"This is extremely dangerous to our democracy."[1]
FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts
81–90 of 146 posts
Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Must not intentionally report false information as truth." Thus, lawsuites would be allowed if your org was found to be intentionally lying. But unless someone can prove you did it intentionally, they have no case. Obviously you can lie all you want if you take the word "News" out of your name.
Willful ignorance offers a pretty big loophole to that definition. If you don't fact check information, nobody can say you know it's false.
Yes. Perfect actually. Then if you don't fact check it can't be presented as news.
I think also we could apply the (legal) concept of "reasonable and customary." If say the rest of the (media) industry reported X, Y and Z and you only did Y then that's not reasonable and customary.
No doubt there's grey area. But as it is, we're living in a "brown area" if you know what I mean ;)
Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts
#83I 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.…
I think the problem here is that if Sinclair can coerce these news organizations, what else can Sinclair coerce them to say? What if they were told to say something blatantly false, or to endorse one person over another. It's also not made clear at all in these broadcasts that they're being made to read from a script, which is a perfect recipe for astroturfing[1].
Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts
#84The 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…
>The fairness doctrine was hardly ever envoked.
I (a layperson) don't really follow this. It sounds to me like "while the rules were in effect, they were rarely broken".
>an era when there were only 3 stations. But this situation is different.
Lots of station numbers, run by just a handful of owners:
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-televis...
Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts
#85Call me crazy but it's time for a legal definition of news (vs editorial) and then have that definition forced. If false advertising is a faux pas then news that's not attempting to be objective and forthright should be labeled. Most of the so called news / journalism isn't news / journalism any more than Aspartame is sugar. If you can't call Aspartame sugar then consuming content should be forced to be as transparen…
> Most of the so called news / journalism isn't news / journalism any more than Aspartame is sugar.
News was never news. It was actually branding by the news industry in the 20th century that duped everyone into thinking that news was objective. If you are interested, go look at what newspapers were in the 1800s. They were propaganda outfits created by wealthy individuals to push agenda. The oldest newspaper in the US ( NY Post ) was a propaganda organization created by Madison to attack Thomas Jefferson and his agrarian ideals. The highest prize in journalism is the pulitzer prize which is named for the founder of yellow journalism.
I think we are better off removing the lie that news is objective and go back to the truth. News is propaganda. I think it'll be healthy for the nation to accept reality rather than blindly accepting an idealized falsehood.
> Call me crazy but it's time for a legal definition of news (vs editorial) and then have that definition forced.
How? That's an impossibility. For example, when CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, WaPo write favorable anti-2nd amendment "news" articles and Foxnews write favorable pro-2nd amendment "news" articles, how are you going to define objectivity?
Are we going to have biased government officials deciding what objective news is? Do you trust obama or trump to decide what is biased and what isn't biased? I certainly don't.
I think all news should contain labeling informing the public that these organizations are all propaganda organizations with heavy biases and let the public consume as they see fit. Just like with cigarettes, alcohol, soda, etc.
I certainly don't want government deciding what is objective.
Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts
#86Call me crazy but it's time for a legal definition of news (vs editorial) and then have that definition forced. If false advertising is a faux pas then news that's not attempting to be objective and forthright should be labeled. Most of the so called news / journalism isn't news / journalism any more than Aspartame is sugar. If you can't call Aspartame sugar then consuming content should be forced to be as transparen…
I think most news is pretty much useless without any kind of analysis, and that analysis is effectively editorial. If I tell you a vote in congress passed, that doesn't really tell me much without saying whether the vote was expected to pass or not, or why, or what the vote passing means, etc. And that's all opinion. Even if you try to present it factually it's all judgement.
I hear you, but do you remember CNN Headline News when it started? It was perfect with no analysis needed.
You got facts ... the who, what when, where. No analysis, no spin, no entertainment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGJh8VnHZGw
If someone were to do this today in print, audio or video, I would gladly pay $50 a month. Information only with no opinion or analysis.
Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
True. But it can still be presented as what it is, an opinion. "It is the opinion of this reporter..." or "Based on what we know and the current facts..." Etc. Better still, "What we don't know is..." The gaps in the analysis are never pointed out. Yes, that makes it opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but then it's not analysis, and certainly not transparent in the journalism sense of the word. The problem is, stuff w…
I don't know if perhaps we are better off declaring bankruptcy and taking a worse-is-better approach here and not even having the pretence of unbiased media, because maybe it's not possible. In the UK newspapers basically publicly declare their bias and everyone knows so you make sure you read a left-biased paper as well as a right-biased one. I don't know if the wire services manage to be completely unbiased?
It's a start. My rub isn't news or editorial per se, but how they are not the same thing. Yet are so often not at all differentiated.
What some thinks (editorial) is not the same as facts, based on investigation.
Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is the safe thing to do with that regulations that to try to find truth of substantive claims, but instead tomjudt uncritically relay sourced rumor: it's very easily to be completely factual if everything you report is “So and so says that...” regurgitating official statements from interested parties without attempting to validate the claims the originator is making.
How about we start with the over-use of "leaked"? For example the new James Comey book was not "leaked." What happened was, the publicist kicked off the marketing campaign and MSM feeding frenzy and hyping begins. The part about the book's author being sacked by the guy he's critiquing is never mentioned. A real journalist would not use the worded "leaked" as that's not only entirely misleading, it's a lie. Stating t…
> The part about the book's author being sacked by the guy he's critiquing is never mentioned.
I've yet to see any news piece on Comey, whether or not the context involved his book, since the firing not mention the firing, and, since the appointment of Mueller, also mention that the firing is widely perceived as instrumental in leasing to the Special Counsel being appointed.
The idea that the coverage of the book never mentions the firing is laughable.
Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts
#89I 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.…
I think the problem here is that if Sinclair can coerce these news organizations, what else can Sinclair coerce them to say? What if they were told to say something blatantly false, or to endorse one person over another. It's also not made clear at all in these broadcasts that they're being made to read from a script, which is a perfect recipe for astroturfing[1]. [1] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Astroturfing
If I own a station, I’m not “coercing” it when I tell that station that it is our corporate policy to advise viewers of certain features that our channel offers. In this case, they wanted to make sure that viewers understand that there is a specific way to contact the station to complain about any bias they feel the station’s own news reports may have, as this has been an issue with the media recently. I see nothing wrong with that, and in fact I think it’s a positive thing. I have to say that I feel better about and more trusting of the local station I have seen that message on than I do about other local news stations, specifically because they have recognized this significant issue and are attempting to address it.
Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts
#90Earlier 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…
Before you use "Fire in a theater" argument, please be aware that quote comes from a Supreme Court decision basically allowing the government to imprison someone publishing anti-war opinion.
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...