U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[m52nickerson]

The NY Times has been in lockstep with the Obama Campaign since the primaries. I'm sorry, I just don't see that they would do the hatchet job on pill-popping Cindy the Homewrecker without at least tacit approval from Obama's communication director. I just don't believe it. I really, to the depths of my core, believe that the Obama campaign vetted that story before it ran.

I've calmed down some, but I haven't backed off my thinking. I knew that McCain had some slimers working for him, and it's why I was leaning towards Obama in the first place. Now that I see Obama's seeing McCain's personal attacks, and raising him with a personal attack on McCain's wife, well, let's just say any considerations I had for exploring the other side of the street just went right out the window.

You can call me a kook and a fruitbat all you want, you're not going to change my mind. That was payback straight from Obama's camp for all the Bill Ayers associations.

If you're really being honest and you don't think Obama had anything to do with this story... ask yourself, why would the NY Times run something like that in the first place? They whored themselves, they've cost themselves a lot on the credibility scale, and you're going to tell me that they did it out of the goodness of their hearts? No. This is about Obama taking religious-right voters away from McCain, and punching McCain's wife at the same time.

You know, you add up Hillary, Sarah Palin and now Cindy McCain... Obama really seems to have some issues with respect for women, doesn't he?

The times is a publication run by people who have a more liberal view. Of course they are going to be harder on the McCain campaign. It not like people hear have been playing nice, but none of us are on a campaign payroll. Obama is not calling the shots at the times no more then McCain is calling the shots for the conservatives here.

[Koga No Goshi]

Further, the ridiculousness of it is shown unintentionally in your post. You mention 'both perspectives' of an issue, as though there are only two sides to each debate.

EDIT: Palin is more accessible to the media than Biden or Obama, says CBS.

CR

You exhaust a lot of breath talking about media bias or sources being in the tank for Obama and the Democrats. So what, exactly, do you want?

The Fairness Doctrine is not "government control" over media in any sense other than baseline regulation back when news was considered an important fixture for democracy (informed electorate and all that.) It was even run in the red as a public service with various subsidies back in the 40's and 50's.

Giving equivalent coverage of different perspectives on a given issue is just a rule that any serious professional journalist should be doing anyway, regulatory doctrine or not. The fact that so many private for-profit news corporations have emerged and dominate the air waves with so called "news" is the only reason this is even coming up as a point of discussion. But you make it sound like it's just liberals saying, "MU HA HA HA HA! We shall control government and then CONTROL YOUR NEWS!"

If news needs to be "forced" to give more than one partisan perspective on an issue, it isn't news anyway. Even if the Fairness Doctrine returned it wouldn't even affect serious news journalism or shows like Larry King which already routinely give equal airtime to differing viewpoints on a given controversial issue. It would, however, affect jokes like Fox, who demonstrably give many more slots to conservative viewpoints across the board. I can't say I'd lose sleep over that.

[m52nickerson]

But the leftists in congress want it back.

Yes they do. I don't like it.

.....just a note Obama was asked about it and he does not support it.

[Koga No Goshi]

Woman punched in face while canvassing for Obama.

Apparently when she got home after the incident Obama had already left her a voicemail message saying that he felt terrible this happened while she was working for his campaign.

[Strike For The South]

Woman punched in face while canvassing for Obama.

Apparently when she got home after the incident Obama had already left her a voicemail message saying that he felt terrible this happened while she was working for his campaign.

I shouldn't but I find that story hilarious. Just imagine you're out campaigning and BOOM HEAD SHOT

[Crazed Rabbit]

Woman punched in face while canvassing for Obama.

Apparently when she got home after the incident Obama had already left her a voicemail message saying that he felt terrible this happened while she was working for his campaign.

No news source? It's not like there'd be a lack of them if this happened.

The Fairness Doctrine is not "government control" over media in any sense other than baseline regulation

And that's government control over what citizens can say on TV and the radio. It's not a 'baseline regulation' about something like broadcast frequencies, it is dictating what private news entities must say.

How you can engage in any kind of defense of this is baffling. Who do you think is going to decide what are 'both' - not all- sides of an issue are? The government, of course - the government would decide what stances on a political issue should be. The reason the lefties in Congress want it is so they can use it as a cudgel to hammer ideological opponents.

And it turns out that's why you don't care. Your left leaning mainstream media will be unaffected, while:

It would, however, affect jokes like Fox, who demonstrably give many more slots to conservative viewpoints across the board. I can't say I'd lose sleep over that.

I can hardly describe the appalling sentiment behind that remark. You're saying it's alright if the government exerts control over what a private news firm broadcasts for purposes of ideological balance, decided by the government, because you don't like that news firm.

