News Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?

[Townsend]

There should be regulations. News is not entertainment - make the companies know this.

You believe it is ok to regulate the freedom of speech now?

And how will you regulate the news? Do you plan on putting it in the hands of the government? Hummmm...And the neither the president or congress could influence how things are being regulated?

I think the problem with this idea is transparent...

What about Michael Moore's crap? That was suppose to be a documentary which would make it subject to the same regulation as news.

The more government you have the less freedoms you have...the fewer the freedoms the smaller your voice becomes until you cannot be heard at all...

 

[Anttech]

And how will you regulate the news? Do you plan on putting it in the hands of the government? Hummmm...And the neither the president or congress could influence how things are being regulated?

Actually I thought of a system like the BBC, For the People by the people ;-) The BBC is funded with a TV license and has a mandate (and thus is free from corporate presures). The BBC is regulated by an independent body and has to conform to its mandate. If it doesn't its upper management is dissmantled.

However I then thought about this notion, and thought that in your society it wouldn't work, becuase American people seem to actually want to watch Patriotic partisan bull****e.

I have to say, though, that I don't agree with your contention that the media should scrutinize the government.

By scrutinise I mean eerrrrmm scrutinise :-) They should alert the viewers when the government or the opposition is Lieing and make them accountable for there decsisions... Who else will?

 

[Townsend]

However I then thought about this notion, and thought that in your society it wouldn't work, becuase American people seem to actually want to watch Patriotic partisan bull****e.

I cannot stand TV because I feel like commercials are a complete waste of time. I do enjoy a movie but that's totally besides the point...

The point is, yes some people want watch Fox news because of its right leaning views. If you were to put American people in charge you would only risk seeing even more of this than there currently is.

 

[BobG]

Fox is only an example, because it is ridiculously partisan, however to me the media in America is going to be Americas undoing. The Media should scrutinise the government not partner with them, and broadcast propaganda 24/7, and patriotic Red White and Blue bull****e because that is gets the ratings in?

I don't have a problem with partisan news commentary shows, as long as there is a mix available between one or various channels.

An independent agency that rates the intelligence level of a show and assigns a 'news', 'news commentary', 'entertainment', 'mindless drivel' rating would be nice, though (similar to colleges obtaining accreditation from various professional organizations, for example). The two people Fox puts on around lunch time (Mountain time) would qualify as 'mindless drivel' for sure.

Considering Fox's ratings, the key to good news channel ratings seems to be the same as for network TV. Reduce the intelligence level of the shows to a level where people can relax and be entertained at the end of a hard day's work - not stress them out by forcing them to think about complex isssues.

 

[Burnsys]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/060705foxassures.htm

 

[Townsend]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/060705foxassures.htm

That is a perfect example of why Fox news is so great, especially for the liberals. If there were no Fox there would be one less thing for all of you to sit around and complain about...how unfortunate that would be..

 

[chup]

Of course not, Just move it to Comedy central where it belongs.

 

[Yonoz]

Is this another one of those threads where everyone is joking, like the one about that bathroom note?
Don't want to be accused of "stomping heads" again...

 

[2CentsWorth]

Freedom of Speech cannot and should not be regulated, and people have the right to consume what they choose. However, the suit that was lodged against Fox News for the tag line of "fair and balanced news" is right on, because it has to do with false advertisement--everyone knows Fox News is basically state sponsored. Fox News has made incorrect and false reports, and heads should roll as happened with Dan Rather. There needs to be accountability in this way.

 

[TRCSF]

However you may feel about Fox, as far as I know, they don't report anything that is untrue.

Nothing untrue? Well, there is that whole business about being "fair and balanced."

 

[faust9]

Fox NEWS is fairly accurate. Fox OPINION programming(aka low brow entertainment ) is a different story. In either case we should not censor these because they are cable programming AND they should be allowed to have an opinion if they wish. I hate Fox programming but I would never advocate censoring them because I don't like it.

 

[Burnsys]

they do lie.

http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?topic=FOX%20News%20Channel

 

[faust9]

they do lie.

http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?topic=FOX%20News%20Channel

You need to read your link. The discussion within it is about Fox's opinion programming not its news content.

 

[russ_watters]

You believe it is ok to regulate the freedom of speech now?

Great thread.

Yeah, freedom of speech only applies to Democrats.

Shoe: foot.
Shoe: other foot.

 

[Informal Logic]

Great thread.

Yeah, freedom of speech only applies to Democrats.

Shoe: foot.
Shoe: other foot.

Of course you would come away with this interpretation, though no one has advocated this or believes this.

An independent agency that rates the intelligence level of a show and assigns a 'news', 'news commentary', 'entertainment', 'mindless drivel' rating would be nice.

Good suggestion. My concern is the affect Fox has on Americans who cannot make these differentiations.

 

[Burnsys]

Russ do you remember when we was talking about the Memo in fox news?

well i found who write it, the memos are issued by FOX News Senior Vice President and News Editorial John Moody


Here you can see the memos scanned:

http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/foxmemo_040404.pdf

http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/foxmemo_042204.pdf

I like this one:
The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer [sic] and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not "what did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate. Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that (3/23/04).
http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/foxmemo_032304.pdf

Other memos:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002

 

[ron damon]

Yeah, just ban points of view you disagree with.

 

[Art]

Great thread.

Yeah, freedom of speech only applies to Democrats.

Shoe: foot.
Shoe: other foot.

