Freedom of the Press!!!

[gatoraubrey2]

I was simply stating how your point could have been more accurate. That you believe I'm a liberal leads me to believe that you are a blinder-wearing ultra-conservative. How sad for you.

I don't know anything about you. All I know is that your argument earlier was fallacious. I'm not passing judgment on who you are, except that it's clear that I am conservative (though not blinder-wearing or ultra) and you seem to enjoy starting conflict with me.

[Nobunaga]

Interesting how the topic has been so quickly steered off course.

It is sad that nobody seems to give a sh*te that journalism in the US is pretty much a stinkified corpse.

[thegreekdog]

Who are the liberal journalists? Who are the conservative journalists? Where do they operate?

From my perspective, conservative news can be pulled from Fox and drudgereport (although I would argue that the only thing conservative about drudge is the idea that he selects stories that tend to lambast liberals). Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc. are not conservative news shows; they are conservative talk shows.

On the other hand, we have MSNBC, CNN, The Daily Show, the Colbert Report, NPR. I'm not sure if these can be considered "liberal" or not because they are news shows with no explicit message. Everyone knows Fox is a conservative outlet (created, ostensibly, in response to what Murdoch thought was liberal bias in the media). I've said before that most young people that I know get their news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report (or MTV I suppose). While I don't find the Comedy Central shows to be explicitly left-leaning the audiences certainly are and there seem to be more stories lambasting Republicans and the Tea Party movement lately than Democrats.

In any event, media is and has always been supportive of one side or another. I would argue that the journalism of the 19th century was way more biased than it is today. Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure there were two newspapers in every major town, one for each political party back in the 19th century.

[Baron Von PWN]

Who are the liberal journalists? Who are the conservative journalists? Where do they operate?

From my perspective, conservative news can be pulled from Fox and drudgereport (although I would argue that the only thing conservative about drudge is the idea that he selects stories that tend to lambast liberals). Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc. are not conservative news shows; they are conservative talk shows.

On the other hand, we have MSNBC, CNN, The Daily Show, the Colbert Report, NPR. I'm not sure if these can be considered "liberal" or not because they are news shows with no explicit message. Everyone knows Fox is a conservative outlet (created, ostensibly, in response to what Murdoch thought was liberal bias in the media). I've said before that most young people that I know get their news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report (or MTV I suppose). While I don't find the Comedy Central shows to be explicitly left-leaning the audiences certainly are and there seem to be more stories lambasting Republicans and the Tea Party movement lately than Democrats.

In any event, media is and has always been supportive of one side or another. I would argue that the journalism of the 19th century was way more biased than it is today. Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure there were two newspapers in every major town, one for each political party back in the 19th century.

I agree with you Greek. I think the most significant factor which plays against the most obvious and blatant media biases is the widespread availability of mass media. A news channel can't say something which is blatantly false anymore without somebody finding out about it and posting it on the internet for all to see.

*edit* I wouldn't really consider the Colbert report or The daily show to be news. They comment on the news and the way it is reported.
There will always be at the very least a mild bias in any media simply because it is written by a person. They will be interested in different things and will as a result investigate or report different things. By in large Liberals and Conservatives care about different things this will lead to them reporting or investigating different things. Voila media bias.

[thegreekdog]

I look for simple reporting in my news - just "Here's what happened..." If I want a view as to a side's viewpoint, I'll watch The Daily Show or listen to one of the very many political commentators. I really hope and try to foster (among my friends) that people should watch the news and think about issues rather than parrot whatever they hear from Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann.

I know that the Daily Show and the Colbert Report are not news, but that's where a lot of young people get their information. They don't go to CNN.com or listen to NPR, they watch Comedy Central. So their entire viewpoint on national/world issues is colored by those programs. I have a similar beef with MTV, but don't care as much because I don't think anyone watches that horrendous channel anymore.

[King Doctor]

Interesting how the topic has been so quickly steered off course.

It is sad that nobody seems to give a sh*te that journalism in the US is pretty much a stinkified corpse.

This came up before. It's a very interesting point and something which I would like to see an honest debate about.

The problem with the news reporting system in America is that: you've unleashed the free market, which cares about money, into the realm of news reporting, which ought to care about facts. The net result is that you now have a system which, while it represents itself as caring about facts, solely cares about turning a buck. In other words, your news agencies don't care about telling you what's going on, they just care about telling you whichever spun version of what's going on that they think will make you tune in most regularly. Unfortunately, that version usually correlates pretty closely with 'what you want to hear'.