That is a disturbing undermining of the principles of democracy and a free press. What happened to Voltaires cry for defending free speech? No, you want the government to decide on issues of the press - how can the press be free at all if the government decides what they have to say about political issues?

You are selling out the constitution and liberty for a partisan gain. For shame.

CR

[Xiahou]

EDIT: Palin is more accessible to the media than Biden or Obama, says CBS.

CR

That's interesting, and certainly a lot different from the current action line you hear everywhere. We always knew, even if it was somewhat hypocritically unreported, that Obama has been bad about keeping his press corps in the dark and making himself available to them. Instead, all we hear about is Palin hiding from the media.

[Koga No Goshi]

No news source? It's not like there'd be a lack of them if this happened.

Oh yes, I just made it up. My bad, forgot to mention that.

And that's government control over what citizens can say on TV and the radio. It's not a 'baseline regulation' about something like broadcast frequencies, it is dictating what private news entities must say.

No, it merely calls for journalism to be journalism. Including all available information and not merely stumping an opinion piece is practically the first rule of journalism. And we're talking about a different time frame were news was NOT almost wholly privatized and run for-profit and entertainment and selling ad spots and being controversial and sensationalist. If you want "news entertainment" and put Daily Show into the same category as Keith Olbermann and Fox News, that's fine. But don't look for tax subsidies for it under the guise that you are a professional, objective news provider.

How you can engage in any kind of defense of this is baffling. Who do you think is going to decide what are 'both' - not all- sides of an issue are? The government, of course - the government would decide what stances on a political issue should be. The reason the lefties in Congress want it is so they can use it as a cudgel to hammer ideological opponents.

You're running off on your own little self-deluded crusade. I did not propose nor suggest we should have the Fairness Doctrine back per se. But I think that private for-profit news entertainment should not be the only available televised source of news. Perhaps some form of subsidized public journalism which has no profit incentive to replace world politics stories with Britney Spears stories would be a start. But then smallminded people like yourself who see things only in terms of whose partisan agenda something helps would probably lump it in with PBS and say it was nothing more than a "liberal pet project."

And it turns out that's why you don't care. Your left leaning mainstream media will be unaffected, while:

Objective, professionally journalistic media would be unaffected by a Fairness Doctrine or anything similar.

I can hardly describe the appalling sentiment behind that remark. You're saying it's alright if the government exerts control over what a private news firm broadcasts for purposes of ideological balance, decided by the government, because you don't like that news firm.

Since you are incapable of reading allow me to reiterate it for you once again. News media used to be treated as a public service, provided at a loss, and subsidized by tax dollars as a service like education or firefighting or emergency broadcast networks. It was viewed as something crucial to maintaining a functional democracy. Talking about the fairness doctrine back in the 50's or 60's and then screeching like a wounded water buffalo that liberals are out to force Democratic talking points into your precious private news-entertainment syndicates are apples and oranges. But, it doesn't seem like you want to have an informed discussion on the topic of the Fairness Doctrine. It seems like you want to rant and screech scare tactics about it and misrepresent it.

That is a disturbing undermining of the principles of democracy and a free press. What happened to Voltaires cry for defending free speech? No, you want the government to decide on issues of the press - how can the press be free at all if the government decides what they have to say about political issues?

You are selling out the constitution and liberty for a partisan gain. For shame.

CR

Now this is truly getting melodramatic. All that's missing is wearing a phantom of the opera mask.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh yes, I just made it up. My bad, forgot to mention that.

I'm sorry, but one blog post with no evidence shouldn't be enough to launch another attack against republicans. Sadly it is for the media.

No, it merely calls for journalism to be journalism.

As defined by the government. And enforced by politicians, appointees, and bureaucrats.

News media used to be treated as a public service, provided at a loss, and subsidized by tax dollars as a service like education or firefighting or emergency broadcast networks.

No, it shouldn't. You should let the people decide what they want to watch.

Objective, professionally journalistic media

Again, as defined by the government. Do you define the NYT as objective?

Do you really think whatever board is created to enforce this will be wise and just as Solomon and be alone among mankind in searching for true justice?

There are so many biter arguments among us in regards to what news source is fair, how can you want to give the government the power to decide which media is being "objective"?

It seems like you want to rant and screech scare tactics about it and misrepresent it.

Scare tactics? I call it for what it is, while you whitewash it and think the government will be more objective than any person in history. Or you think your favorite media won't be harmed while all those conservative outlets will be shut down, which is the real goal of this doctrine for the lefties in power.

And you know what, people should be able to get partisan news if they want to. Having the government dictate what news should be like is unconstitutional, and people like you who don't care because it fits with your ideology are one reason we lose freedoms in this country; people don't care if others lose freedoms.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm sorry, but one blog post with no evidence shouldn't be enough to launch another attack against republicans. Sadly it is for the media.

