the source reporting that reality is left of center.

That seems to be the test.

[Almo]

And there it is. I Knew it was coming. The standard line from the Brits, "we're better than you". Once again you're wrong. The BBC blows.

That is patently absurd. I've lived in the US, the UK for 4 years, and now Canada for almost 4 years. Nothing I've seen on TV in the US or CA compares to the consistent high standard of quality set by the BBC.

The BBC rules. My opinion is that more countries should create a network with its revenue model. Not least of all because if people have someplace to turn without ads, commercial networks must minimize the number and length of ad breaks.

[cwalner]

All of that being said, I want to have biased news sources. I just want them to admit it.

Hear, hear!!!

I always choose to get my news from the opinion page or from other sources that I know where thier bias lays. TV-'The Daily Show', Radio-NPR, Print-National Review. The only one on this list that doesn't acknowledge thier bias is NPR, but as that bias is well known to me, I know what I am getting.

While I don't agree with the OP's paranoia of the governement, I oppose government enforced fairness of media for several reasons.

1. In the current media, while each individual outlet may be biased, they do not all have the same bias, so the desired balance is achieved. If a particular bias cannot stay on the air, it is because it does not appeal to enough people and so should not be considered as a measure of 'balance' anyway.

2. This is entirely in conjuction with the intention of the framers of the constitution (US) when they put freedom of the press in the 1st ammendment. At that time all media outlets were owned by political active patrons and existed for the primary purpose of espousing the political beliefs of the owner. The 1st ammendment itself is a 'fairness doctrine' meant to insure that opposition was not stifled by those in power.

3. the previous attempt to do this in TV was only justified by the limited amounts of TV channels in any given market. Due to modern technology (cable and internet) this is no longer an issue so the arguments for the original no longer apply. The fact that this went away as the number of channels expanded should be a clue as well.

4. The (disputed) success of the BBC in achieving balance is not relevant. While there are many features common to British and American societies, I do not believe this is one. I cannot see Americans accepting one news source as the difinitive authority (more precisely, I cannot see every American accepting the same news source).

[WildCat]

The BBC rules. My opinion is that more countries should create a network with its revenue model.
Oh hell no! If the government wants to set up their own channel, let the people who want it subscribe to it. Don't force everyone with a TV or radio to pay an annual tax to provide what is already available for free.

[cwalner]

Oh hell no! If the government wants to set up their own channel, let the people who want it subscribe to it. Don't force everyone with a TV or radio to pay an annual tax to provide what is already available for free.

I hate to burst your bubble here WildCat (abbreviating your name may cause our EC friends a mild chuckle at your expense, so I will refrain) but we do pay for our TV and Radio, just not directly. It costs money to put stuff out on the airwaves and somebody has to pay for it. We have chosen a system where companies pay the TV stations to tell us we want to buy thier products than pass those costs on to us when we do. I personally have no problem with the government having thier own channel. Per my last post at least I know the bias they are going to have

[Architect]

Ah yes, a smart guy like you won't be influenced, it's the ignorant common folk who must be protected from incorrect political views.

There speaks a man who's never seen the Daily Record or the Daily Mail. Anything incisive to lend to the debate, or just going to keep stamping your foot?

[WildCat]

There speaks a man who's never seen the Daily Record or the Daily Mail. Anything incisive to lend to the debate, or just going to keep stamping your foot?
The topic is broadcast rules, not print media.

And I have seen the Daily Mail, not the Daily Record.

[bobrayner]

That is patently absurd. I've lived in the US, the UK for 4 years, and now Canada for almost 4 years. Nothing I've seen on TV in the US or CA compares to the consistent high standard of quality set by the BBC.

The BBC rules. My opinion is that more countries should create a network with its revenue model. Not least of all because if people have someplace to turn without ads, commercial networks must minimize the number and length of ad breaks.

I disagree; the license fee is an inefficient, redundant, regressive tax.

The license fee is set by a government minister, and enforced by laws, regardless of whether each person watches (or listens to) the BBC. The money goes into government coffers, not the BBC. Separately, the government decides each year how much money to give to the BBC; there's a little topup from the FCO to pay for the World Service, and so on.

Consequently, if we abolished the license fee system and instead funded the BBC from general taxation, there'd be no less independence for the BBC (it could still be paid the same amount of money each year from the same bank account) but with a net saving because the cost of license fee collection & enforcement is a much larger % of revenue than for other taxes.

Oh, and we'd all be spared the minor hassle of dealing with licenses, and a few thousand licensing staff could find a more productive job.