Brian Williams

[Ibelsd]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ead-for-mercy/

Another talking head at the NBC news desk is about to bite the dust it seems... and I am taking his side.

1) Williams is in the t.v. news business which implies his mission is entertainment above all else.
2) Journalism has not been actively practiced by the major networks in nearly 30 years.

So, castigating Williams for doing his job and not being a proper "journalist" is absolutely silly. So, he exaggerated/lied about his role in a news story. Did his version fundamentally change the events that occurred? A helicopter did get hit by an RPG. He was in a tight situation, trapped with others in the front lines. Ok, so his bird wasn't actually hit and maybe he wasn't in as much danger as he claims. Whatever. If you rely on Williams for accurate coverage of what is happening in Iraq, Syria, or anywhere else... well... that is a "you" problem. As in, YOU are not taking responsibility for your own knowledge base. When was the last time network news broke a real story or really did their jobs?

Watching interviews, no one gets tough questions. Journalists come unprepared with no follow-up questions and instead just regurgitate what they are told by whatever spokeshole or asshat politician they are interviewing. Of course, if the mainstream media dares to ask tough questions, then the politicians find even easier prey
http://www.newsweek.com/obama-interv...alities-301429

So, of course, this breeds a whole culture of crony journalism. Williams is just part of the cycle. He is not exceptional. His actions don't warrant some special rebuke.

Look at this interview from NPR to Obama
http://www.npr.org/2014/12/29/372485...-npr-interview

Not a single real follow-up disputing a single word he offered. They are discussing immigration and the interviewer does not feel the need to ask Obama why he is doing things he had claimed on multiple occasions would be illegal. He disputed Obama's take on the Republican party, but offered up a similar straw man. Obama says he was "frustrated" he could not get immigration done. You'd think the interviewer might ask why he was so frustrated when the Democrats had two years to get it done while Republicans were completely out of power.

My point here is that journalism is non-existent today. Yet, some are holding Williams up to some mythically high standard which we probably haven't seen since the 1970's and even then it was probably more myth than factual. So, let it go everybody. Let the guy get back to his job of comforting lonely old men and women who haven't figured out how to use that whole interwebs thing. Let him tell his evening stories. The world will still turn.

[Sigfried]

I'm pretty much with you, I might not take Jennings himself so harshly as a Journalist, I don't know or watch him much but he seems earnest and to care about Journalism at least in general. I imagine there are some limitations on grilling the president in a granted interview etc...

But still, I think the state of mainstream journalism is pretty bad. Lots of good work out there, just not on prime time national TV.

I think the particular incident is way out of proportion. That is not news but a personal story he tells and personal memory has been proven to be far more malleable than anyone would like to believe. As we tell a memory we often change it and I think he just self edited the drama without intending to over the years.

[Ibelsd]

I'm pretty much with you, I might not take Jennings himself so harshly as a Journalist, I don't know or watch him much but he seems earnest and to care about Journalism at least in general. I imagine there are some limitations on grilling the president in a granted interview etc...

But still, I think the state of mainstream journalism is pretty bad. Lots of good work out there, just not on prime time national TV.

I think the particular incident is way out of proportion. That is not news but a personal story he tells and personal memory has been proven to be far more malleable than anyone would like to believe. As we tell a memory we often change it and I think he just self edited the drama without intending to over the years.

I have not seen Jennings on t.v. in probably 20 years. I stopped watching any and all network news a long time ago. I remember the moment when I stopped watching too. I was in my apartment watching the news when there was a "news story" about a ball you could use as a chair to help your back. I thought to myself, my god, the news is now just advertising. This is not news. I have never watched it since. I'll watch the cable news shows and I certainly read new on the internet where I dive all over the place. There was a time when you had to rely on guys like Cronkite and Rather for news. They broke the stories that were important. Some credit Cronkite for ending Vietnam. Watergate had legs because of Cronkite. It all started to change. Maybe, the final straw was the Iraq War where no one questioned the narrative from Bush and Congress until the war was over. Reporters stopped asking tough questions. Anchors refused to do anything to make politicians look bad when the politician was one of their own. Plus, in this highly competitive media age, the politicians no longer needed Uncle Cronkite. They could get to middle America through a million other venues. So, the modern anchors started putting out puff pieces. They started treating politicians like rock stars instead of an opposing political class.

I am not as kind to Williams as you are. I think he intentionally fabricated the story. And I am ok with that. He is an entertainer now. Journalism on network t.v. died a long, long time ago.

[CowboyX]

2) Journalism has not been actively practiced by the major networks in nearly 30 years.

I agree that journalism has been on the ropes, but not just by the major networks. I'd say they've been chasing what I'd call the opinion model used so well by conservative outlets, especially by talk radio...which used to be called news radio.

I'd attribute it to the end of the fairness doctrine, which, to my understanding, separated news departments from the rest of a broadcaster's operation. The line between facts and opinion was erased with opinion winning out since you can more easily and inexpensively purchase opinion.