It only just happened today and I heard it on the radio. http://www.wisn.com/politics/17754232/detail.html Although yes, I agree with you, if this had been some little pro-McCain church lady, we would have heard of nothing else, all day long.

As defined by the government. And enforced by politicians, appointees, and bureaucrats.

As opposed to objectivity and journalistic standards being enforced by editors and shareholders of Fox News Corp or MSNBC. I can see why you feel this would be a crisis. Queue me running around with my hair on fire.

No, it shouldn't. You should let the people decide what they want to watch.

This is exactly what I meant when I said you're screeching and using scare tactics. Exactly how would a regulation about equal air time in professional news "dictate" what people are allowed to watch? Even if such a regulation existed Fox and similar outlets would have to identify themselves as entertainment along the same ilk as the Daily Show which is where it belongs anyhow.

Again, as defined by the government. Do you define the NYT as objective?

Are we talking about the same NYT that carried the article that pretty much launched the Iraq War? And the same NYT that failed, along with all other mainstream news media in the country, to do anything but cheerlead for the war until it was too late and stopping and realizing they'd failed in any sort of journalistic duty to question, research, and report on the facts (for which they apologized after the fact) came way too late to add to any informed decisionmaking about our foreign policy? Hell in 2004 people were still saying Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Cheney was still sneaking out of his bunker and occasionally saying it even at the same time Bush was begrudgingly eating crow.

Do you really think whatever board is created to enforce this will be wise and just as Solomon and be alone among mankind in searching for true justice?

Wow, we're getting Biblical over this issue?

There are so many biter arguments among us in regards to what news source is fair, how can you want to give the government the power to decide which media is being "objective"?

This partisan skepticism that "anything saying something that doesn't help my side is probably just biased" has been created by the privatization of the news media and the elimination of any form of equal time regulation. People just stay insulated with news geared for someone already of their particular political habits or worldviews, and stay so insulated from any objective presentation of all facts together that they dismiss anything out of their comfort zone as spin from the enemy camp. The free & fair private news entertainment industry you are way off on a crusade defending has created this situation, not cured it.

Scare tactics? I call it for what it is, while you whitewash it and think the government will be more objective than any person in history. Or you think your favorite media won't be harmed while all those conservative outlets will be shut down, which is the real goal of this doctrine for the lefties in power.

I made any such claim? I think that for a lot of networks laughably calling themselves "news", you couldn't possibly make their jounalistic quality any worse even if you tried. Having any form of formal or informal expectation that a journalistic agency calling itself a news provider would strive to do its own journalistic duty to include all facts rather than pre-fixing a style or slant calculated to resonate best with a target market because you are a for-profit business and trying to sell ad space would be an improvement. Or are you arguing that "Obama, Osama: Coincidence? Next up, Britney Spears pregnant again" has been a big step up in our journalistic quality?

And you know what, people should be able to get partisan news if they want to.

We get down to the real truth of the matter. If people want to watch partisan b.s. that's fine. It should be clearly categorized as editorialism or entertainment or opinion/commentary segments. Not seamlessly blended in with other segments under a big banner of FOX NEWS: FAIR AND BALANCED.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm sorry, but one blog post with no evidence shouldn't be enough to launch another attack against republicans. Sadly it is for the media.

That kind of thing has happened plenty of times.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It only just happened today and I heard it on the radio. http://www.wisn.com/politics/17754232/detail.html

Well there ya go. The guy who attacked sounds like a real nut,

As opposed to objectivity and journalistic standards being enforced by editors and shareholders of Fox News Corp or MSNBC. I can see why you feel this would be a crisis. Queue me running around with my hair on fire.

No, not opposed to that. Fox News and MSNBC don't have the power to set standards for any other company in the news business.

This is exactly what I meant when I said you're screeching and using scare tactics. Exactly how would a regulation about equal air time in professional news "dictate" what people are allowed to watch? Even if such a regulation existed Fox and similar outlets would have to identify themselves as entertainment along the same ilk as the Daily Show which is where it belongs anyhow.

Government shouldn't try to set up public news stations, what companies succeed should depend on what people watch. This doctrine takes freedom away from the press.

Are we talking about the same NYT blah blah blah

Can you answer the question?

Wow, we're getting Biblical over this issue?

Can you answer the question?

This partisan skepticism that "anything saying something that doesn't help my side is probably just biased" has been created by the privatization of the news media and the elimination of any form of equal time regulation. People just stay insulated with news geared for someone already of their particular political habits or worldviews, and stay so insulated from any objective presentation of all facts together that they dismiss anything out of their comfort zone as spin from the enemy camp. The free & fair private news entertainment industry you are way off on a crusade defending has created this situation, not cured it.