The only way to cure that state of affairs is to either (1) take the profit motivation out of the equation and stop having private companies reporting news, or (2) to create a non-profit driven entity to act as a check and balance, to control the worst excesses of the profit-driven news machines.

Obviously option 1 has a slightly Soviet-era feel to it and probably isn't a good idea. However, when you suggest option 2 to Free Market Fundamentalists then you just get shouted down as a communist; because so far as they are concerned, the only way to get a good result is to use money as an incentive.

[King Doctor]

Fallacy: Tu Quoque

"Your side does it too, so we don't have to listen to you."

Given that Night Strike seemed to think that this was a perfectly acceptable way to carry on in the 'NAACP points out Tea Party attracts a lot of racists' thread, I fail to see why we should suddenly start shedding tears for him now.

Or had you forgotten his chorus of "No! The Tea Party can't be racist, or flawed in any conceivable way, until the NAACP condemns every other racist in the whole world first, including the Black Panthers" in that thread?

Actually, come to think of it, I can't help but notice that you didn't seem to be so concerned about this type of logical fallacy in that thread? Why exactly was that? Could it be that you only actually care about treating arguments fairly when they happen to be ones that you agree with?

[Night Strike]

Interesting how the topic has been so quickly steered off course.

It is sad that nobody seems to give a sh*te that journalism in the US is pretty much a stinkified corpse.

This came up before. It's a very interesting point and something which I would like to see an honest debate about.

The problem with the news reporting system in America is that: you've unleashed the free market, which cares about money, into the realm of news reporting, which ought to care about facts. The net result is that you now have a system which, while it represents itself as caring about facts, solely cares about turning a buck. In other words, your news agencies don't care about telling you what's going on, they just care about telling you whichever spun version of what's going on that they think will make you tune in most regularly. Unfortunately, that version usually correlates pretty closely with 'what you want to hear'.


The only way to cure that state of affairs is to either (1) take the profit motivation out of the equation and stop having private companies reporting news, or (2) to create a non-profit driven entity to act as a check and balance, to control the worst excesses of the profit-driven news machines.

Obviously option 1 has a slightly Soviet-era feel to it and probably isn't a good idea. However, when you suggest option 2 to Free Market Fundamentalists then you just get shouted down as a communist; because so far as they are concerned, the only way to get a good result is to use money as an incentive.

It's a matter of which is the lesser of two evils. Should private entities be responsible in putting out the news, or should the government have a hand in enforcing non-profit entities? Government doing it is not only very dangerous, in the US it's unconstitutional as the government could pick and choose what stories are run. But when private entities do it, you always run the risk of personal views being injected into the news. What's supposed to happen is the media being the "4th Branch of the Government" and being skeptical about everything, especially politicians. Instead, you get journalists actively working to elect preferred candidates rather than questioning everybody. This is a breach of ethics, and one that can really harm the country.

[Woodruff]

Interesting how the topic has been so quickly steered off course.
It is sad that nobody seems to give a sh*te that journalism in the US is pretty much a stinkified corpse.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's that so much as we all recognize that it is. There's not much to argue about on that front.

[PLAYER57832]

Interesting how the topic has been so quickly steered off course.

It is sad that nobody seems to give a sh*te that journalism in the US is pretty much a stinkified corpse.

This came up before. It's a very interesting point and something which I would like to see an honest debate about.

The problem with the news reporting system in America is that: you've unleashed the free market, which cares about money, into the realm of news reporting, which ought to care about facts. The net result is that you now have a system which, while it represents itself as caring about facts, solely cares about turning a buck. In other words, your news agencies don't care about telling you what's going on, they just care about telling you whichever spun version of what's going on that they think will make you tune in most regularly. Unfortunately, that version usually correlates pretty closely with 'what you want to hear'.


The only way to cure that state of affairs is to either (1) take the profit motivation out of the equation and stop having private companies reporting news, or (2) to create a non-profit driven entity to act as a check and balance, to control the worst excesses of the profit-driven news machines.

Obviously option 1 has a slightly Soviet-era feel to it and probably isn't a good idea. However, when you suggest option 2 to Free Market Fundamentalists then you just get shouted down as a communist; because so far as they are concerned, the only way to get a good result is to use money as an incentive.

Actually the founding fathers (forget which ones) had another solution entirely. They pointed out that having even 2 sources was almost as bad as just 1, because it would wind up being an "I say x".."you say y" situation (it's either black or white.. not in between). Their solution was to support the 3 most prominent periodicals (internet, TV were simply no available then and books not in wide enough dispersion/took too long to get out). They did see the necessity of doing this through taxes (of some kind), because if they were not, then it would fundamentally HAVE to be a for profit enterprise. As soon as you bring in profit, then appeasing people, rather than informing and educating, becomes the real goal. (it is a very difficult trick to do both!). So, it had to be supported by taxes, but made utterly independent.