[MindTrap028]

On Williams, I give a little more leeway to war situations. It seems very easy for things to happen fast and be confusing and for him to hear that "we were hit" and think it was the chappa (as Arnald would say)he was in and not the "we" the group of chaapa's. But that leeway is gone once it was more than one story. His Katrina coverage was also bogus.

On media

I haven't had cable in a long time, so it's no skin off my back if He has a news jobs or not. I too become disillusioned with the state of media by watching how the media treated Bush and Obama different. Of course based on their Ideological bent. But it goes deeper than that, because news organizations are also owned by large corporations, so they have personal stake in some issues. They are propaganda machines and I see them as such. It's sort of why You almost have to listen to the most extreme on each end to get a hint at the truth.

For example, I watched opposing documentaries on Nuclear power. one was for it, one was against it.
The one against pointed out that the amount of nuclear waste was the equivalent of a train car per plant, per year.
On the one for, they pointed out that All the nuclear waste we have ever created could fit in a football field.

The difference? One was using the weight and one used volume of the nuclear waste. Both were "true" but you need to understand both to really understand the problem.

As for "breaking news" I have no idea if they have done any real breaking news stories. Did they discover the IRS targeting through journalistic investigation? Nope. Have they trumpeted gov violations of individuals rights? Not that I'm aware of. Is there any corruption in gov that they have brought to light? again.. nada.

[Ibelsd]

I agree that journalism has been on the ropes, but not just by the major networks. I'd say they've been chasing what I'd call the opinion model used so well by conservative outlets, especially by talk radio...which used to be called news radio.

I'd attribute it to the end of the fairness doctrine, which, to my understanding, separated news departments from the rest of a broadcaster's operation. The line between facts and opinion was erased with opinion winning out since you can more easily and inexpensively purchase opinion.

The fairness doctrine attempted to force broadcasters to present opposing opinions. It was deemed surplus to requirements with the advent of cable. Now, with the internet, it is beyond useless. Like most regulations, the fairness doctrine was a hindrance to smaller networks who couldn't afford presenting the alternating points of view in a way that would attract viewers. In other words, smaller media operations suffered under the weight of the fairness doctrine. It was not merely the act of putting on an opposing view, it was the means to defend against those who challenged whether you did or not. The doctrine was introduced in 1949 under the premise that there was limited broadcast space on the spectrum. The public owned the airwaves and broadcasters were given permission to use them so long as they benefitted the public. Arguably, the doctrine served a purpose until the 1970's when new spectrum was realized. Certainly in the 80's with the introduction of cable and in the 90's with the introduction of the www, the spectrum argument no longer applies. The doctrine had an unintended consequence which is glossed over or rationalized by its supporters. It stifled free speech. Broadcasters often chose to not cover controversial issues for fear that they would be punished for not covering them fairly. Do you want to allow a KKK member on the airwaves to rebut Jesse Jackson's latest opinion? The very arbitrary nature of the regulation meant broadcasters were always in fear of breaking this FCC regulation. Therefore, they tended to present a very moderate and vanilla point of view. It should also be noted, that the arbitrary nature of the regulations meant that the FCC often became a political weapon.

"As one former Kennedy Administration official, Bill Ruder, has said, "We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." (Tony Snow, "Return of the Fairness Demon," The Washington Times, September 5, 1993, p. B3.)"
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...thing-but-fair

So, while it is a popular claim among some liberals that the fairness doctrine is necessary, there is very little factual support for such a claim.

Base on the FCC's report under Mark Fowler of the Reagan administration it concluded,
"It caused stations to be unwilling to air reports that included controversial viewpoints; it put the government in the dubious position of evaluating content; and it was no longer needed since the number of broadcast outlets had grown considerably, the report said."
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/the-fairness-doctrine/

As to your general claim that the fairness doctrine would bring back news radio
"As for whether the revival of the fairness doctrine would put the brakes on conservative talk radio: It well could reduce the airtime of such shows. Stations probably would have to balance their conservative shows with ones that were more liberal-leaning. By and large, liberal talk radio has not been commercially successful. Any unwillingness by advertisers to buy slots during liberal programming would cut into stations’ earnings and might prompt them to skin back their conservative shows so they wouldn’t have to air the low-revenue liberal counterparts."
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/the-fairness-doctrine/

While a revival of the fairness doctrine would probably reduce opinion radio (particularly conservative opinion radio), there is little to indicate broadcasters would replace this with news. Their goal is profitability. News does not bring listeners and does not bring advertisers. So, these stations would probably convert to music or go off the air. While I guess that may make you happy on some level, is that really the type of America you seek?

[CowboyX]

You've confused the fairness doctrine with the equal time rule.

[Ibelsd]

You've confused the fairness doctrine with the equal time rule.

How do you figure. I listed several sources that directly refer to the fairness doctrine.

[CowboyX]

"Stations probably would have to balance their conservative shows with ones that were more liberal-leaning." (Your post) That's a misreading of the fairness doctrine confusing it with the equal time rule.