No it hasn't. The press didn't sink to new levels because the benevolent and wise government was no longer was there.

I made any such claim? I think that for a lot of networks laughably calling themselves "news", you couldn't possibly make their jounalistic quality any worse even if you tried. Having any form of formal or informal expectation that a journalistic agency calling itself a news provider would strive to do its own journalistic duty to include all facts rather than pre-fixing a style or slant calculated to resonate best with a target market because you are a for-profit business and trying to sell ad space would be an improvement.

Government should not try to enforce such standards.

Or are you arguing that "Obama, Osama: Coincidence? Next up, Britney Spears pregnant again" has been a big step up in our journalistic quality?

No, it's about the same as 100 years ago.

We get down to the real truth of the matter. If people want to watch partisan b.s. that's fine. It should be clearly categorized as editorialism or entertainment or opinion/commentary segments. Not seamlessly blended in with other segments under a big banner of FOX NEWS: FAIR AND BALANCED.

If you don't like it, don't watch it. Stop trying to force your opinions on others using the government as a cudgel.

That's the heart of the matter; leftists angry at conservative news want to force them to call themselves biased, change their ways, or be fined by the government. It's called a 'chilling effect'.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

Well there ya go. The guy who attacked sounds like a real nut

If we reversed the parties on this story I expect you'd have a rather more biting remark to make about it.

No, not opposed to that. Fox News and MSNBC don't have the power to set standards for any other company in the news business.

No but nearly all media in the U.S. is ultimately privately owned by roughly six people. So the argument that something along the lines of an equal time regulation would result in dictatorial tyranny by the few over overall journalistic standards or perspectives is ridiculous. All private news networks already have a master other than journalism: what sells. Controversy, scandal and sensationalism.

Government shouldn't try to set up public news stations, what companies succeed should depend on what people watch. This doctrine takes freedom away from the press.

I disagree. Any professionally trained journalist with an education in journalism should treat including all facts as a reflexive part of the job. Not as some controlling imposition from the government. In other words, real news networks should be doing this anyway. And if they're not, they have no business calling themselves news.

Can you answer the question?

My answer to the question would be the same as virtually every major news media provider out there. No, it's not objective. But that's not some vindication of a Republican persecution complex because of the New York Times. The media is not objective nor even journalistic much of the time because it is not required to be. It is not, in fact, required to do anything other than attract viewers. If the news strictly stuck to reporting the news it would have a hard time attracting mass audiences and selling multi million dollar ad spaces. But to say the solution to that is throw in celebrity gossip and whatever irrelevant scandals or dirty gossip stories people get excited hearing, but have no national news value whatsoever, is cynical.

Can you answer the question?

Already answered it. An equal time regulation would call for news agencies to do nothing other than what they should be doing in the first place, and the more reliable ones do. If objective or aggregate or bipartisan organizations akin to something like Factcheck, which already exist and which already cover issues of media slant and grand totals of positive vs. negative statements, positive vs. negative representation of specific issues or viewpoints or agendas, actually had a voice in how well rated or weightily received various news organizations were by the public, that would be a good thing. Not a bad thing. You act like the Fairness Doctrine was a government gulag. When I think of some of the things possible under equal time reporting I recall things like the calm discussion in news interviews with figures even like the controversial Malcolm X, who had a chance to address or discuss in real-time people criticizing him or opposing integration. And I wonder if that would ever fly today, or if a lot of news agencies would just call him a Muslim terrorist and loop the same 5 second clip of him saying something that scared a lot of white people over and over for 4 months and let that stand as the "news record" of his viewpoint.

No it hasn't. The press didn't sink to new levels because the benevolent and wise government was no longer was there.

You're right, it sank to new lows because instead of being held to any sort of journalistic standard it is now held only to the profit and sales motive. And with predictably crass results.

Government should not try to enforce such standards.

That is one opinion.

No, it's about the same as 100 years ago.

Disagreed, see above.

If you don't like it, don't watch it. Stop trying to force your opinions on others using the government as a cudgel.

Okay so news doesn't actually need to be news. It can lie and misrepresent or overreport and underreport things to fit a certain ideological mindset and that's okay, because if you don't like it, you can just tune out and tune into a station with the opposite slant. That is good for an informed electorate and for democracy and for the voters. (That is, by the way, the purpose the news should serve in a functional democracy, and why it is granted freedom of the press.)

That's the heart of the matter; leftists angry at conservative news want to force them to call themselves biased, change their ways, or be fined by the government. It's called a 'chilling effect'.

CR

The fact that you even ACKNOWLEDGE that there is "conservative news" out there, and that it is not admitting that it is at all slanted, has proven my point much better than anything else I can think to say on the matter.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Any chance that we could get Koga v CR for President? At least this debate has some energy to it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

O'Reilly just said that Fox was a traditional Conservative leaning network that has liberals on air constantly. I agree with that quick summary.

