Al Jazeera has passed Fox News in Internet Viewership

[Vekseid]

I was around in the 80s..there was a bit more fact and far less 'what is Debutante X up to this week' eating up our time slots.  Do you think some of the stuff that slid under the american radar would have done so in the 80s? I'm not saying the fairness doctrine is perfect.. It wasn't, but back then the news shows REPORTED. You didn't have the anchor saying that it was okay to murder a medical professional because he disagreed with the practices of the doctor.

We might not need the Fairness Doctrine back, but we need SOMETHING.

There is Canada's solution, which basically prohibits Fox from entering - stronger libel and slander laws, and willful distribution of a lie is in fact a prosecutable crime.

I think a more well-defined version of the Fairness Doctrine may also work, as well - if you discuss a specific person or group, that group should be allowed the chance to respond.

[Callie Del Noire]

There is Canada's solution, which basically prohibits Fox from entering - stronger libel and slander laws, and willful distribution of a lie is in fact a prosecutable crime.

I think a more well-defined version of the Fairness Doctrine may also work, as well - if you discuss a specific person or group, that group should be allowed the chance to respond.

I think that might work but too many media groups have gotten away with too much for too long. EVERYONE has lost their focus and get away with something like that.

[Jude]

Some stricter rules probably wouldn't be the end of the world, but I think we need more than that.  Critical thinking needs to make a come back in a big way, we need to educate the populace on things like confirmation bias and vaccinate ourselves against stupidity.

[Callie Del Noire]

Some stricter rules probably wouldn't be the end of the world, but I think we need more than that.  Critical thinking needs to make a come back in a big way, we need to educate the populace on things like confirmation bias and vaccinate ourselves against stupidity.

Seriously needs to get some control of the talking mouths. Put reporters back in place and have some damn ethics in mind with consideration of what they say on the damn air. Seriously.

[Will]

The Fairness Doctrine would be a bad idea, again.

If anyone else here was alive back in the early-mid eighties, they may recall that there weren't any politics on television or the radio, outside of news reporting. No opining (Beck, Limbaugh, Savage, etc), no comedy (Colbert and Stewart), none of it. Networks were unwilling to risk cries of bias (via the doctrine), and so chose to completely censor politics.

Could you elaborate on why you believe this?  I was under the impression that things like that didn't exist back then because it just wasn't profitable.  News was just news, not entertainment, and networks wouldn't allow it to take up valuable airtime from more worthwhile ventures.

[Callie Del Noire]

Could you elaborate on why you believe this?  I was under the impression that things like that didn't exist back then because it just wasn't profitable.  News was just news, not entertainment, and networks wouldn't allow it to take up valuable airtime from more worthwhile ventures.

Back in the day, pre-Ted Turner, no one thought news more than 2 hours at time would make money. CNN USED to do just that and made money hand over fist.. of course this was also back when MTV played music videos.

[Will]

Back in the day, pre-Ted Turner, no one thought news more than 2 hours at time would make money. CNN USED to do just that and made money hand over fist.. of course this was also back when MTV played music videos.

I demand evidence for this!!!  Don't bring your lies in here, sir.

[Oniya]

I think I have a few VHS tapes that could be used as evidence...

[Callie Del Noire]

I demand evidence for this!!!  Don't bring your lies in here, sir.

There was this thing called the Headbanger's Ball. My brother used to tape it because we worked late and missed it a lot on weekends. And this was MTV circa prw (Pre-REAL World)

[HairyHeretic]

Headbangers Ball. Man, that takes me back :)

[Zakharra]

I think a more well-defined version of the Fairness Doctrine may also work, as well - if you discuss a specific person or group, that group should be allowed the chance to respond.

Wouldn't that force talk shows to change their format and put on people that they might not want on?

[Callie Del Noire]

Wouldn't that force talk shows to change their format and put on people that they might not want on?

I think if they preface the broadcast with ye olde disclaimer it might be easier. Thing is.. it won't happen. Too many corporate interests are invested in opinions and not truth. There will be no FCC guide lines, or even something remotely calling for more ethical behavior. Too long has gone since the death of the Fairness Doctrine and nothing to replace it.

[Zeitgeist]

There is little argument we have many more choices of media outlets today, than 15 or 20 years ago. As a result of many more choices, some of those choices may be circumspect, of less quality. Quantity goes up and the relative quality drops. But I think we'd mostly agree that more choices are better than less. Right? And I'd argue that fairness policing by the government isn't a good solution. What is so awful about competing in the market of ideas? I don't offer a solution, as I don't largely believe there is a great crisis needing to be resolved. That is of course, just my opinion ;D

[Callie Del Noire]

There is little argument we have many more choices of media outlets today, than 15 or 20 years ago. As a result of many more choices, some of those choices may be circumspect, of less quality. Quantity goes up and the relative quality drops. But I think we'd mostly agree that more choices are better than less. Right? And I'd argue that fairness policing by the government isn't a good solution. What is so awful about competing in the market of ideas? I don't offer a solution, as I don't largely believe there is a great crisis needing to be resolved. That is of course, just my opinion ;D

While it had problems we never had a talking head calling for the death of a person they didn't approve of back then. Unlike the MULTIPLE comments on the O'Reilly Factor (specifically the late George Tiller).

There has to be some level of restraint, or barring that responsibility, and it's quite clear that the industry isn't willing to sit down and regulate themselves. Every week they do more and more in the pursuit of ONE THING. Ratings.

The public goes to them for information, right or wrong, and if they can't.. or in this case.. won't regulate their behavior, we have to expect someone to. We don't need the every last damn minute details of what this or that celebrity does or doesn't do.

The suppression of students in Venezuela got damn near NO coverage in the US (I only saw it on BBC America) and at the same time the lovely folks at Fox, CNN looped HOURS of coverage on whether some rich spoiled heiress was going to be compelled to show up for court rather than staying at home under house arrest.  Four hours prior to the sherrifs being sent to 2 hours past, constant loops of it.

We got a man whose history follows a disturbing parallel to Adolf Hitler in power down south. A decade from now when there are bodies all over the place, the media will be asking 'how did this happen?' and look innocently around to find someone in office to blame.

The media's role is to shine a light into the areas where people need to know, NOT pander to the lowest common denominator. 

[Vekseid]

Wouldn't that force talk shows to change their format and put on people that they might not want on?

That is sort of the idea.

Stewart, Colbert, and Maddow will do just fine devoting a few minutes of their show to responses. And not everyone is going to respond.

People who outright libel and slander on their shows will have a tougher time coping.

There is little argument we have many more choices of media outlets today, than 15 or 20 years ago. As a result of many more choices, some of those choices may be circumspect, of less quality. Quantity goes up and the relative quality drops. But I think we'd mostly agree that more choices are better than less. Right? And I'd argue that fairness policing by the government isn't a good solution. What is so awful about competing in the market of ideas? I don't offer a solution, as I don't largely believe there is a great crisis needing to be resolved. That is of course, just my opinion ;D

There's a great TED Talk about how does actually seem to be the case that past a certain threshold, more choice is in fact worse.

Case 1: Google Search results. You're looking for information about one thing, and often have to wade through spamdexed links, false information and other crap to find what you are looking for. Especially with legal information. Are all of those 'choices' - designed to fleece you - really 'good'?
Case 2: Affiliate partners. There's a reason why I only have a few - I only get paid in $50 increments. If I had thousands up there, fewer people would make purchases from each individual one, and I'd make nothing from them.

And fairness in reporting is mostly about allowing people accused of something some redress. Either by preventing it from happening (stronger libel/slander laws), providing a medium of response (you talk about someone through a broadcast medium you give them the right to respond), or both.

[Jude]

I don't offer a solution, as I don't largely believe there is a great crisis needing to be resolved.