If my station reported "97% of climate scientists conclude that anthropocentric climate change is happening" You might call that "vanilla" but I'd call that balanced since it provides both sides...97-3 and fair since it provides an accurate telling of the distribution.

Let's say your station decides to air "Some climate scientists conclude that anthropocentric climate change is not happening" Again it is balanced - some on this side, some on that - but is it a fair description of the situation? No. Even though the statement is true it makes it seem like there's two comparatively the same sides.

Is it coincidence that Fox tells us repeatedly that they are "fair and balanced"? No.

Fox wasn't profitable at first (just as an aside).

Government makes judgments all the time and I personally see nothing wrong with us regulating our own airwaves to make sure we are getting correct information.

[Ibelsd]

"Stations probably would have to balance their conservative shows with ones that were more liberal-leaning." (Your post) That's a misreading of the fairness doctrine confusing it with the equal time rule.

If my station reported "97% of climate scientists conclude that anthropocentric climate change is happening" You might call that "vanilla" but I'd call that balanced since it provides both sides...97-3 and fair since it provides an accurate telling of the distribution.

You misunderstand the fairness doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
"introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced."

I offered several links, including a couple of direct quotes which support my presentation of the fairness doctrine. The equal time rule you keep referencing is specifically aimed at political candidates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
"The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it."

Government makes judgments all the time and I personally see nothing wrong with us regulating our own airwaves to make sure we are getting correct information.

I am going to let you retract this statement now that you've been informed on exactly what the fairness doctrine is and hopefully after you've assessed it against the positions I've offered in my earlier posts.

[CowboyX]

You misunderstand the fairness doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
"introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced."

I offered several links, including a couple of direct quotes which support my presentation of the fairness doctrine. The equal time rule you keep referencing is specifically aimed at political candidates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
"The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it."

I don't see where I've misunderstood the fairness doctrine or the equal time rule. You are the one who said "Stations probably would have to balance their conservative shows with ones that were more liberal-leaning." under the fairness doctrine. Unless you're admitting that conservative stations are incapable of fairness and balance.

In which case I would have to disagree. PBS presents The News Hour, which I personally find to be the best news broadcast on - akin to what the network news used to be. Now, because it is on PBS it is generally, but incorrectly, put in the liberal column. (as an aside the same also goes for Frontline, in general and in my opinion). But I'd say the broadcast itself has no agenda and I've never detected one. Do I think that a station in the conservative column is incapable of the same thing? No, though I can't think of any right off the top of my head. From what I've seen they are all in competition with Fox (on cable) and Limbaugh (on radio) and therefore all sound pretty much the same.

The reason? Ad $.

I'll 100% admit that The News Hour is a bore fest. Have you ever listened to 1010 WINS radio news? zzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Most of the news is mundane and boring. "Give us 10 minutes and we'll give you the world"...huh? I hear a vast amount of ad men dropping dead. 10 minutes!?!

Which is why it must be sensationalized (not fair, not balanced) to keep the viewers attention. Which is why liberal shows that don't sensationalize the news fail...although that has changed somewhat but no where near to the extent of conservative shows. For example, making the Brian Williams case into something about Hillary...the two have nothing to do with each other, first of all. But, of course, present it in this way to try and make the point that "this is what liberals do" (assuming that Williams is a liberal, or better yet, supporting the meme that the networks (the mainstream media) is liberal). Excluding any other examples is, of course, not fair and balanced.

Anyhoo, the purpose of the fairness doctrine was not to present equal amounts of time to both sides. Since stations are using the public airwaves to transmit they have a duty to report the news and that must be done objectively. Stations used to have policies that the news department was kept completely separate from the rest of the employees, especially the sales people. That was to insure that they would draw a case under the fairness doctrine.

[Ibelsd]

I don't see where I've misunderstood the fairness doctrine or the equal time rule. You are the one who said "Stations probably would have to balance their conservative shows with ones that were more liberal-leaning." under the fairness doctrine. Unless you're admitting that conservative stations are incapable of fairness and balance.

One more time...
You misunderstand the fairness doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
"introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced."

My point was exactly what I provided. Conservative radio and news radio, in general, would be removed from the commercial airwaves. This is not just my opinion. This is the conclusion of factcheck.org.

So, considering the fairness doctrine is exactly what I claimed it to be, I'd appreciate if you'd acknowledge this. Moreover, it is not about whether conservative broadcasts are "capable" of being fair and/or balanced. The point is that such a requirement is highly arbitrary and, as I have demonstrated, highly politicized. You can re-read my quote from the Kennedy administration which supports my argument. An argument you have completely ignored.

In which case I would have to disagree. PBS presents The News Hour, which I personally find to be the best news broadcast on - akin to what the network news used to be. Now, because it is on PBS it is generally, but incorrectly, put in the liberal column. (as an aside the same also goes for Frontline, in general and in my opinion). But I'd say the broadcast itself has no agenda and I've never detected one. Do I think that a station in the conservative column is incapable of the same thing? No, though I can't think of any right off the top of my head. From what I've seen they are all in competition with Fox (on cable) and Limbaugh (on radio) and therefore all sound pretty much the same.