Link

Maybe this was on at 8 as well and that's why you are talking about it. I just heard it now and thought I'd share.

[Koga No Goshi]

O'Reilly just said that Fox was a traditional Conservative leaning network that has liberals on air constantly. I agree with that quick summary.

I would agree with that shockingly near-reality statement from O'Reilly. But I think the fact that the electorate is basically divided based on "what slant of media they like", and from which slant of media they draw much of their evidence and worldview, is evidence of a dysfunctional state of news media. Not a desirable condition.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I would agree with that shockingly near-reality statement from O'Reilly. But I think the fact that the electorate is basically divided based on "what slant of media they like", and from which slant of media they draw much of their evidence and worldview, is evidence of a dysfunctional state of news media. Not a desirable condition.

I don't get the vibe that O'Reilly loves McCain.

Would you rather a Shep Smith or a Keith Olberman as a main anchor?
Who do you think is a fair and balanced anchor? Matthews?

The Fox shows that are clearly biased in this election are Fox and Friends and Brit Hume's special report. I don't detect that O'Reilly has a horse in this election And Hannity is just a loud mouth while Colmes makes more decent points than people give him credit for. The other shows lean right, but I don't feel that they are anymore partisan or seething than I find Blitzer or Cooper on the other side.

CNN has some decent anchors, even though they all give off a New York Times vibe and are easily frustrated with conservatives. I like TJ Holmes as the exception. Dobbs and Cafferty are just as utterly insane as O'Reilly, but I like O'Reilly better.

MSNBC takes partisan reporting to another level by any standard. I think they make Fox look fair and balanced - which is a feet.



Also - serious news junkies have moved online. I read balanced news on a regular basis. I watch Fox for kicks because Fox and Friends is hilarious and exhibits many of the frustrations that I feel with the election. I don't like when they try to hammer the little topics as election changing, though -too much wishful thinking.

[Koga No Goshi]

I don't get the vibe that O'Reilly loves McCain.

Would you rather a Shep Smith or a Keith Olberman as a main anchor?
Who do you think is a fair and balanced anchor? Matthews?

The Fox shows that are clearly biased in this election are Fox and Friends and Brit Hume's special report. I don't detect that O'Reilly has a horse in this election And Hannity is just a loud mouth while Colmes makes more decent points than people give him credit for. The other shows lean right, but I don't feel that they are anymore partisan or seething than I find Blitzer or Cooper on the other side.

CNN has some decent anchors, even though they all give off a New York Times vibe and are easily frustrated with conservatives. I like TJ Holmes as the exception. Dobbs and Cafferty are just as utterly insane as O'Reilly, but I like O'Reilly better.

MSNBC takes partisan reporting to another level by any standard. I think they make Fox look fair and balanced - which is a feet.



Also - serious news junkies have moved online. I read balanced news on a regular basis. I watch Fox for kicks because Fox and Friends is hilarious and exhibits many of the frustrations that I feel with the election. I don't like when they try to hammer the little topics as election changing, though -too much wishful thinking.

Andersen Cooper would come to mind. Basically if you have to try to sniff around and figure out how someone votes, they are doing a good job as a journalist. (The same applies to reading ruling opinions by judges, another job which requires objectivity and professionalism to function properly.) Not liking Bush or McCain specifically doesn't exactly land you immediate objectivity status if you spend 95% of your time on the air ranting for one specific ideological agenda.

Agreed that serious news junkies have moved on. I'm just in shock that someone thinks there's such a sanctity to mainstream U.S. news that something like a basic standard of journalistic integrity would be viewed as a devastatingly crushing blow to freedom of the press and the news in the U.S. You couldn't make many of these networks worse in terms of being a serious news source if you wanted to.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Andersen Cooper would come to mind. Basically if you have to try to sniff around and figure out how someone votes, they are doing a good job as a journalist. Not liking Bush or McCain specifically doesn't exactly land you immediate objectivity status if you spend 95% of your time on the air ranting for one specific ideological agenda.

Agreed that serious news junkies have moved on. I'm just in shock that someone thinks there's such a sanctity to mainstream U.S. news that something like a basic standard of journalistic integrity would be viewed as a devastatingly crushing blow to freedom of the press and the news in the U.S. You couldn't make many of these networks worse in terms of being a serious news source if you wanted to.

Part of me likes MSNBC. I want CNN to become like a middle ground (it will need to bend a bit from the left, but not too much) news network. Fox can stay center right and MSNBC can stay center left (which I think they are, but the Bush admin has driven them insane).

