George Zimmerman Sues NBC

[Jim in NYC]

No, I haven't.

You should, for the reason I mentioned to Popeye, and because it's a pretty kick ass movie to begin with.

[The Cryin Lion]

I'll see if I can find it On-Demand.

[Jim in NYC]

Incidentally, it also contains the shortest Best Supporting Actress performance in Oscar history--shorter even than Dench in Shakespeare in Love.

[AndromedaPatFan]

It was and it wasn't. The 'gutter press' in history makes today's look like choir boys. However there WAS also a time when news was pretty honorable, but that was only because the sword of a licence pull was hanging over broadcaster's heads.

Put that back in, and wham bam, the news goes back to being honorable.

I'd be very concerned with government regulation of the news media. It DID work well, here, for decades, in the way that you said. Still, I don't see it as a prudent long-term solution to ANYTHING.

[CalgaryHawkFan]

I'd be very concerned with government regulation of the news media. It DID work well, here, for decades, in the way that you said. Still, I don't see it as a prudent long-term solution to ANYTHING.

It's something to be cautious about. But we're seeing what no oversight leads to - and you have conservatives like CL talking about the larger purpose of the media in society. What IS media's role going forward? If it's just to make money, then fine, but stop pretending like media is going to play a watchdog role.

[The Cryin Lion]

I'd be very concerned with government regulation of the news media. It DID work well, here, for decades, in the way that you said. Still, I don't see it as a prudent long-term solution to ANYTHING.

Removing it in the 80's certainly created a lot of institutional problems that we are all eating now.

[AndromedaPatFan]

It's something to be cautious about. But we're seeing what no oversight leads to - and you have conservatives like CL talking about the larger purpose of the media in society. What IS media's role going forward? If it's just to make money, then fine, but stop pretending like media is going to play a watchdog role.

And in politics, every blogger can weigh in, no matter what her ostensible specialty. Community political activists may need to carry the torch on some investigative reporting — so they will. Yes, it’s all a lot messier than a simple model of “Trust Walter Cronkite and your local morning paper.” But in the end, it will serve the readers/viewers/listeners at least as well.

http://www.texttechnologies.com/2009...tem-is-headed/

[AndromedaPatFan]

Removing it in the 80's certainly created a lot of institutional problems that we are all eating now.

What's happened since the 80s is the rise of the awful Fox News, and now MSNBC in reaction. What regulations do you envision to avert that?

I don't know that we ever had regulations to avert Rush Limbaugh.

[PopeyeJones]

I'd be very concerned with government regulation of the news media. It DID work well, here, for decades, in the way that you said. Still, I don't see it as a prudent long-term solution to ANYTHING.

Yeah. Worth pointing that 1) we're mostly talking about cable news (which the fed doesn't have the mandate to regulate as aggressively), 2) within the domain of cable news we're mostly talk about editorializing non-news shows that are aired in the morning and prime time on news channels and 3) these old standby network regulations are going to go the way of the dodo, not only because they've been weakened (e.g. The telecom act of 96), but also because broadcast over public airwaves essentially no longer applies to the television market (now that we've gone digital most cable suppliers don't even honor it as the fed gave them all vouchers).

[The Cryin Lion]

What's happened since the 80s is the rise of the awful Fox News, and now MSNBC in reaction. What regulations do you envision to avert that?

I don't know that we ever had regulations to avert Rush Limbaugh.

I meantioned it earlier in this thread. See below...

Regarding the news media and profit, it used to be the profit was not the primary objective of the TV News. Now, by a wide margin it is the primary objective of the TV News. TV News was once viewed (and really codified in law) as a Public Service. Then cable news was realized and the Fairness Doctrine was formally dragged behind the shed and shot (By Reagen... and then again by George HW Bush).

When the Fairness Doctrine was removed stations were no longer obligated to present both sides of the debate or adhere to any sense of objectivity. The SCOTUS had previously ruled that the FCC did have the authority to enforce the Fairness Doctrine (even if they weren't required to do so) but if there is no Fairness Doctrine then you don't have to worry about FCC enforcment.

[The Cryin Lion]

2) within the domain of cable news we're mostly talk about editorializing non-news shows that are aired in the morning and prime time on news channels

There is no longer a clear deliniation between their news and non-news stories, everything is editorialized or designed to help viewers reach a conclusion.

[AndromedaPatFan]

I meantioned it earlier in this thread. See below...



When the Fairness Doctrine was removed stations were no longer obligated to present both sides of the debate or adhere to any sense of objectivity. The SCOTUS had previously ruled that the FCC did have the authority to enforce the Fairness Doctrine (even if they weren't required to do so) but if there is no Fairness Doctrine then you don't have to worry about FCC enforcment.

Right. However:

• The simple-minded version of the Fairness Doctrine would mandate that serious respect be given to things like Ayn-Rand-based politics, global warming denial, creationism, etc. I.e., it's a disaster.
• There are many more outlets for news and opinion than before. Surely you don't suggest radically reducing their number ...
• ... but if you don't suggest that, that government's job of policing their content is vastly more difficult than before. Hence, more errors will creep into the policing than before.

I don't see how one can have government police modern media for "fairness" or "accuracy", on a practical basis, without being as heavy-handed as, say, China.

Similarly, just who all do you want policed to check that their content meets government standards?

• Broadcast channels?
• Cable channels?
• Web sites with video on them?

[The Cryin Lion]

Right. However:

• The simple-minded version of the Fairness Doctrine would mandate that serious respect be given to things like Ayn-Rand-based politics, global warming denial, creationism, etc. I.e., it's a disaster.
• There are many more outlets for news and opinion than before. Surely you don't suggest radically reducing their number ...
• ... but if you don't suggest that, that government's job of policing their content is vastly more difficult than before. Hence, more errors will creep into the policing than before.

I disagree with your logical flow. They didn't need to revoke the fairness act because there were more channels and news sources. They used the latter to justify the former.

There is nothing in the Fairness Doctrine that would have limited the number of channels.

I don't see how one can have government police modern media for "fairness" or "accuracy", on a practical basis, without being as heavy-handed as, say, China.

Our media never got the China treatment when the Fairness Doctrine was in palce. They were free to report on what they wanted.

Similarly, just who all do you want policed to check that their content meets government standards?

• Broadcast channels?
• Cable channels?
• Web sites with video on them?

Yes, yes, and only if they were owned / operated by one of the first two and regulated by the FCC.