The reason? Ad $.

I'll 100% admit that The News Hour is a bore fest. Have you ever listened to 1010 WINS radio news? zzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Most of the news is mundane and boring. "Give us 10 minutes and we'll give you the world"...huh? I hear a vast amount of ad men dropping dead. 10 minutes!?!

Which is why it must be sensationalized (not fair, not balanced) to keep the viewers attention. Which is why liberal shows that don't sensationalize the news fail...although that has changed somewhat but no where near to the extent of conservative shows. For example, making the Brian Williams case into something about Hillary...the two have nothing to do with each other, first of all. But, of course, present it in this way to try and make the point that "this is what liberals do" (assuming that Williams is a liberal, or better yet, supporting the meme that the networks (the mainstream media) is liberal). Excluding any other examples is, of course, not fair and balanced.

Anyhoo, the purpose of the fairness doctrine was not to present equal amounts of time to both sides. Since stations are using the public airwaves to transmit they have a duty to report the news and that must be done objectively. Stations used to have policies that the news department was kept completely separate from the rest of the employees, especially the sales people. That was to insure that they would draw a case under the fairness doctrine.

I have absolutely 0 interest in what you find newsworthy or fair. The issue is not whether you prefer PBS to Fox. It is irrelevant. The purpose of the fairness doctrine was many-fold and I demonstrated this. Furthermore, I have shown how it was abused. You have not rebutted a single point I have made other than making the erroneous argument that I am confusing the fairness doctrine for the equal time rule.

[CowboyX]

One more time...
You misunderstand the fairness doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
"introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced."

My point was exactly what I provided. Conservative radio and news radio, in general, would be removed from the commercial airwaves. This is not just my opinion. This is the conclusion of factcheck.org.

Well, I mean, yeah, requiring an organization that is using the public air waves to be honest. That's the point.

and using the fairness doctrine to remove dishonesty from said medium isn't abuse...or maybe we shouldn't use the courts to remove dishonesty in banking and Wall St...oh, that's right, free market will correct itself and all that.

(you're right though, I didn't read the complete articles since you posted quotes i just read those, if there's something in there you want me to read specifically, then you should post it also).

So what, please tell, is the mechanism that will remove dishonesty, inbalance, and insure fair reporting of the news?

---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:22 PM ----------

The point is that such a requirement is highly arbitrary

How so?

[Ibelsd]

Well, I mean, yeah, requiring an organization that is using the public air waves to be honest. That's the point.

and using the fairness doctrine to remove dishonesty from said medium isn't abuse...or maybe we shouldn't use the courts to remove dishonesty in banking and Wall St...oh, that's right, free market will correct itself and all that.

(you're right though, I didn't read the complete articles since you posted quotes i just read those, if there's something in there you want me to read specifically, then you should post it also).

So what, please tell, is the mechanism that will remove dishonesty, inbalance, and insure fair reporting of the news?

Let's first acknowledge you absolutely misunderstand the fairness doctrine (F.D.).

The F.D. does not simply ensure honesty. It uses an arbitrary test to also ensure news organizations are fair. I claimed the F.A. was used as a political weapon and supported this by quoting a former Kennedy administration member.

I also claimed that the F.D. would not remove dishonesty, imbalance and replace them with fair reporting of the news. I supported my position by quoting two sources. One was a former FCC chairman under Reagan. The other source was politifact.org. Rather than encouraging balanced reporting, the F.D. would have the effect of silencing opinion as conservative shows would be replaced with non-news/non-current events types of shows (such as music or infomercials).

So, in answer to your question, what will remove instances of dishonesty, imbalance, nor ensure fair reporting of the news, I'd respond with the following points:
1) You have not demonstrated their is a prevalence if dishonest, imbalanced, nor unfair news reporting.
2) Even if there is a problem, it is clear that the F.D. is a poor means to achieve the stated goals for the reasons I offered above.



So, now, you can either stop telling me how I misunderstand the F.D. or you can actually offer rebuttals to my arguments.

[CowboyX]

Let's first acknowledge you absolutely misunderstand the fairness doctrine (F.D.).

I've acknowledged no such thing.

---------- Post added at 12:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 PM ----------

Let's first acknowledge you absolutely misunderstand the fairness doctrine (F.D.).

The F.D. does not simply ensure honesty. It uses an arbitrary test to also ensure news organizations are fair. I claimed the F.A. was used as a political weapon and supported this by quoting a former Kennedy administration member.

What do you mean by "arbitrary"? and I'll add to your support:

"Another former Kennedy staffer, former New York Times reporter Wayne Phillips, said, 'Even more important than the free radio time (1,700 minutes) was the effectiveness of this operation in inhibiting the political activity of these right-wing broadcasts.'52" http://www.mrc.org/special-reports/u...rness-doctrine

That those stations were running political activity under the guise of news proves the need of the F.D. The outcome may have been a political gain, but it was a counter to a prevailing political gain...a weapon against a weapon - that being the improper use of the commons for political gain.