We have network news, Cable News, Print news, professional internet news, Personal internet news, BBC, Bloomberg, News/talk radio, professional Blogs, personal blogs.

I'm not that worried about media. I think that you can never rely on a news source to give it to you straight. If you are the kind of person that can't seek truth and is reserved to hear people tell them what is true, you will never know it. You have to seek it and compare sources - this is how you become informed.

Thomas Jefferson once said "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers". We are better off not being able to rely on a lazy man's news source for truth.

[Crazed Rabbit]

If we reversed the parties on this story I expect you'd have a rather more biting remark to make about it.

Perhaps. But I don't recall you saying anything when I posted about that McCain supporter who was attacked.

Oh, wait, you complained about me posting the story and said nothing bad about the attacker.

All private news networks already have a master other than journalism: what sells. Controversy, scandal and sensationalism.

That's always been the case with the press, even with the Fairness Doctrine. You seem to think this is something new. Ever heard of 'yellow journalism' and the origin of the phrase?

I disagree. Any professionally trained journalist with an education in journalism should treat including all facts as a reflexive part of the job. Not as some controlling imposition from the government. In other words, real news networks should be doing this anyway. And if they're not, they have no business calling themselves news.

No, no, no.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding. The fairness doctrine talks of giving both sides equal time. That's separate from giving all the facts. Indeed, I'd argue that it is detrimental to find some group and stick their viewpoint into a news report instead of just reporting the facts.

The fairness doctrine has nothing to do with facts, just having 'both sides' of an issue represented.

You know the one, major flaw with that?
There aren't always two discrete sides to an issue. But it's awfully convenient for the two main parties. They get their views in, and everybody else gets the shaft.

My answer to the question would be the same as virtually every major news media provider out there. No, it's not objective.

So you think they should be fined, then?

You act like the Fairness Doctrine was a government gulag.

No, a government gag on the press would be more apt. You act like it was the savior of journalism.

It is simple; the fairness doctrine allows the government to control what the press says. That anyone would defend such power by the government over the press is almost unthinkable.

But I suppose when you get really angry at Fox News, it's alright to abuse the constitution to get them.

You're right, it sank to new lows because instead of being held to any sort of journalistic standard it is now held only to the profit and sales motive. And with predictably crass results.

Those have always been the goals since the creation of the press. The fairness doctrine wouldn't even have an effect on that.

That is one opinion.

It is the only opinion that respects the constitution.

The press was not 'granted' freedom of the press; it is a right given by God and enshrined in the constitution.

It is an extension of freedom of speech. Like freedom of speech, the government has absolutely no place to control what a person can say even if the government thinks that will help the country.

Is the word freedom confusing to you? It means the government can't control what you say, nor can it control what the press reports. It doesn't matter if you think taking freedom will help people.

The constitution was written to guard against such men as yourself, who would say the world would be better if we sacrificed our freedom. Or as Daniel Webster said:

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

No, no, no.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding. The fairness doctrine talks of giving both sides equal time. That's separate from giving all the facts. Indeed, I'd argue that it is detrimental to find some group and stick their viewpoint into a news report instead of just reporting the facts.

The fairness doctrine has nothing to do with facts, just having 'both sides' of an issue represented.

You know the one, major flaw with that?
There aren't always two discrete sides to an issue. But it's awfully convenient for the two main parties. They get their views in, and everybody else gets the shaft.

I have never proposed a complete re-embrace of the Fairness Doctrine exactly where we left it back in the 1980's. It wouldn't work, anyway. The news industry has changed too much and become heavily privatized and interwoven with entertainment. Hey if you wanna go off about how mainstream news crafts only one or two "narratives" about America and it doesn't reflect everyone or all the viewpoints out there, I'm with you. But I fail to see how a fully unregulated for-profit system has made this any better.

So you think they should be fined, then?

I'm not a policymaker and there is no law before Congress at the moment to use as a frame of reference. I hadn't laid around dreaming up what sorts of disincentives news agencies should be given to fully embrace only a one-sided ideological spin of news presentation. Or on the flipside, what sort of incentives for highly rated, viewpoint-inclusive, wide-range coverage objective news organizations should receive. Certainly there is room for discussion on it.

No, a government gag on the press would be more apt. You act like it was the savior of journalism.

Your mind is made up that any government involvement in anything is evil. The only thing I can't figure out about your stance is what exactly convinces you, besides ideology, that letting the private market dictate everything is better. In many cases it's worse, and the quality of U.S. news integrity is very much one of them. I would submit in addition that the government has been able to use a privatized, controlled by a few hands media to further its agenda as easily, if not more easily, than a media constrained to some form of objective reporting. Note the almost complete lack of anything besides cheerleading across the board in U.S. media leading up to the Iraq War. Softball questions, no serious questioning or professional skepticism, just wholehearted swallowing of the sushi sliced and blended version of facts filtered down to us from the Bush Administration. Which has landed us in the Iraq War. A disaster which, quite possibly, could have been averted or at least greatly hindered had ANY major news been doing its job. The flimsiness of the case for going to war, so crystal clear in retrospect, was equally crystal clear in advance to anyone who was not getting all their information purely from mainstream U.S. news.