Today, I would say we need more like 5-6, but 3 was the barest minimum put forward back then.

[Snorri1234]

Interesting how the topic has been so quickly steered off course.

It is sad that nobody seems to give a sh*te that journalism in the US is pretty much a stinkified corpse.

This came up before. It's a very interesting point and something which I would like to see an honest debate about.

The problem with the news reporting system in America is that: you've unleashed the free market, which cares about money, into the realm of news reporting, which ought to care about facts. The net result is that you now have a system which, while it represents itself as caring about facts, solely cares about turning a buck. In other words, your news agencies don't care about telling you what's going on, they just care about telling you whichever spun version of what's going on that they think will make you tune in most regularly. Unfortunately, that version usually correlates pretty closely with 'what you want to hear'.

Word. It's not a case of liberals corrupting the news, it's simply all about the money. Kidnapped pretty white girl still not found, more and more murders even though crime-rates are at an all time low, be afraid of burglars, keep being afraid and watch our channel and see more reasons to be afraid.

They don't care about right-wing or left-wing, they care about keeping you glued to the screen and watching whatever latest thing is that should make you afraid.

[King Doctor]

*Sigh*

Ahh yes, here it comes: The uncomprehending voice of the Free Market Fundamentalist.

It's a matter of which is the lesser of two evils. Should private entities be responsible in putting out the news, or should the government have a hand in enforcing non-profit entities? Government doing it is not only very dangerous, in the US it's unconstitutional as the government could pick and choose what stories are run.

Wrong.

In option 2 (non-profit regulator) the Government does not have (1) a direct hand in picking or choosing anything, and (2) its agent would only be responsible for ensuring that all agencies adhered to a code of standards relating to the reporting standards of the stories that they did run. In other words, you'd be free to report about whatever you liked, you just wouldn't be able to selectively edit and omit information to misrepresent it as something else entirely.

But when private entities do it, you always run the risk of personal views being injected into the news.

Wrong again.

When private entities do it, it's absolutely guaranteed that they will inject views into not only the news, but also the viewing public.

Why? Because their motivator is, by definition, profit.

As such, doing anything other than injecting the personal opinions of their target viewing demographic into their coverage becomes completely nonsensical, because the majority of the available human audience doesn't really care about being mentally taxed by detailed and balanced coverage, they just want to hear what they want to hear. It's called Confirmation Bias, and playing to it makes companies big big bucks. Which, in a purely private market model, is all that they will ever do.

What's supposed to happen is the media being the "4th Branch of the Government" and being skeptical about everything, especially politicians. Instead, you get journalists actively working to elect preferred candidates rather than questioning everybody. This is a breach of ethics, and one that can really harm the country.

Which is a hilariously naive idea.

Government is, by its very definition, elected and accountable to the people. Whereas private companies are unelected and accountable only to money. The idea that you could somehow create a useful arm of government by turning over its functions to a gaggle of private companies with motivations that are fundamentally the opposite of a government's is obviously ludicrous.

Indeed, for you to be outraged by their breach of 'ethics' is pretty laughable in and of itself. There is, after all, no magical set of rules that journalists need to adhere to any more than there is for used-car salesmen. Both are sets of private individuals using their Constitution granted freedoms to work for private employers, just doing whatever they can to turn a profit. The very privatisation of their industry is the motivation that causes them to breach the 'ethics' that you wish they had (though only when it benefits your side of the argument). It's the inherent failing of all perfectly capitalist systems; while they may be efficient and profitable, they inevitably end up pandering to the lowest common denominator and are blind to any 'ethics' that they can't exploit in marketing materials.

In conclusion: For you to advocate a fully privatised media, yet moan that they have no ethics is an illogical and dissonant position. The two ideals are in direct opposition with one another (even though you may not have realised it yet) and the only solution to that conflict it to permit some level of non-profit motivated influence into the sector to regulate it.

[Night Strike]

In option 2 (non-profit regulator) the Government does not have (1) a direct hand in picking or choosing anything, and (2) its agent would only be responsible for ensuring that all agencies adhered to a code of standards relating to the reporting standards of the stories that they did run. In other words, you'd be free to report about whatever you liked, you just wouldn't be able to selectively edit and omit information to misrepresent it as something else entirely.