That would be bringing balance to the argument.

---------- Post added at 12:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 PM ----------

I also claimed that the F.D. would not remove dishonesty, imbalance and replace them with fair reporting of the news. I supported my position by quoting two sources. One was a former FCC chairman under Reagan. The other source was politifact.org. Rather than encouraging balanced reporting, the F.D. would have the effect of silencing opinion as conservative shows would be replaced with non-news/non-current events types of shows (such as music or infomercials).

I disagree that conservative journalists are incapable of operating under the fairness doctrine...I'll give Washington Week in Review and The Mclaughlin Reoprt as two good examples.

and opinion is not news, nor does it have to be fair and balanced...as Fox pundits always put it, "Some people say...."

---------- Post added at 12:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 PM ----------

1) You have not demonstrated their is a prevalence if dishonest, imbalanced, nor unfair news reporting.

I argued that sensational reporting is more lucrative than reporting the news. So last night on my home I was listening to Mark Levine opine about net neutrality and how Obama has now "Nationalized the internet, nationalized healthcare, nationalized student loans" (that's a paraphrase but the word he was using was nationalized and he went on for awhile about the list of things now "nationalized". All completely wrong, of course, none of those things have happened and there was no effort to offer any balance.

Do I think Levine is incapable of making a more coherent argument? Of course.

[Ibelsd]

I've acknowledged no such thing.[COLOR=silver]

You probably should. You accused me of confusing the fairness doctrine for the equal time rule. You finally came around in agreeing balance was an important feature of the F.D. but only after I linked to the text which specifically says it. At the very least, I think you owe me an apology for claiming I was wrong.

What do you mean by "arbitrary"? and I'll add to your support:

"Another former Kennedy staffer, former New York Times reporter Wayne Phillips, said, 'Even more important than the free radio time (1,700 minutes) was the effectiveness of this operation in inhibiting the political activity of these right-wing broadcasts.'52" http://www.mrc.org/special-reports/u...rness-doctrine

You want me to define arbitrary? It means there is no certainty from any broadcaster that they are in compliance. This is demonstrated by its use by the Kennedy admin to go after selected media outlets. Enforcement was at the whim of whichever party was in power. This is the very definition of arbitrary.

So, you are celebrating the Kennedy administration for effectively using government regulation to silence the opposition??? All Phillips here is saying is that more important than getting free radio time to voice pro-Kennedy opinion was that they were taking radio time from their opponents. This is not a rebuttal of my point. It is an affirmation.

I read the source you linked and the authors apparently share my point of view. I posted some of the more poignant quotes below.
"The scarcity myth simply doesn't hold water. Nobody can possibly justify re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on the grounds that Americans have limited access to news, or because conservative talk radio, in consequence, is running the country."

"Any examination of the talk radio universe will reveal that liberal voices are very well represented on the airwaves"

"Anybody who wants to hear liberal talk radio can find it on the airwaves or over the Internet."

"Liberal-leaning sources: 182.8 million/month
Conservative-leaning sources: 61.6 million/month"

"'Wait a minute!' you cry. Am I really saying the three liberal-leaning cable news networks, CNN, CNN Headline News and MSNBC, together draw three times as many people as the single conservative-leaning network, Fox News Channel? Doesn't Fox have nine of the 10 highest rated shows?"

That those stations were running political activity under the guise of news proves the need of the F.D. The outcome may have been a political gain, but it was a counter to a prevailing political gain...a weapon against a weapon - that being the improper use of the commons for political gain.

1) Is news apolitical?
2) You have no proof the news in question was flawed. All you can garner is that it wasn't pro-Kennedy.
3) Do you want government deciding what is and is not newsworthy? Do you want government deciding how news should be balanced?

I disagree that conservative journalists are incapable of operating under the fairness doctrine...I'll give Washington Week in Review and The Mclaughlin Reoprt as two good examples.

and opinion is not news, nor does it have to be fair and balanced...as Fox pundits always put it, "Some people say...."

I argued that sensational reporting is more lucrative than reporting the news. So last night on my home I was listening to Mark Levine opine about net neutrality and how Obama has now "Nationalized the internet, nationalized healthcare, nationalized student loans" (that's a paraphrase but the word he was using was nationalized and he went on for awhile about the list of things now "nationalized". All completely wrong, of course, none of those things have happened and there was no effort to offer any balance.

Do I think Levine is incapable of making a more coherent argument? Of course.

1) You can disagree all you want. The experts on this subject disagree with you. I provided support for my argument. Your rebuttal is essentially, uh-uh.
2) I am not interested in Mark Levine's opinion. I was unaware he even claimed to be a news show. Still, what I do not want is government to tell broadcasters how to form their arguments.