It is simple; the fairness doctrine allows the government to control what the press says. That anyone would defend such power by the government over the press is almost unthinkable.

That's a misrepresentation. The Fairness Doctrine requires that you must present more than just one side of an issue, if you are giving airtime to one opinion or advocate of a particular policy or issue. Which, as I have stated many times, is just basic journalism. Not "control of what the press says." The press, contrary to the impression you seem to be under, does not have a recognized role in order to go out and advocate for one-sided agendas or provide news only for certain constituencies. You are basically saying that if controversy erupts in a town over whether or not to construct a new Wal Mart which will put a lot of local businesses under, it's perfectly legitimate journalism to just go talk to Wal Mart executives about it. That's not journalism at all. That's a thinly veiled advocacy of corporate interests using control of public airwaves to do so.

But I suppose when you get really angry at Fox News, it's alright to abuse the constitution to get them.

Not worthy of comment.

Those have always been the goals since the creation of the press. The fairness doctrine wouldn't even have an effect on that.

Revisionism. Re-read the Constitution about the recognized role of the press and what role serves as its justification for freedom of the press. Not to "go forth and make ye some profit with scandalous coverage of gossip." It's to ensure the existence of an informed electorate. And all you have done throughout this entire exchange is defend for-profit practices which dumb down, rather than elevate, intellectual discourse and critical thought in the U.S.

It is the only opinion that respects the constitution.

In CR's world.

The press was not 'granted' freedom of the press; it is a right given by God and enshrined in the constitution.

It is an extension of freedom of speech. Like freedom of speech, the government has absolutely no place to control what a person can say even if the government thinks that will help the country.

Is the word freedom confusing to you? It means the government can't control what you say, nor can it control what the press reports. It doesn't matter if you think taking freedom will help people.

The constitution was written to guard against such men as yourself, who would say the world would be better if we sacrificed our freedom. Or as Daniel Webster said:

CR

Ahem. The law does not support your ideological interpretation:

The courts have rarely treated content-based regulation of the press with any sympathy. In Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), the Court unanimously struck down a state law requiring newspapers criticizing political candidates to publish their responses. The state claimed that the law had been passed to ensure press responsibility. Finding that only freedom, and not press responsibility, is mandated by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not force newspapers to publish that which they do not desire to publish.

Content-based regulation of television and radio, however, have been sustained by the Supreme Court in various cases. Since there are a limited number of frequencies for non-cable television and radio stations, the government licenses them to various companies. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that the problem of scarcity does not permit the raising of a First Amendment issue. The government may restrain broadcasters, but only on a content-neutral basis.

In Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), the Supreme Court upheld the authority of the FCC to restrict the use of profane language in broadcasting.

Televised news is using public airwaves. Owned by the American public. And under the reasoning that there is limited access to televised broadcasted content, there is indeed legal precedent for some norms of regulation for fair representation. In other words, if every televised news agency presented the same one side of a news or political or controversial issue, that is an infringement and abuse of the public airwaves without providing fair access to alternative points of view. This is made even worse by the fact that most media in the U.S., both radio and television, is owned by a very very very small number of corporate business interests. That was, in fact, precisely the legal reasoning behind the original equal airtime regulations. And equal airtime practices were not viewed as "controlling content" or forcing the press to say or not say anything. All they require is that if you put an advocate of something--- let's say.... SEGREGATION... on the air... you must also invite an advocate of integration. However you are consistently misrepresenting it as if such a regulation would forbid or constrict news agencies from their "right" to cover the topic at all.

It would, of course, create a significant obstacle for partisan hackeries posing as major professional news providers. Which seems to be closer to the real cause of your panic over something like equal airtime regulation.

(From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...s_Constitution)

I'm not that worried about media. I think that you can never rely on a news source to give it to you straight. If you are the kind of person that can't seek truth and is reserved to hear people tell them what is true, you will never know it. You have to seek it and compare sources - this is how you become informed.

Part of the reason you feel this way, Tuff, is because you have grown up in a deregulated private news media world created by Reagan. And it is very much to your credit as an intelligent person that you do not trust that you are being given a comprehensive reporting of all the facts when you watch mainstream U.S. news. No news agency, obviously, is going to be perfect and include every single bit of possible fact on a given topic. But we aren't even discussing that level of scrutiny, we are discussing the open and shameless endorsement of specific political ideologies or private interests and slants in what unabashedly calls itself professional news agencies. Which CR feels apparently is not only the constitutional purpose of the media but also quite desirable.