Number 2 is impossible to remain neutral. The people on the government panel would change under every administration, and their interpretations of what's compliant will also change.

Government is, by its very definition, elected and accountable to the people. Whereas private companies are unelected and accountable only to money. The idea that you could somehow create a useful arm of government by turning over its functions to a gaggle of private companies with motivations that are fundamentally the opposite of a government's is obviously ludicrous.

It's impossible for the government to be held accountable when the media doesn't cover them fairly. It's 100% possible for people to hold private media accountable because when they realize the news outlet is feeding them BS, they watch or subscribe to something else. This is why MSNBC has nearly hit rock-bottom and CNN is also on the decline: people don't believe they're fair in their coverage.

On a related note, it's a great thing when private companies have motivations opposite to the government's. When private companies align themselves with the government, we see the massive corruption that has dominated both parties for many years.

[King Doctor]

Number 2 is impossible to remain neutral. The people on the government panel would change under every administration, and their interpretations of what's compliant will also change.

This is the typically naive response of a Free Market Fundamentalist, who can conceive of no system other than the money-driven one that they have been instructed to desire.

Why is it impossible for a properly constituted organisation to remain neutral? Are you saying that your judicial system is, by your own definition, not neutral?

Also, you have jumped the gun immensely by imagining some kind of panel that changes under each 'administration' (who ever said the administration had a hand in selecting it?). Such a system is not the only way forward.

Finally, your quibble about 'definitions' would, if taken to its logical conclusion, allow me to call your (much beloved) constitution worthless; as the very same arguments could be made against it.



Tell me Nighty, why is it that you have a near religious reverence for a constitution (and supporting system) that regulates your Government, but cannot physically conceive of a system that might do the same for your media (or, as you have called it, 'the fourth wing of Government')?

Government is, by its very definition, elected and accountable to the people. Whereas private companies are unelected and accountable only to money. The idea that you could somehow create a useful arm of government by turning over its functions to a gaggle of private companies with motivations that are fundamentally the opposite of a government's is obviously ludicrous.

It's impossible for the government to be held accountable when the media doesn't cover them fairly.

Yet here you are, railing away at the idea of forcing the media to be fair.

You are a very strange man sometimes...

It's 100% possible for people to hold private media accountable because when they realize the news outlet is feeding them BS, they watch or subscribe to something else.

Utter claptrap.

Your error is in assuming that the majority of the viewing public are holding the media accountable in such a way. The fact is, and ridiculous faux-news tosh like Glen Beck is living proof of this, that they aren't. Successful private media, and I realise that this will cause you to turn an alarming colour of rageful puce, such as Fox is proof positive that feeding the public a steady diet of unbalanced 'what you want to hear' turns a pretty profit.

Indeed, one might even go so far as to argue that the reason that CNN is on the decline is proof of the same thing; most of the viewing public would rather watch an easily digestible confirmation-biased station that didn't force them to think too hard, as opposed to watching more in-depth analytical news coverage.

At any rate, the point here is that the idea that consumers seek out objective high quality in a free market is a myth. Fox News is a great example of that myth being exposed in the news market.

On a related note, it's a great thing when private companies have motivations opposite to the government's.

This is poorly reasoned and not always true.

If, for example, you had a Government whose motivation was to increase the wellbeing of its nation's population and private companies whose motivation was to pump them for every dollar possible, regardless of the ethical cost; then that would be a bad thing.

Similarly, you had a Government whose motivation was to advance the cause of, say, white people, at the expense of all others and private companies whose motivation was to pump them for every dollar possible, regardless of the ethical cost; then that would be an even worse thing.

As such, your point is fairly easily refuted. It needs significant re-thinking and increased sophistication before it's going to fly.

[Woodruff]

It's impossible for the government to be held accountable when the media doesn't cover them fairly. It's 100% possible for people to hold private media accountable because when they realize the news outlet is feeding them BS, they watch or subscribe to something else.

The problem with this idea is that THEY ALL ARE BS, so people choose the one they THINK is less BS which essentially just means "the one they already agree with". That's why it isn't working.

[King Doctor]

It's impossible for the government to be held accountable when the media doesn't cover them fairly. It's 100% possible for people to hold private media accountable because when they realize the news outlet is feeding them BS, they watch or subscribe to something else.

The problem with this idea is that THEY ALL ARE BS, so people choose the one they THINK is less BS which essentially just means "the one they already agree with". That's why it isn't working.

Absolutely correct, and delightfully succinctly put.



