FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts • Hacker News Board

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#121

Post by thaumasiotes » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:33 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #115

thaumasiotes wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People that use this quote to justify censorship must be in two camps. Those that are ignorant of the provenance of the quote and how it was and could be misused, and those that know it and are looking to censor as long as the idea bring censored is disagreeable to their own. I don't follow this entire line of thought. As with your parent comment: >> Before you use "Fire in a theater" argument, please be aware that…

> Is the thought supposed to be "this argument was once used to support a bad thing. THEREFORE, this argument is invalid"? That can't be right. No, the “fire in a crowded theater” thing isn't an argument, it's a claim about the law often used as a premise in other arguments. The problem with that claim is that it's a claim about the application of Constitutional law and limits to free speech in a particular fact patt…

None of your comment makes any sense as a defense of the comments I asked about. They go:

> please be aware that quote comes from a Supreme Court decision basically allowing the government to imprison someone publishing anti-war opinion.

and

> People that use this quote to justify censorship must be in two camps. Those that are ignorant of the provenance of the quote and how it was and could be misused, and those that know it and are looking to censor as long as the idea bring censored is disagreeable to their own.

Nothing about either of those claims would change if Schenck had been written right into the constitution. Schenck would still be a decision allowing the government to imprison someone for sedition, and people using the quote to justify censorship would still tautologously be divisible into those who know the provenance and are looking to justify censorship, and those who don't know the provenance and are looking to justify censorship.

But while both comments would be just as valid in that hypothetical world as they are now, your comment in their defense would be completely wrong. You appear to be defending a point that neither party I responded to was even interested in making. I conclude that those two original comments are worthless, because they have no bearing on anything relevant.

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#122

Post by 794CD01 » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:42 PM UTC

nugi wrote: post #105

chiefalchemist wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are rules, regs & best practices (and licenses) for a slew of trades that are not the fourth leg (i.e., Fourth Estate) of a proper democracy. Electricians, plumbers, hair stylists and such come to mind. And while it does not have to be gov based, why not journalism? Can't these (pardon me) meat-heads police themselves? Aside from news, journalism is another word that needs a proper and widely held definition. A…

I struggle to name a single source that is not Signifigantly biased. But worse than ever, fewer orgs seem to speak with a single editorial voice. One NYT article will be well sourced and informative, and the next will be raving identity-politics hate-fuel without a single citation or fact. Even distinguishing by outfit is outdated. Perhaps I just need to follow more writers, but I worry of creating my own bubble. Its…

If you don't create your own bubble, it means you're in one someone else created for you.

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#123

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:47 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #30

beckler wrote: post #4

The FCC does have the authority to revoke licenses based on content, but it's rare for them to do so. However, this entire situation is ultimately a consequence of revoking the FCC fairness doctrine. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine ) For example, a news station did have their license revoked by taking a strong stance against civil rights, and violated the fairness doctrine. ( https://en.wikipedi…

The fairness doctrine was hardly ever envoked. Attempting to apply it to a situation like this would not be constitutional. The fairness doctrine was found constitutional when it required a rebuttal to a direct personal attack during an era when there were only 3 stations. But this situation is different. It was never applied to a sitation where a network required "must run" content. At best, the fairness doctrine wo…

[deleted]

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#124

Post by Bizarro » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 10:07 PM UTC

It's disturbing the number of people here calling for and defending the need for a Ministry of Truth.

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#125

Post by chiefalchemist » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 10:26 PM UTC

jsgo wrote: post #91

chiefalchemist wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perfect example. He's nothing more than a talking head. He's reading a script off a teleprompter. He's there - and Katie Couric isn't - because he tests well and the rating are strong. That doesn't make him a journalist. Nor does it make what falls from his lips news.

Will have to agree to disagree on that one. And I think he's there and Couric isn't is due to Couric at a certain point trying the Barbara Walters track pivoting into the talk show side of things. But I think him being fairly interchangeable with another journalist is an indicator that his role isn't personality driven like the previously mentioned: he's there to deliver the news and that's essentially it. I think hi…

If you have links to the segments mentioned I'd like to watch. Tia

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#126

Post by chiefalchemist » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 10:36 PM UTC

pnw_hazor wrote: post #106

nugi wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But News is very much commercial speech as well, if not moreso than political.

A news organization maybe a commercial venture, but news is not commercial speech. Advertising, product labels, or advertisement signs are examples of commercial speech.

But. You're in the weeds. They saying "we're news" and they're not. It's 90% editorial.

As for the actual content and their right to say it? It's their right. It's protected. But selling snake oil as a cure for cancer? That's the issue.

