Here’s
a story I missed when it came out about a year ago in the Huffington Press, Toronto
Star and several other reporting groups. Apparently, with under the aegis of
the conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, they wanted to bring FOX news
to Canada to be called Sun TV. However, Canada has a agency called the Canadian Radio-Television
and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) which is similar to the FCC (Federal
Communications Commission) here is the U.S.A. (Those of you who are old enough
may remember they limited advertising to 3 minutes per half of program time and
didn’t let people swear or couples to sleep in the same bed.) Nevertheless, the
CRTC has a rule against lying on TV and therefore banned FOX News from their
airwaves. Imagine that, a law against lying. The law reads, “a licenser may not broadcast…any false or
misleading news.”
Before
the right wingers get too excited that cannot happen in the U.S.A. because of
the first amendment and “freedom of the press.” There are a lot of cases where
bad journalism has been taken to task in this country one being about a couple
of reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson who were forced to alter a story on
the recombinant bovine growth hormone by the FOX affiliate in Tampa. When they
refused they were fired. They were awarded $425,000 in damages, but that was
overturned saying there is no law prohibiting FOX from lying. In fact, there is
no licensing authority for journalists in this country, as there is for
doctors, lawyers and plumbers.
Now,
of course, Canadians can listen to FOX news, cable broadcasts cannot be stopped
at the border. So, for those folk who wish to listen to FOX can, and according
to a recent poll, they will end up knowing less about a the news that folk who
listen to no news programs at all (see a previous article.)
So,
when we hear all the politicians lying about each other on their respect TV
commercials, just remember they are exercising the vague 1st
amendment constitutional right. Just makes you proud to be an American doesn’t
it?
Here
is the Amendment
I: Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
Now we did at one time have more direction on what
could be said on TV. It was called the Fairness doctrine. Here is the Wikipedia
definition:
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of
the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast
licenses to both present controversial issues of public
importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest,
equitable and balanced. The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987, and
in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the
Doctrine.[1]
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required
broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial
matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those
matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting
views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or
editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but
required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2]
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that
viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld
the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where
channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to
do so.[3].
The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited
the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine.
However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable,
public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there
are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on
controversial issues at low or no cost.
The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule.
The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the
Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.
Don’t
worry; you see it was abolished by Ronald Reagan in 1987.
"So, for those folk who wish to listen to FOX can, and according to a recent poll, they will end up knowing less about a the news that folk who listen to no news programs at all (see a previous article.)"
ReplyDeleteI read this "poll", and it was very misleading. In fact, on some of the issues, the views that they claimed Fox viewers had were correct instead of incorrect. The pollsters held incorrect opinions.
The Fairness Doctrine was nothing more than the negation of "freedom of the press", and demanded that the government micro-manage broadcast content according to what the ruling elites thought was fair.
No doubt Canada's decision was purely political. If it were indeed "Fair", they would have banned CBS for airing Dan Rather's "Bush went AWOL" hoax.
Mario Cuomo, an eloquent voice of the Left, put it this way:
"The fairness doctrine chilled as much dialogue and debate as it encouraged. If I ran a radio or TV station, I might avoid a controversial point in order to avoid entanglement with government. The F.C.C. has compiled more than 60 reported instances of broadcasters' quashing programming on such topics as the nuclear arms race, religious cults and municipal salaries for fear of triggering fairness doctrine obligations.
The constitutionality question ought to be left to the courts. But as policy, the doctrine is unwise.".
On a more practical matter, Canadian censorship of US media content is widespread. I have Canadian friends who illicitly have subsciptions to US satellite services to get around this.
What Canada has done is similar to what they do in North Korea. I'm sure that the dictators in North Korea don't like Fox News and say it lies too.
By the way, I like interesting blogs. I also look for blogs in certain areas. I've been looking for a good blog in the Hiawatha Valley for quite some time.
DeleteThe end of the fairness doctrine changed the business model of journalism from being news to being a right-left advocacy model. It did not take long for media corporations to figure out that viewers don't want to be informed, so much as they want to have their already-existing views reinforced and validated.
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice to require some honesty in reporting - but enforcement would probably get messy. In my observation of the modern media and politicians, most lies are lies of omission - where you mislead by telling a half-truth, omitting critical relevant information. How do you legally quantify or define such offense? And what are the political leanings of the enforcer? Ultimately it's on us to do our own fact-checking in the MisInformation Age - fortunately there are resources like Factcheck.org and Politifact.com.
Unfortunately many won't do the homework, and recently politicians have figured this out, and as has been evidenced this primary season more than ever, politics has degenerated into a rapid-fire lying contest. If you throw out a lot of myths and false statements in rapid succession, most of it will stick, even after being thoroughly debunked.
I wish I had a solution. The unfortunate modern reality is that the media no longer informs, so much as it simply caters to this exercise in mental masturbation, because that's what the market wants.
I strongly disagree. The end of the fairness doctrine has lifted a major "chilling" factor on the news. And it has resulted in the great expansion of news.
DeleteThe media corporations (and others)figured out that viewers do indeed want to be informed which is why tn news offerings have greatly expanded.
It would be nice to require some honesty in reporting - but enforcement would probably get messy."
Enforcement would be a major problem. Most of the time it seems that what someone claims is "dishonest" is merely a difference in opinion or presentation. To restore the government in the role of deciding what is "honest" or fair again brings back the Fairness Doctrine and kicks the First Amendment right out the door.
"Ultimately it's on us to do our own fact-checking in the MisInformation Age - fortunately there are resources like Factcheck.org and Politifact.com."
Now that I agree with. But even those sites have their biases. Just as vaunted "objective" journalists of the bygone era like Walter Cronkite were quite biased as well.... but they did a better job of slipping their bias into their reporting, than, say, Rush Limbaugh.
Nothing has changed in bias, really. Journalism is no more or less biased than it was before. But now, without the Fairness Doctrine, journalists and news organizations are free to report the news... without worrying if it gets the seal of approval from the ruling elites.
Unfortunately many won't do the homework, and recently politicians have figured this out, and as has been evidenced this primary season more than ever, politics has degenerated into a rapid-fire lying contest. If you throw out a lot of myths and false statements in rapid succession, most of it will stick, even after being thoroughly debunked.
I wish I had a solution. The unfortunate modern reality is that the media no longer informs, so much as it simply caters to this exercise in mental masturbation, because that's what the market wants.I