Now, back to my points from the previous post. I noted two areas your argument lacked
1) You have not demonstrated a problem exists.
To this you have offered some anecdotal evidence, but your link actually offers an effective rebuttal to your own point. It shows quite clearly their is neither a scarcity of ideas nor an imbalance. All you have shown is that not all the news and views are of equal quality. This, though, is an issue for the consumer.
2) I also claimed the F.D. makes a poor instrument to solve such problems even if they did exist. Your link, once again, supports my conclusion here as you kindly offered a second Kennedy admin official who noted how successful they were in not only forcing their voices over the airwaves, but in reducing the voices of the opposition.

If you have any other links which support my argument, feel free to post them.

[CowboyX]

You probably should. You accused me of confusing the fairness doctrine for the equal time rule. You finally came around in agreeing balance was an important feature of the F.D. but only after I linked to the text which specifically says it. At the very least, I think you owe me an apology for claiming I was wrong.

Balance, yes, that doesn't mean equal time. I've said no such thing.

---------- Post added at 12:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 AM ----------

You want me to define arbitrary? It means there is no certainty from any broadcaster that they are in compliance. This is demonstrated by its use by the Kennedy admin to go after selected media outlets. Enforcement was at the whim of whichever party was in power. This is the very definition of arbitrary.

Ok, so you meant an arbitrary filing of FD complaints, which is a justified concern. I can file arbitrary lawsuits against my neighbors. That doesn't mean the law will be applied arbitrarily. Should we get rid of the court system as well?

---------- Post added at 12:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 AM ----------

So, you are celebrating the Kennedy administration for effectively using government regulation to silence the opposition???

Having not looked at what the filings were I'd be hesitant to celebrate their efforts. Any support to your charge that they silenced the opposition rather than bringing balance to the conversation?

---------- Post added at 12:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 AM ----------

1) Is news apolitical?
2) You have no proof the news in question was flawed. All you can garner is that it wasn't pro-Kennedy.

1) Yes. How it is reported can be political and skewed, but it shouldn't be.

2) You provide no examples of what the Kennedy administration (specifically) did or the outcome, you've provided no proof the news in question was unflawed.

---------- Post added at 12:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 AM ----------

3) Do you want government deciding what is and is not newsworthy? Do you want government deciding how news should be balanced?

First part, that is not what is at debate here.

Second part, yes, the government is us and the airwaves are owned by us. We have a duty to make sure they are being used in our best inyerest.

---------- Post added at 12:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 AM ----------

1) You can disagree all you want. The experts on this subject disagree with you. I provided support for my argument. Your rebuttal is essentially, uh-uh.

So you admit that conservative outlets are unwilling to provide fair and balanced reporting of the news as it is not in their best business interest to do so.

That's my point, there should be a business interest to do so. Reporting of the news is a public interest and a public good.

---------- Post added at 12:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 AM ----------

2) I am not interested in Mark Levine's opinion. I was unaware he even claimed to be a news show. Still, what I do not want is government to tell broadcasters how to form their arguments.

Government tells you what to do numerous times a day, so much so that you don't even notice it nor do the people around you. So many times that the good vastly outweighs any negative consequences.

I don't want anyone telling the journalists how to form their arguments, but there has to be guidelines that everyone is playing by.

---------- Post added at 01:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 AM ----------

1) You have not demonstrated a problem exists.
To this you have offered some anecdotal evidence, but your link actually offers an effective rebuttal to your own point. It shows quite clearly their is neither a scarcity of ideas nor an imbalance. All you have shown is that not all the news and views are of equal quality. This, though, is an issue for the consumer.
2) I also claimed the F.D. makes a poor instrument to solve such problems even if they did exist. Your link, once again, supports my conclusion here as you kindly offered a second Kennedy admin official who noted how successful they were in not only forcing their voices over the airwaves, but in reducing the voices of the opposition.

1) So you admit your lauded free market has no correction for unbalance and unfair reporting. I would agree, it promotes it by its nature.

2) Having not provided any examples of exactly what was decided, your conclusion is a leap. You'll have to support that first in order for me to agree.

[Ibelsd]

Balance, yes, that doesn't mean equal time. I've said no such thing.

Obviously, you won't just admit when you're wrong. That's cool. I'll move on.

Ok, so you meant an arbitrary filing of FD complaints, which is a justified concern. I can file arbitrary lawsuits against my neighbors. That doesn't mean the law will be applied arbitrarily. Should we get rid of the court system as well?

So, you are comparing the relative power of your neighbors with the power of the government? Furthermore, the government, here, is not taking you to court. The government, here, has the power to declare the "offender" as "guilty" without a hearing. You are comparing apples and oranges. You are obfuscating the differences between public and private.

Having not looked at what the filings were I'd be hesitant to celebrate their efforts. Any support to your charge that they silenced the opposition rather than bringing balance to the conversation?

This is exactly what Phillips, YOUR LINK, claimed. You provided the quote. Let's get back to this interesting rebuttal in a second, though.

1) Yes. How it is reported can be political and skewed, but it shouldn't be.

2) You provide no examples of what the Kennedy administration (specifically) did or the outcome, you've provided no proof the news in question was unflawed.