Russ you appear to be suffering from the same siege mentality that is now gripping the Bush administration. Every criticism is a direct attack on 'USA Freedoms' in general and the beloved patriotic GOP in particular.

Nobody is advocating a Democrat version of Fox news. I think you will find most people would simply like impartial news.

It would not be too difficult to establish an independent body to assess a program's news worthiness and then publish this in the form of ratings so at least when people are watching propaganda, right or left, they are aware of it.

I personally believe this would pull programs such as Fox News back to the centre ground as the majority of ordinary people are impartial and given the choice and information about these choices they would choose the unbiased media sources.

 

[ron damon]

you appear to be suffering from the same siege mentality that is now gripping the Leftists. Every measure to fight terrorism is a direct attack on 'USA Freedoms' in general and the beloved civil liberties in particular.

fixed ...

 

[Anttech]

foxed ...

fixed ...

 

[ron damon]

fixed ...

4/5. very clever.

 

[loseyourname]

Nothing untrue? Well, there is that whole business about being "fair and balanced."

Like I said, I don't actually watch much television news, so it's entirely possible that I have no clue what I'm talking about, but the impression I get is that they selectively report things; they don't intentionally make factually inaccurate reports. No doubt the pundits they have on flat out lie from time to time, but that isn't news, it's commentary.

 

[loseyourname]

Ha ha. Okay, I just turned on Fox News to see what all the fuss is about, and the first thing that comes on is an advertisement for a show they have that is hosted by Oliver North. I have to admit that isn't making them look all that good.

 

[Moonbear]

Russ you appear to be suffering from the same siege mentality that is now gripping the Bush administration. Every criticism is a direct attack on 'USA Freedoms' in general and the beloved patriotic GOP in particular.

Well, since the thread is titled "Should Fox News be Banned," that sure sounds like someone is proposing to restrict freedoms to me.

I just discovered with the arrival of my cable TV service that there's an actually Fox News channel, so when folks are talking about Fox news, are you talking about the news on the Fox network channel, or the Fox News (cable) channel? The Fox News channel seems to be reporting pretty much identical stories to what's on CNN, at least in the limited time I've been flipping back and forth watching the two. There's always a bias (or slant) in reporting, even when it's just facts (for example, the facts will usually be presented for the side the reporter is favoring first). Afterall, the news is put out by reporters who are people and have their likes and dislikes and follow whatever stories they prefer to follow; it isn't some computer generated, random selection process. One channel will spin that Bush's visits to hurricane stricken areas are a good thing and another will spin it as a bad thing, but the fact is he was there, you're free to draw a different conclusion from the reporter if you so choose. So, if you don't like a particular type of journalism or a particular news outlet, you have the choice to change the channel or turn off the TV, or not buy the paper, or not go to a particular internet site.

 

[SOS2008]

Currently the majority of broadcast news is about hurricanes so there probably isn't much difference between agencies. Some time ago I posted stats on the number of reports on the missing girl in Aruba. CNN had around 70, MSNBC a little more than 100, and FOX had 400+. This is an example of rating how newsworthy the media is. I'm all for consumer reports that inform the public of what they are buying (or in this case, buying into).

 

[Art]

Well, since the thread is titled "Should Fox News be Banned," that sure sounds like someone is proposing to restrict freedoms to me.

Yes it does. Which is why nobody has responded to say it would be a good thing.

My post was simply expressing my impatience with this comment

Great thread.
Yeah, freedom of speech only applies to Democrats.

Why, yet again, try to turn a thread with potential for useful dialogue into the usual democrat vs GOP pissing contest?

IMO The basic premise that propaganda programs need oversight or labelling in some form or another is worthy of some serious discussion rather than throw-away one liners preceded by lots of little rollies.

Or then again perhaps it is just me who is out of step.

 

[ron damon]

The basic premise that propaganda programs need oversight or labelling in some form or another is worthy of some serious discussion

one human's propaganda is another human's creed; the idea of having an entitity with authority deciding what's true really exemplifies everything that's rotten about the Left.

 

[Informal Logic]

one human's propaganda is another human's creed; the idea of having an entitity with authority deciding what's true really exemplifies everything that's rotten about the Left.

So what would be wrong with ratings that show what percent of news programming consists of news, commentary, or entertainment, and better yet, what would be wrong with the segments being labeled accordingly? Books, movies, etc. are reviewed, critiqued, rated etc., so why not the news?

 

[ron damon]

So what would be wrong with ratings that show what percent of news programming consists of news, commentary, or entertainment, and better yet, what would be wrong with the segments being labeled accordingly? Books, movies, etc. are reviewed, critiqued, rated etc., so why not the news?

Then start a http://lyinginponds.com/ that does such things, and wait for people to voluntarily check it out; what scares me is the notion of having some agency determining what's true (and the colossal arrogance of those who simply dismiss others as vehicles of propaganda, a word that if it is to have any meaning whatsoever, should be used in extreme scarcity).

 

[Manchot]

However you may feel about Fox, as far as I know, they don't report anything that is untrue.

What about all of those times when they reported that WMDs have possibly been found in Iraq, only to retract the statement later on? Though the retractions may have been mentioned once, this does not change the fact that the big words on the front of the screen said "WMDS FOUND IN IRAQ?" for long periods of time. I believe that they are responsible for many peoples' deluded belief that there were WMDs in Iraq, or that Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda.