Democrats & Liberals Archives

I feel compelled to bring up Jon Stewart.

I felt that that wasn’t fair and I should come here and tell you that I don’t — it’s not so much that [Crossfire is] bad, as it’s hurting America.

See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you’re helping the politicians and the corporations. And we’re left out there to mow our lawns.

No, no, no, you’re not too rough on them. You’re part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.

I have to say, I think the following statement show a very deap misunderstanding of our constitution:
“Working for a massive news corporation like, say, News Corporation (Rupert Murdoch’s outfit) or Sinclair Broadcasting Group almost totally limits the Freedom of the Press our Constitution says America should have. “

Our constitution protects our rights against GOVERNMENT encroachment- it was written to both given the federal government more power and to limit that power so it could not control the people in areas of fundamental rigths like speech (the only clause that protects us from private encroachment would be the 13th amendment- which prohibits any private individual from owning another).

What is a true threat to free of speech, as that phrase is used in the constitution, is when the federal government tells people “you can only put X on tv” or “you can only have so many political adds, and you must air them in this way.” This is EXACTLY what the first ammendment was meant to stop- and this is exactly what has become the target of both the right (FCC) and the left (Campaign finance reform). Meanwhile, people who use the word “corporate” as a swear word can go around saying that operations of private enterprizes, which have NOTHING to do with constitution free speech, are a threat to free speech. Yikes.

That having been said, i agree the mainstreatm media is pretty terrible. However, instead of blamming the media itself- as knee-jerk people like John Stewart have done- I place the blame exactly where it belongs: The American People. If we demanded the kind of news coverage you ask for above- that is exactly what we would get. If we didnt want to hear about Dick Cheney’s daughter- they wouldnt tell us about it. They are in the business of serving their customers- and, like it or not, thats what their customers WANT TO HEAR. This is the same reason we have subpar candidates like Bush and Kerry- because people want that sort of thing- I cant tell you why, but they do! If we demanded the most intelligent, honest and honorable candidates for president- that is what we would get. Lets stop passing the buck.

I place the blame exactly where it belongs: The American People.

Not to argue semantics, but doesn’t the American People include the American media? Arguing that the media, who uses public airwaves, have no responsibility to the public it is mandated to serve is disingenuous.

Also, Jon Stewart had been ragging about Crossfire for some time, so I don’t think what he did on Crossfire qualifies for the label, “knee-jerk.”

I believe the only duty the media has is to respond to its consumers. The “public airwaves” serve the public (the actual people)- not some abstract notion of what you think the “public” ought to want. The ACTUAL, REAL LIFE AMERICAN PEOPLE wants to hear about Micheal Jackson, Kobe Bryant and Dick Cheneys’ daughter. They just do- this is the reason, the only reason, why the media focuses on these stupid stories.

There are many great and intelligent people talking about interesting books on public access TV- but no one (well other than myself and a couple of other people) wants to watch this sort of stuff- they dont. We need to get over this myth that the American people secretly want deep policy discussion and are not getting it. I used to buy into the myth until I thought about it closely and realized that if this is truely what we wanted, the media, as a self-interested group, would provide it to us.

If the media WHERE providing what you are calling for- it would be using the “public airwares” for something the public did not want- and people would tune out and watch even more Jerry Springer or whatever other garbage most people like…

Your assertion that the media delivers what the people want denies causality in many cases, such as your M Cheney example. How would the media know that the American People wanted to know about the fake controversey surrounding this non-issue?

Also, I like the Daily Show a lot and watch it almost every single night. But i am getting so sickened by people bowing down at Stewart’s feet like he made some amazingly brilliant stand on Crossfire. He is a first rate comedian and a third-rate social comentator. There is a reason his fake news show gets better ratings than anything serious about politics- Its not because serious things on tv about politics are BAD (which most are, I will admit), its because the Daily Show’s level of political analysis (mocking) is exactly the depth most people WANT to stay at. They do not want to go any deeper than thinking “ooo.. look how stupid bush is.” Rather than pontificating about Crossfire, Stewart should analyze the true source of his overwhelming popularity in this light.

Because they have spent tens of millions of dollars studying what people really want and looking at passed history. If is literally a matter of billions of dollars to them to know what people want to see. Remember how popular the OJ trial was? How about Martha Stewart? Do you know the kind of ratings Springer gets? Do you realize the readership of the Inquirer? On the other hand- do you know what the ratings of CSPAN are? This is not brain surgery.

I believe the only duty the media has is to respond to its consumers. The “public airwaves” serve the public (the actual people)- not some abstract notion of what you think the “public” ought to want.

Right, which is why we require EBS and emergency weather warnings on TV.

If they are serving the public, and I along Jon Stewart are the public, then where’s our service? Do you think we don’t represent a significant demographic?

And you put public airwaves in quotes, why?

Joseph- we represent a very small portion of the population- you just gotta deal with that fact. Thats just the way it is. I put public airwaves in quotes because I think you have a mystical view of who the public is which makes you want the media to serve what YOU want rather than what the PUBLIC actually wants.

Maybe we might have to redefine “News Program.” The media owners will under go changes thanks to Sinclair stupid move. However, cable’s so called 24/7 News channels should be reclassified as 24/7 Gossip Channels. Stewert was right about Crossfire losing out on a great opportunity and hurting the American people. If any of you could seat in their chair, wouldn’t you ask these public elected officials alot more pointed questions or make it look like your naking a joke out of the whole deal.

Stewert and other comedians states straight up that they think about issues and actions of the dems and reps. However, all you have heard lately on the airwaves of the news channels is a cheering section of both sides. Whatever happened to good old fashion investigative reporting? Like why hasn’t Fox included the names of American Companies and Individuals involved in their “Oil for Food Program” coverage?

Now I’m for people making money, but I think we need to break up the media outlets again for our own good.

Misha, I can play the same game. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word, “public,” not I. The public is all people not some profitable subset interpolated from market surveys and statistical analyses. The public airwaves belong to all, not just the banal among us.

Let me be clear, I understand you are arguing from practicality and I am arguing from theory but I don’t think we should abandon such noble ideas (that the public airwaves should serve the public in a socially beneficial manner according to demand) simply because it’s untenable under our capitalist system.

See, Joseph, I think you are missing my most basic point- i AM arguing from theory/principle and that is the SAME principle that justifies our capitalist system. That is, people’s individual preferences and choices is what matters. Sure, you and I WANT the public to care more about serious issues- but we have no right to force them to care.

They have the right to demand what THEY want on TV, just as much as we do. And as long we are in the minority it is right, as BOTH a matter of principle and practicality, that those who serve them give them what they demand. I guess your view is that they should get what you demand they get- which I think is an untenable position. You believe in imposing your view of what is “socially beneficial” on the public airways- I do not. If the public airways had the kind of discourse you want on them- even fewer people would watch. What does that say to you?

Sure, you and I WANT the public to care more about serious issues- but we have no right to force them to care.

Well, that’s not what I want. The rest of the public is free to care about what they like. I am concerned about the media and their responsibilities according to their license of public airwaves and the privileges this affords them.

i AM arguing from theory/principle and that is the SAME principle that justifies our capitalist system. That is, people’s individual preferences and choices is what matters.

My impression of you is that you are a rather laissez-faire libertarian, so I realize we’ll have difficulty seeing things in the same way, but I feel there are certain human ventures that resist profitability as long as the integrity of the system is maintained (e.g. health care, national parks). The motivations of the general public (or what corporations assume are the motivations of the general public) are not the underlying impetus of public policy (not market policy) in many cases (“Don’t feed the bears,” is a classic example, and our over-medicated culture is a more timely one).

Misha wrote:
> However, instead of blamming the media itself-
> as knee-jerk people like John Stewart have
> done- I place the blame exactly where it
> belongs: The American People.

The people in the media are part of The American People, and in fact they have more power than we do to change the way the media operates. The media certain responds to what America seems to want, but you seem to think that the media is entirely reactive to what the public is demanding. I don’t think this is the case. Media outlets and producers thrive and succeed in their markets by innovating new types of products, by being proactive. They must come up with methods of serving their audience before the audience knows they want it. Hollywood is formulaic as hell, but they still come up with new ideas.

Look at a company like HBO, which decided that they could produce high-end, artistic, and thoughtful TV programs during the exact same era that the other networks were slouching their way into season after season of insulting, degrading, and mind-killing reality shows.

In short, I think that Stewart criticizing the media for cheapening the political debate in this country is entirely valid. The American people are much to blame, but the media is fair game, too.

-Cf

Cf said They must come up with methods of serving their audience before the audience knows they want it.

ala Teletubbies (as just one bad example). How would any media producer determine what one year olds want? Or that they would even be interested in programming geared toward them? The media may do studies and such, but for the most part they are guessing at what the market will accept.

Misha said I guess your view is that they should get what you demand they get- which I think is an untenable position. You believe in imposing your view of what is “socially beneficial” on the public airways- I do not.

My view is a little more nuanced than that ;). I do not wish to impose any such thing on the public. Media self-regulation combined with meaningful charters in the licensing of public airwaves is more than viable. I just want the media to accept their responsibilities to the public, and would like the public to utilize their methods of redress in these matters.