1. Every political report is offered through someone's eyes. The journalist's own ideology and political beliefs not only decides what stories are important, but how those stories are framed. Now, we can argue what should or shouldn't be, but in the real world, that's how it is.
2. I provided the most important detail. The Kennedy administration admitted to and succeeded in silencing the opposition during an election. What more do you need to know?

First part, that is not what is at debate here.

Second part, yes, the government is us and the airwaves are owned by us. We have a duty to make sure they are being used in our best inyerest.

Who is us and what is our best interests? Did the Kennedy administration make sure they are being used in OUR best interests or THEIR best interests.

Nixon also misused the F.D.
"President Richard Nixon instructed his staff to use the doctrine as a whip against those attacking his Vietnam policies."
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...ness_doctrine/

So, now you have two Presidential administrations admitting to using the F.D. for political purposes. So, let's return to your question from above? You have now been confronted by two administrations openly admitting to using the F.D. in order to silence the opposition. At what point would you finally agree that the F.D. is a poor instrument to achieve the goals you desire?

So you admit that conservative outlets are unwilling to provide fair and balanced reporting of the news as it is not in their best business interest to do so.

If that's how you're interpreting the argument and the link, I cannot stop you. That, of course, was not the actual point presented, but why let details like accuracy and reading comprehension get in the way?

That's my point, there should be a business interest to do so. Reporting of the news is a public interest and a public good.

As I have already demonstrated, there is no scarcity of news. You are fabricating a problem which doesn't exist.

Government tells you what to do numerous times a day, so much so that you don't even notice it nor do the people around you. So many times that the good vastly outweighs any negative consequences.

Are you making an argument about what I do and do not notice? Ok, besides the point. Just because the government has powers a,b, and c does not mean we should unconditionally hand them powers x,y, and z. Your argument is nonsensical. The point is I have demonstrated there is no need for the F.D. and, even if the need existed, the F.D. does not work.

I don't want anyone telling the journalists how to form their arguments, but there has to be guidelines that everyone is playing by.

You keep insisting this, but why? Is there a scarcity of news outlets to choose from? If you don't like Mark Levine, is there no one to turn to that has more balanced news? You want to hand over our best interests to the government. Why not simply act in your own best interests and turn the dial? When I hear his voice on the radio, I have no trouble pressing a button to turn to another station. Rather, you'd prefer if he was regulated out of existence. You prefer the government to censor and silence people you dislike. Let's move the dial closer to home. I find Rachel Maddow irritating as all hell and according to politifact.com she is truthful no more than 1/2 the time. Would you be ok with the government censoring her show? How about the entirety of MSNBC? Would you insist that they have someone equally irritating from the right so Maddow's far-left views are "balanced"? Yet, where is the need? We all know if we choose to watch MSNBC we'll get DNC talking points. We all know if we go to Fox News, we'll get a heavily tilted right-wing perspective. How is this a bad thing? With the F.D., as I have clearly shown, neither station would exist.

1) So you admit your lauded free market has no correction for unbalance and unfair reporting. I would agree, it promotes it by its nature.

2) Having not provided any examples of exactly what was decided, your conclusion is a leap. You'll have to support that first in order for me to agree.

The free market is just that... free. The corrections occur naturally as desired by the consumer. Here is the major difference between your perspective and mine. You claim to need government intervention to protect your self-interests. I claim my self-interests are best known and upheld by myself. Really, though, you are claiming to need government to fix a problem which you have yet to demonstrate even exists. There is no scarcity of news and you have not shown otherwise.

In terms of your second point here, I have offered, now, two examples. You are simply unwilling to acknowledge it.

[CowboyX]

Obviously, you won't just admit when you're wrong. That's cool. I'll move on.

As you wish, to be beaten and admit defeat is very big of you.

---------- Post added at 04:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:04 AM ----------

So, you are comparing the relative power of your neighbors with the power of the government? Furthermore, the government, here, is not taking you to court. The government, here, has the power to declare the "offender" as "guilty" without a hearing. You are comparing apples and oranges. You are obfuscating the differences between public and private.

Happens all the time. A zoning board can stop your construction until facts are gathered and a decision is made...you're effectively being punished, deemed guilty. You're saying broadcasters have no means of redress? You'll have to support that.

---------- Post added at 04:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 AM ----------

This is exactly what Phillips, YOUR LINK, claimed. You provided the quote. Let's get back to this interesting rebuttal in a second, though.



1. Every political report is offered through someone's eyes. The journalist's own ideology and political beliefs not only decides what stories are important, but how those stories are framed. Now, we can argue what should or shouldn't be, but in the real world, that's how it is.
2. I provided the most important detail. The Kennedy administration admitted to and succeeded in silencing the opposition during an election. What more do you need to know?

What the opposition was saying and whether or not it was "honest, fair, and equitable"?[challenge][challenge]

---------- Post added at 04:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 AM ----------

Who is us and what is our best interests? Did the Kennedy administration make sure they are being used in OUR best interests or THEIR best interests.

