How then would the Fairness Doctrine be implemented? How many sides must be given a “honest, equitable and balanced” viewing? How many people must be in favor of an idea for it to get coverage? How much evidence much a position have?
Who decides?
No, I don’t.
You’re correct. I think his claim is biased, oversimplified, and tangential to the discussion, so I’m not interested in arguing it. What I’m interested in arguing is whether or not biased media ownership and content would be remedied by the Fairness Doctrine. I don’t think it would, and I explained why. So far I haven’t heard a rebuttal other than “lying is binary,” which it isn’t because lying is about intent.
I think you sound more like a prosecutor than someone seeking to apply a fairness doctrine. That does not help your argument that this would be an unbiased and nonpartisan undertaking.
Erm… several of these channels are 24-hour news networks. You think multiple errors are going to be proof of a pattern of lying?
I also don’t think you’ve responded to the central point in my argument, Whack-a-Mole: reinstating would give political appointees at the FCC at the ability to enforce this rule. How would this reduce bias? It seems to me it would just add another layer of it.
I really think he meant the American public, not you personally, but if he did mean it the way you took it, what are your news sources?
It could if it could be shown that a majority of these “errors” favored a particular political viewpoint.
Why does demanding the news media be factual in their reporting count as censorship?
As mentioned this is not busting some media organization for saying, “Lowering the tax rate increases government tax revenue.” That is clearly a debatable point and a debate worth having.
FOX News claiming their reporter was attacked by protesters in Wisconsin? Not so much.
Because someone has to decide (a) what is news; (b) what is factual; (c) was a particular report in both of these categories.
The left doesn’t trust the right wing to do that. I am pretty certain the right wouldn’t trust the left to do it. Given that no one trusts anyone else to do it, there are only two possible solutions. No body does it, or I do it. I will leave it up to you to determine which is the best outcome - I am cool with either.
Why would you assume that government control is a higher standard?
Slee
No one has pointed any examples of the supposed chilling effect this rule had when it was in force. No one has shown how Canada, which has a rule against lying, is harmed in any way and their free speech is chilled by political appointees censoring what Canadians hear.
Since its removal I think the change in our media for the worse is painfully apparent. You think news reporting has gotten better since 1987? You think you and the country have been better served since the rule was revoked?
So when there is a slander or libel lawsuit or someone is being blamed for inciting to riot or an advertiser lies who decides the truth of it?
Guess all that should be tossed. Shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is fine because no one can be trusted to get to the truth of it.
TV: MSNBC mainly. PBS NewsHour nightly.
NewsPaper: San Jose Merc and the NYT
Radio: NPR
Internet: SDMB!
A jury. Not a fucking panel of government appointed bureaucrats.
On a left-to-right scale, how would you rate these sources?
Perhaps. (And I’m not going to argue that Fox News is unbiased. That’s not the point.) But I think you’re also substantially bulking up the Fairness Doctrine and the FCC’s powers.
None of this answers what I was asking. villa asked the same thing, and your reply about slander and libel does not address the question. I’m getting the sense you don’t want to answer, and there’s a good reason: proponents of the Fairness Doctrine are never able to jump over this hurdle. Fairness is central to an informed public, but giving more power to political appointees and less to citizens does not make things more fair. Here are the commissioners of the FCC.
Which is to say that there are always either three Democrats and two Republicans, or three Republicans and two Democrats. They’re approved by the same process as Supreme Court justices, and if the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated and strengthened in the manner you want, I suspect their hearings would be treated much the same way. How impartial do you think the Supreme Court is?
I watch about the same amount of network news now that I did in 1987 (none).
I think attributing the changes you don’t like to the ending of the Fairness Doctrine is absurd. Since 1987, we’ve seen the birth of 24-hour news networks, an enormous expansion in channels because of the growth of cable and then the birth of satellite networks and the internet and everything associated with it. You may have noticed that network ratings have declined precipitously over the years.
Or a judge.
And the mechanisms exist to determine the merit of the claim and decide is penalties are in order. Mechanisms put in place by the government. Penalties for speech. Considering the “truth” is usually the best defense against slander or libel I am guessing it is possible to determine this.
Do people who bitch about NPR and PBS ever listen to it or watch it. Every single PBS story has a heavy weight conservative face to face with a liberal viewpoint. Some are so unhappy that a Lib gets even time, that it appears slanted to them. They are used to rightys presenting the liberal viewpoint.
THe Dope is a middle right source. The people seem to accept the rights of corporations and powerful to make decisions for all of us. It is far from liberal.
When we went into Iraq ,no TV station presented an opposing opinion. They all parroted the Bush, military experts as the only position.
There are no liberal papers of any importance anymore. THe NYT purged all their liberals.
Personally I think you are the one dodging the question.
I asked for any cite to an ill effect of the Fairness Doctrine when it was enforced.
If this is a gateway to government censorship then it should not be hard to show it. It was in force for decades. Surely such a pernicious rule would have ample examples of its supposed harm.
I also pointed to Canada as an example where a similar rule is in place. Ill effects there?
Allowing outright falsehoods in the broadcast news media is important to us how? Because lying means speech that is more free and therefor ok? Because you cannot trust the government despite not being able to point to examples of the government overreaching when the rule was in place for 35+ years?
The ill effects of the lies media are manifest. I cited two polls above where a substantial portion of the public are misinformed. Not on a matter of opinion but literally believing the opposite of what is true.
I do not see how this is a good thing.
Editorially, MSNBC, the Merc and the NYT are pretty left, although all of them have some right leaning contributors. As news sources, I find them pretty neutral. PBS and NPR seem pretty neutral to me. The SDMB is sort of all over the place, although mostly left. Still, we have our share of hard core righties.
The closest we’ve come to truely fair and balanced media are the peer-reviewed scientific journals. Ideally, every article gets vetted by multiple independent workers of that field. It works because there is a factual basis to compare articles to and the review system excludes unbalanced articles.
And even then there are people who complain about the bias of the scientific journals.
I don’t see how that system is workable in other media. There’s no simple way in the wide world to separate fact from fiction. How true to does a news story have to be? Must every sentence be true when considered in isolation? Must the story as whole avoid giving the wrong impression? What about omissions?
And there’s no fair way to review how well all news stories. Do we really want to give each story its own review panel to judge it, like is done in scientific journals? Or a fixed panel that reviews many stories? Or simply depend on public complaints, so that whichever side can marshal the most supporters dominants what is considered “fair and balanced”?
The fairness doctrine is based on a few people chosen to vote on the content of a radio station. We already have a system like that in place. It’s done through an audience rating system. The public chooses what it wants to listen to and not a couple of people.