If the public airways had the kind of discourse you want on them- even fewer people would watch. What does that say to you?

This is an interesting assumption on your part. How do you know the population segments that currently do not watch television wouldn’t start? But this is beside the point.

First of all, I think you overestimate the impact a few hours a week of responsible programming would have on the television industry and viewers. Second, the question seems to imply that since television cannot be regulated in part to serve the public good without driving away (or at least discouraging) the public, then we should abandon regulation. By this standard, all government regulations would need to be abandoned.

This issue is extremely similar to oil in public land. Our government grants licenses to companies to try their hand at the potentially lucrative oil industry with oil that belongs to all of us. Along with this license, these companies have certain responsibilities in order to ensure that they serve the public good, as in maintain safe transport and product. In the same vein, our governments grant licenses to broadcasters to utilize transmission frequencies that belong to all of us with which they can potentially reap huge profits with only the simple prescription of setting aside adequate time to somehow serve the public good in a consistent manner. EBS and a few ten second spots of someone from Will & Grace telling us to stay in school just doesn’t cut it.

A few last points on Jon Stewart’s Crossfire event. I think if it such occurances were more common, it wouldn’t have been made into such a big deal. If more people didn’t sympathize with Stewart’s position, maybe it wouldn’t have been made into such a big deal. And sure, he didn’t do a fantastic job in making his points but it was mostly because he was constantly interrupted, and that only accentuates what of his point he did get across. But that’s not the point. The point his he took a genuine stand. That’s good and worthy of praise. It would be nice if he and others did this more often.

I agree with both points of view that the airwaves belong to the people and the corporate broadcast media should be allowed to play what their audience prefer, within limits of course.

The difference I have and the problem as I see it, is when one allows a corporate body to have the same “rights”, only more so, as a real human being.

The Corporate interests and the public interest are not the same.

This is where the constitution has been breached in my opinion. The formers believed in an elite intelligentia guiding the public. Noblis Oblige.

I personally believe all political advertising should be banned from the public air waves. This will help stop the money corrupting the political process as it is currently, and would retrict noone’s freedom of speech.(or all equally) I think in depth political, religious, or whatever discussion should be a requirement of broadcast media as a means of licensure. They won’t get ratings, but that’s the cost of “using our public air waves. Maybe 2 hours a day, even in “prime time” possibly. Of course cable outlets would steal more of the audience share with ” wife swap reality eating of live snake type shows. But then maybe they should be reminded they used public monies and exclusive contracts to develope their infrastructure, too, and could be subject to the same rules.

You can’t force people to listen, or learn, but you can offer them a nourishing meal.

Will it happen? Not in a two party system it won’t.

John,

Can you explain to me again how freedom of speech limits the freedom of the press?

…Working for a massive news corporation like, say, News Corporation (Rupert Murdoch’s outfit) or Sinclair Broadcasting Group almost totally limits the Freedom of the Press our Constitution says America should have.

I think Misha hit it on the head. Such an interpretation of the first amendment is fundamentally flawed.

How does a news corporation limit the Freedom of the Press? Is it limiting other news corporations? It seems to me that this entire liberal argument for censorship of selected corporations is really because of disagreement with a certain political view.

Do you find it ironic that to remedy this perceived infringment you seem to want the government to dictate how these corporations report and presumably what they report as well?

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.

I think what he was trying to say, Eric, is that a corporation is at best the voice of the CEO or the priviged few at the top, not the vox populi.

A Corporation is not a people as in, “We the people…”

I think what he was trying to say, Eric, is that a corporation is at best the voice of the CEO or the priviged few at the top, not the vox populi.

A Corporation is not a people as in, “We the people…”

Ah, that explains the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

So if Fox Broadcasting was personally owned by Murdock rather than owned in a corporate form, then it would deserve legal protection? The word “corporation” has become a four-letter-word on the left to connote anything that is wicked and wrong with the world. In reality, a corporation is only one way of ordering one’s economic affairs- which has, by the way, great brought incredible prosperity and jobs to this nation.

The PRINCIPLE that hte first amendment vindicates that that government cannot restrain freedom of the press. The fact that you guys want to under the guise of regulating oh-so-evil corporations shows that you do not really respect the principle that hte first amendment was built on- that is, the world is better off when government cannot use force to restrain the expression of opinions (especially opinions adverse to currently elected officials!!!)