Nixon also misused the F.D.
"President Richard Nixon instructed his staff to use the doctrine as a whip against those attacking his Vietnam policies."
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...ness_doctrine/

So, now you have two Presidential administrations admitting to using the F.D. for political purposes. So, let's return to your question from above? You have now been confronted by two administrations openly admitting to using the F.D. in order to silence the opposition. At what point would you finally agree that the F.D. is a poor instrument to achieve the goals you desire?

Us is us, We the people...and our best interest is to be correctly and accurately informed through a medium we all own collectively. Your own newspaper or magazine, that is yours, say what you like.

Very well, for the sake of moving the argument I'll tentatively admit that the purpose of the use of the FD in these cases was solely for political purposes. Where is your evidence that the decisions against the broadcasters were incorrect or politically skewed? Where's the abuse, the scandal?

For example, say a broadcaster made a politically skewed story (not fair, not balanced) and an opposing side filed a complaint which was upheld. Then said broadcaster decided not to make any more such stories, how is that silencing? How is that not bringing balance and accuracy to news reporting?

---------- Post added at 04:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:44 AM ----------

As I have already demonstrated, there is no scarcity of news. You are fabricating a problem which doesn't exist.

There is a scarcity of frequency and licenses and we can regulate that which is own in common as we see fit and put whatever conditions on those licenses we see fit.

---------- Post added at 05:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 AM ----------

You keep insisting this, but why? Is there a scarcity of news outlets to choose from?

I'm am not, in any way, trying to limit free speech. The operations we do allow to function must be held to some kind of standard...you couldn't have even a football game without rules. I argue that those rules elevate the rest who wish to be taken as seriously as the nightly new once was (still is, to just a lesser degree, in my opinion).

That doesn't mean you still can't have your free speech and say whatever you want, just if you're not playing by the rules you're not going to be taken as seriously. Is a pickup game of ball in the park with a steady as serious as a season NFL game...or even a Friday night high school game? no.

It works very well in academic journals. Does it preclude people from publishing whatever they want? For example, on the internet? no, of course not.

The core of the matter is the weight and legitimacy given to the source.

---------- Post added at 05:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 AM ----------

I'd like to ask that we try to limit the number of replies.

[Ibelsd]

As you wish, to be beaten and admit defeat is very big of you.

Not sure how you interpreted that.... but am not surprised at this point.

Happens all the time. A zoning board can stop your construction until facts are gathered and a decision is made...you're effectively being punished, deemed guilty. You're saying broadcasters have no means of redress? You'll have to support that.

1) Those are not free speech issues. Getting permission for zoning is not equivalent at all. Apples and oranges.
2) Broadcasters were being fined for their speech based on content. Whether they could then appeal is irrelevant. They were presumed guilty and it was up to them to prove they were not.

What the opposition was saying and whether or not it was "honest, fair, and equitable"?

It does not matter what the opposition was saying. We have a two Kennedy officials, on the record, saying they used the FD for political purposes. You concede this later.

Us is us, We the people...and our best interest is to be correctly and accurately informed through a medium we all own collectively. Your own newspaper or magazine, that is yours, say what you like.

Very well, for the sake of moving the argument I'll tentatively admit that the purpose of the use of the FD in these cases was solely for political purposes. Where is your evidence that the decisions against the broadcasters were incorrect or politically skewed? Where's the abuse, the scandal?

You admit the FD was used solely for political purposes. What more needs to be said. You are conceding the point. The fact you don't consider this abuse nor scandal is... perplexing.

For example, say a broadcaster made a politically skewed story (not fair, not balanced) and an opposing side filed a complaint which was upheld. Then said broadcaster decided not to make any more such stories, how is that silencing? How is that not bringing balance and accuracy to news reporting?

Do you know why the first amendment was written and was not the tenth amendment? Do you understand the implications of allowing government to pick and choose what constitutes politically valid speech? We are not discussing zoning laws or clean air laws. We are discussing a fundamental right given to every American from birth. You want the replies cut short. Fine. Let's cut to the chase. I don't want the government picking winners and losers as it relates to speech. You apparently have no problem with this even though the consequences have been clearly laid out for you and even though I have demonstrated how such abuse has occurred in the past. What's more is that the conditions which led to the FD in 1949 do not exist today. Broadcasters are not fighting over limited air space. Unlike 1949, there is no scarcity of broadband. None. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. I don't care if there are Maddows, Hannitys, and Levines on the airwaves. They are practicing their first amendment rights whether I like them or not. I defend their right to free speech whether their preferred party is in power or not. Despite laying out the consequences of the FD, you would still prefer it because of some sort of deranged idealism where you believe life was better when this onerous government regulation existed. The truth is, support of the FD is support of censorship. It is a support for the silencing of voices, a point a have argued and supported. If you disagree, then it is up to you to show how I am wrong. But simply saying, uh-uh does not cut it.

Sadly, it turns out liberal America is liberal as name only (LAMO).