When all reporting streams are profit driven, all reporting streams churn out equally useless buck-turning rubbish. Hence, the public's supposed ability to chose an alternative, better, provider vanishes. What does that mean? Only that the single force that is supposed to be the check on the system (power of consumer choice) is completely absent from it, giving unscrupulous corporate entities free reign to abuse their position as they see fit.

[thegreekdog]

So we all agree that the US media sucks ass. What's the alternative?

[King Doctor]

So we all agree that the US media sucks ass. What's the alternative?

I've already laid out a couple of options (both of which Night Strike went into fits over, as they didn't involve perfectly free markets in which everybody votes Republican). Obviously one of them is crap, but I think that there's a lot of mileage in the 'independent regulator / enforced constitution' idea.

After all, if you USA USA USA!!! types believe so fervently in an enforced constitution for your Government, then why don't you think that it would work for your media too?

[tzor]

This isn't political people trying to manipulate the media (which is done by every administration since 1787). This is the media manipulating their stories to favor one political side.

Are you truly that naive?

While one might suggest that the Alien and Sedition laws were a bit of an overreaction, media bias was between republicans and federalists was mean, vile, nasty, and blatant.

[tzor]

After all, if you USA USA USA!!! types believe so fervently in an enforced constitution for your Government, then why don't you think that it would work for your media too?

Becasue free speech is considered a fundamental right and the power to restrict a right to a group of people implies the power to restrict that right to the individual. A system of checks and balances is the only logical alternative and thus the only solution to the free press is the free press itself. Eternal vigilance between Fox News and CNN / MSNBC is the price for free speech.

[King Doctor]

Becasue free speech is considered a fundamental right and the power to restrict a right to a group of people implies the power to restrict that right to the individual.

Well, perhaps, if you didn't explicitly state from the outset that these sets of standards applied only to broadcast news institutions.

Also, it's important not to confuse enforcing fair speech with limiting free speech. Nobody is arguing that people shouldn't be free to say exactly what they want, only that they ought to be forced to do so in an honest and accountable fashion.

A system of checks and balances is the only logical alternative and thus the only solution to the free press is the free press itself. Eternal vigilance between Fox News and CNN / MSNBC is the price for free speech.

So, you say you want a system of checks and balances, only to outright reject a system of checks and balances in favour of the quasi-religious belief that everything will be ok if we just leave it all to profit-seeking corporations?

The fact that your national broadcast media is currently dominated by flagrantly partisan organisations which make their living off of peddling unsophisticated and barely accurate garbage is proof that your postulated solution does not work. That's the point. The mythical 'checks and balances' that the pure capitalist system is supposed to provide don't actually exist in fact; that's why we're having this debate in the first place.

[tzor]

Also, it's important not to confuse enforcing fair speech with limiting free speech. Nobody is arguing that people shouldn't be free to say exactly what they want, only that they ought to be forced to do so in an honest and accountable fashion.

And how do you do that? How do you enforce fair speech without limiting speech? The only way to ensure honesty and accountability is a vigilant and diverse group of fact checkers. And in order for them to do their job they need free speech!

[Woodruff]

After all, if you USA USA USA!!! types believe so fervently in an enforced constitution for your Government, then why don't you think that it would work for your media too?

Becasue free speech is considered a fundamental right and the power to restrict a right to a group of people implies the power to restrict that right to the individual. A system of checks and balances is the only logical alternative and thus the only solution to the free press is the free press itself. Eternal vigilance between Fox News and CNN / MSNBC is the price for free speech.

See, I don't think they're mutually exclusive at all. We can still have our for-profit free press itself (Fox/CNN/MSNBC, etc...) while ALSO having a "watchdog press" (for lack of a better term), being that they are the watchdog over our government's actions not the other members of the media.

[Pedronicus]

I don't know enough about the media in America to comment, but 75% of British Newspapers are owned by Rupert Murdoch and they are about as right wing as you can get.

With each thread Nightstrike makes, the more deluded he sounds.

He reached 'Critical' in the deluded stakes about 6 months ago and yet he's still plumbing new depths of irrational bollocks.

[thegreekdog]

So we all agree that the US media sucks ass. What's the alternative?

I've already laid out a couple of options (both of which Night Strike went into fits over, as they didn't involve perfectly free markets in which everybody votes Republican). Obviously one of them is crap, but I think that there's a lot of mileage in the 'independent regulator / enforced constitution' idea.

After all, if you USA USA USA!!! types believe so fervently in an enforced constitution for your Government, then why don't you think that it would work for your media too?

Enforced Constitution?