This is also related:

Record Labels Said to Be Next on Spitzer List for Scrutiny
(New York Times requires registration)

Eliot Spitzer, the New York State attorney general, has recently taken on a procession of corporate powers from Wall Street analysts to mutual funds to insurance brokers. Now he is casting his eyes on the music industry, particularly its practices for influencing what songs are heard on the public airwaves.

[…]

Broadcasters are prohibited from taking cash or anything of value in exchange for playing a specific song, unless they disclose the transaction to listeners. But in a practice that is common in the industry, independent promoters pay radio stations annual fees - often exceeding $100,000 - not, they say, to play specific songs, but to obtain advance copies of the stations’ playlists. The promoters then bill record labels for each new song that is played; the total tab costs the record industry tens of millions of dollars each year.

[…] Mr. Spitzer might proceed on the ground that broadcasters’ dealings with middlemen severely limit the opportunities available to those artists who cannot afford to hire them.

The word “corporation” has become a four-letter-word on the left to connote anything that is wicked and wrong with the world.

I can understand why you might think opinions are so black and white given our current political environment, but it really isn’t that bad. Besides, people who suffocate themselves hating corporations are incapable of debate and thus not on this board.

We’re not talking about corporations being evil and the cause of all things wicked, we’re talking about how the consolidation of media has effected free speech, accuracy and applicability in reporting, and their civic duties as artificial persons in the community that has given them license to conduct business, profit, and thrive.

In reality, a corporation is only one way of ordering one’s economic affairs- which has, by the way, great brought incredible prosperity and jobs to this nation.

Yes, and a gun is merely an arrangement of metal parts, which, by the way, has protected many homes and individuals.

The PRINCIPLE that hte first amendment vindicates that that government cannot restrain freedom of the press. The fact that you guys want to under the guise of regulating oh-so-evil corporations shows that you do not really respect the principle that hte first amendment was built on- that is, the world is better off when government cannot use force to restrain the expression of opinions (especially opinions adverse to currently elected officials!!!)

Corporations are afforded the status of artificial person. Corporations are not natural born persons. We, the people, through our agents of government, grant them charter to conduct business under certain prescriptions, restrictions, and regulations. They do not merit the rights of natural born persons. They will never vote (except through the dollar unfortunately). They will not be granted the right to lie or omit for the sake of self-preservation. Their freedom of speech should not be as comprehensive. This is not a conspiracy of the left. This is the way its been for quite some time now.

Joe- some good points, but my major point still remains. Using government force to break up media in hopes of getting them to say what you want is exactly what the first amendment is supposed to fight against. It is the fear of GOVERNMENT FORCE that is a threat to free speech, by definition. If we allow ourselves to be tempted to use government force because we do not like what the media is doing- the next logical step- using government force to require certain political views be shown on TV is not far away.

And if you think this power wont be abused, I urge you to look at what is happening with campaign finance reform, the FCC, and redistricting (in all three areas, congress has abused its power to either (1) help incumbants retain power; (2) tell people what they cant and can see, say)). You guys on the left are walking on very dangerous ground here- just be careful how far you push in terms of allowing the central government power over media… lest they abuse it the same way they have in restricting (what I mean by that is that legislatures now use redistricting to bolster their political power- i am fully convinced that the same will occur with any information-dissemination control you give legislatures).

I mean: redistricting

Misha. I am an ACTUAL AMERICAN PERSON and I DON’T want to hear about Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, or M. Cheney. So you don’t know everything, do you??????

greg,

Yes, you are correct that a corporation is not the voice of all the employees employed at a corporation. It might have the voice of it’s owner or owners or it may not. But the corporation is made up of people who have the right of free speech.

The corporation itself would qualify as a news organization ie it cannot be muzzled by the government. It’s legal status as a corporation cannot disqualify it from the first amendment. The freedom of the press means news organizations or it means nothing.

Rapid- I agree with you. There are plenty of places you can go for your information, thoughts, and incites without having to hear about that garbage. Mainstream media is not one of htem because we are in the vast majority of the american people. Why should the media cater to such a small minority at the expense of the desires of the majority other than elitism?

Using government force to break up media in hopes of getting them to say what you want is exactly what the first amendment is supposed to fight against.

Hey Misha, I came into this one late. Are you saying we should get rid of anti-monopoly laws?

Interesting article, John. What drives me nuts is the “he said, she said” stories by lazy reporters. You know:

“The Bush campaign today announced the world is flat. A Kerry campaign spokesperson flatly denied it.”

What the heck does that tell me? I want that reporter to do a little research and tell me if the world really is flat or not. I mean wouldn’t the really BIG story be,

“The Bush camaign today made the preposterous claim that the world is flat. What a bunch of idiots.”

Just my pet media peeve.