[Fragony]

Is Obama merely a man? Or has he been touched by the gods? Has he finally arived?

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/2745..._op_obama.html

[JR-]

and finally, in my last expose of British cheerleading in the US election, i give you Boris:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../21/do2101.xml

Obama conquers another Tory.

[Kralizec]

Hooking into the "equal time" discussion...

The current government in Slovakia is pushing through such a measure now (click). The majority of newspapers responded a couple of months ago by printing empty frontpages in protest several times.

It's not uncommon in many European countries that a media outlet is ordered by court to print/show a rectification if they're shown to have published damaging falsehoods, but that's a far cry from preemtively forcing the media to give opposing viewpoints as much attention. It's antiethical to the freedom of press.

[CountArach]

Following up on moronic pieces of polling:

[Lemur]

I dont care what anybody says, the NY Times is part and parcel part of the Obama campaign.

I guess when they endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain in the primaries, they were just creating some deniability then? Who knew the Sulzbergers were so crafty?

He said he had a conservative temperament.

Yup, and I'm far from the only one who sees this:

Ken Adelman is a lifelong conservative Republican. Campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control, and joined the Defense Policy Board for Rumsfeld’s second go-round at the Pentagon, in 2001. Adelman’s friendship with Rumsfeld, Cheney, and their wives goes back to the sixties, and he introduced Cheney to Paul Wolfowitz at a Washington brunch the day Reagan was sworn in.

Two weeks from now that’s going to change: Ken Adelman intends to vote for Barack Obama. He can hardly believe it himself. [...]

Why so, since my views align a lot more with McCain’s than with Obama’s? And since I truly dread the notion of a Democratic president, Democratic House, and hugely Democratic Senate?

Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If you thought joe the plumber was alone you were very very wrong. In her new speech palin reveals:

Tito the builder
Rose the teacher
Phil the bricklayer

and last but not least:

Barack the Wealth Spender

[Fragony]

Leading my cheers, just because and because

[ICantSpellDawg]

Following up on moronic pieces of polling:

Why? They've only been wrong once in the last 5 elections. I loved kid's choice when I was a kid. Usually when kids vote, you get insight into what their parents have been talking about.

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's a misrepresentation. The Fairness Doctrine requires that you must present more than just one side of an issue, if you are giving airtime to one opinion or advocate of a particular policy or issue. Which, as I have stated many times, is just basic journalism.

The state claimed that the law had been passed to ensure press responsibility. Finding that only freedom, and not press responsibility, is mandated by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not force newspapers to publish that which they do not desire to publish.

I have never proposed a complete re-embrace of the Fairness Doctrine exactly where we left it back in the 1980's. It wouldn't work, anyway. The news industry has changed too much and become heavily privatized and interwoven with entertainment. Hey if you wanna go off about how mainstream news crafts only one or two "narratives" about America and it doesn't reflect everyone or all the viewpoints out there, I'm with you. But I fail to see how a fully unregulated for-profit system has made this any better.

You missed the point. Here it is, simplified:
The "fairness doctrine" stipulates both sides of an issue be represented. There are hardly any issues where there are just two sides. Grouping complex issues into only two camps lowers the level of discussion in America.

Your mind is made up that any government involvement in anything is evil.

Wrong.

This is made even worse by the fact that most media in the U.S., both radio and television, is owned by a very very very small number of corporate business interests. That was, in fact, precisely the legal reasoning behind the original equal airtime regulations.

Wrong. This isn't 1949. The available sources of information are numerous.

It would, of course, create a significant obstacle for partisan hackeries posing as major professional news providers. Which seems to be closer to the real cause of your panic over something like equal airtime regulation.

Wrong. It's been used by democratic and republican presidents to suppress opposition views:

Telecommunications scholar Thomas W. Hazlett notes that under the Nixon Administration, "License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings."

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."

But I suppose your completely surprised when the government abuses its power!

The FCC also found your opinions about how the fairness doctrine ensured anything good is wrong:

FCC officials found that the doctrine "had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance," and therefore was in violation of constitutional principles.

and

In reaching that conclusion the Commission invoked essentially the same grounds as it has in the present action--chiefly, that growth in the number of broadcast outlets reduced any need for the doctrine, that the doctrine often worked to dissuade broadcasters from presenting any treatment of controversial viewpoints, that it put the government in the doubtful position of evaluating program content, and that it created an opportunity for incumbents to abuse it for partisan purposes.

Why? It's simple; if stations risk being fined or punished for not doing the correct thing about airing opinions, then they won't air any opinions.

CR