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#127

Post by zaroth » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 10:47 PM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #71

zaroth wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, you’re crazy. A “legal definition of news” is exactly what the first amendment is setup to prevent. What I think it’s time for is to demand personal responsibility for critically thinking about what you read or listen to. The state cannot ever be trusted to control what you watch, read, or listen to, full stop. This has only ever ended in disaster, and we’ve known this for centuries. When people who don’t like wh…

Nah. The 1st Amendment does not protect shouting "fire" in a movie theater. As coveted as it might be, the 1st A doesn't give license to a free for all of junk food. There are licensing for plumbers, electricians and hair stylists. __None__ of those are essentials to a healthy democracy. There is also the legal concept of false advertising. If you're saying (objective) "news" and it's (subjective) editorial, then tha…

Yes there are licenses to ensure safety and compliance for plumbers, electricians, and hair stylists. And if I understand what I'm reading, some people here calling for similar "licensing" for anyone who wants to report the "news". While I'm in favor of the former, I am strictly and uncompromisingly against the latter.

Freedom of the press, the freedom to report on the news, opine on the news, and editorialize the news, in my mind is sacrosanct. "Incorrectly" reporting the news is not false advertising, and I would strongly hope that any attempt to license, monitor, or censor any news outlets (no matter how ragtag or unpopular) would be shot down hard by the 1st, barring the well established limits around direct incitement of violence.

Ingredient lists are a public safety measure. People with food allergies eat a mislabeled product and they die. People with an allergy to Fox news can change the channel and listen to CNN if they so choose. There isn't a 1st amendment right to sell someone a product (like a can of soda) and lie to them about what is in it.

I can debate the merits of any article from the New York Times, the Washington Post, or even Breitbart. I can debate how much an article in any of those publications seek to neutrally inform, or seeks to present a specific viewpoint, or seeks to outright persuade its readers of what to think. Reasonable people will disagree emphatically in such a debate.

But no reasonable person can disagree that the can of Coke Zero sitting next to me contains; Carbonated water, caramel color, phosphoric acid, aspartame, potassium benzoate, natural flavors, potassium citrate, acesulfame potassium, and caffeine.

Watch 5 minutes of news coverage of Comey's book on each of the major networks. Now tell me which were news and which were editorial. Spoiler alert: It's a rorschach test. Even objective news is not free of characterization and choice of diction which colors the facts being reported. Newsrooms have editors for a reason. Even the choice of which facts to report and which not is an editorial decision which must be made when reporting the news.

So I submit there can be no news that is entirely free and devoid of editorial. To report on Comey's book, you would have to sit in front of the camera and read it from cover to cover in a monotone voice without inflection or facial tic. And even that itself would be a type of performance art with its own editorial value.

For all the claims that fake news is "killing democracy" or "dangerous to democracy" I think the one thing that truly can kill a democracy is violating the 1st amendment and trying to establish some government censor of newscasts, podcasts, books, or vlogs because you think the message is wrong, misleading, dangerous, offensive, propaganda.

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#128

Post by downandout » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 10:53 PM UTC

IAmEveryone wrote: post #117

downandout wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm...wut? Would you not agree that bias is in the media is a major issue today, and that it may cause a significant percentage of viewers to abandon a given station or website if they see too much of it? Before the 2016 election, I regularly watched CNN and visited its website. Now it’s such a den of partiality and clickbait headlines that I have relegated it to HuffPo status and cannot trust anything I read there,…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

So you’re saying that media is not biased, that in fact all of the people saying that there is a bias are trying to portray a “false balance”? Have you looked at the CNN homepage recently? If you u don’t see bias there, there’s no point in continuing to discuss this with you.

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#129

Post by makomk » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 10:53 PM UTC

IAmEveryone wrote: post #52

downandout wrote: post #43

I don’t get what the issue is here. I have seen this message on my local television stations. What is missing from the YouTube video is an invitation at the end of that message for viewers to contact the station with any concerns about bias in its own reporting. In fact that is the entire point of the script, and it has been cutoff of the YouTube video, presumably because it appears to be more controversial that way.…

Do you really believe Sinclair doesn't have the manpower to watch their own programming to check for any 'biases'? And if you believe they are somehow incapable of noticing biases: how would they adjudicate any complaints they get? That request for comments is either a McGuffin needed to have a reason for the preceding rant slamming all other media outlets. Or it's a ploy to get local stations in line with Sinclair's…

How would that even work? Like, sure they could watch their own programming, but the people watching it would come from essentially the same pool of people, with the same set of shared biases, as those who chose to run the story that way in the first place.

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#130

Post by zaroth » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 11:33 PM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #126

pnw_hazor wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A news organization maybe a commercial venture, but news is not commercial speech. Advertising, product labels, or advertisement signs are examples of commercial speech.

But. You're in the weeds. They saying "we're news" and they're not. It's 90% editorial. As for the actual content and their right to say it? It's their right. It's protected. But selling snake oil as a cure for cancer? That's the issue.

Who is “they”? You mean the New York Times, right?

But in all seriousness, freedom of the press doesn’t imply it has to be purely factual or completely objective. The press is free to analyze, opine, ridicule, and rile their audience however they decide to. And they can even call it “fair and balanced” or tell me it’s “fit to print” if they want to, because these are subjective terms describing their opinion in a field expressly exempt from regulation.

In other words, about as far from selling a fake cure to cancer as you can get.