Given how uninformed the public is on political issues and how a large portion of the media is devoted to pushing "information" hand-picked to support those points of views, I think we very much are in crisis-mode media-wise.

[Zakharra]

That is sort of the idea.

Stewart, Colbert, and Maddow will do just fine devoting a few minutes of their show to responses. And not everyone is going to respond.

So much for the Freedom of Speech clause then.  Many talk shows do political commentary, the Fairness Doctrine would seriously cut in to what they could say about a candidate since they could and likely would, be forced to let another side be shown/talked about on their shows. If they do not want to show the other side, they should have to be made to.

Freedom of speech protects ALL speech. Even that we do not like, including lies.

People who outright libel and slander on their shows will have a tougher time coping.

That includes damned near every single political campaign being run nowdays.

[Foxypockets]

Actually, freedom of speech doesn't cover ALL speech. At all. If you yell fire in a crowded theater and people trample each other in the panic ensuing, then you're gonna get busted for that. If you damage someone's career or lifestyle by lying about them, you're gonna get punished for that. Not only is there no such thing as universally free speech, having that would be a bad thing.

And it wouldn't limit what people COULD say about a candidate. It would probably just limit what they WOULD say about a candidate. And it's perfectly fair for the opposing side to be able to defend themselves. The media people could say all they want, and then the opposing side could defend with whatever. Doesn't affect what people can and can't say any more than the laws we already have in place.

And a bunch of people would have trouble coping. But hopefully that would just result in the people who couldn't cope losing their jobs and being replaced with better, more informative, news persons.

[Callie Del Noire]

It won't prevent them from saying things like 'He's a commie/corp shill/liberal/conservative/neo-luddite'.

I do think it might cut back on 'Because I disagree with his outlook/thoughts/existence he needs his head cut off' on the air.

Freedom of Speech isn't a shield behind which you can trash talk to garner ratings and then when something happens say 'I'm a journalist' or such.

You can say it.. if you're willing to accept the consequences of your words. Be it getting sued, curb stomped or being called a stupid git.

Freedom of speech is all well and good, but you have to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions.

Too often today Freedom of Speech is used to get out of those consequences, whereas Justice Holmes was all for saying what you wanted IF you could take the consequences.

[Zakharra]

Actually, freedom of speech doesn't cover ALL speech. At all. If you yell fire in a crowded theater and people trample each other in the panic ensuing, then you're gonna get busted for that. If you damage someone's career or lifestyle by lying about them, you're gonna get punished for that. Not only is there no such thing as universally free speech, having that would be a bad thing.

Agreed, you can yell fire in a crowded theater. you'll just get in trouble for causing a panic. You have every right to say it if you're an idiot and want to deal with the consequences. Common sense stops most people from doing that though.

As for hurtful things? that's a vague term, otherwise the KKK parades and people like the WBC would be shut down because what the message they say is hurtful to alot of people. Yet those people can still say more or less what they will.

And it wouldn't limit what people COULD say about a candidate. It would probably just limit what they WOULD say about a candidate. And it's perfectly fair for the opposing side to be able to defend themselves. The media people could say all they want, and then the opposing side could defend with whatever. Doesn't affect what people can and can't say any more than the laws we already have in place.

Limit what they 'would' say? Why?  If it limits what they would say, that is a limitation on free speech.  The freedom of speech clause, I believe, the Supreme Court has said repeatedly is for all speech, and mainly for political speech. You cannot censor political speech. It struck down part of the McCain (McCain/Finegold act?) bill passed in this last decade that restricted any 'attack' ads against political candidates that ran within a certain time period before an election. It was stated that that part restricted free speech, so it was removed.

And a bunch of people would have trouble coping. But hopefully that would just result in the people who couldn't cope losing their jobs and being replaced with better, more informative, news persons.

Then try and make the news organizations more accountable and hold to better standards from the inside.  What about the talk shows then? On TV, the radio and cable/satellite? Would commentary and talk shows on them have to conform or would only  news shows?

A stricter governmental control on that would be abused. I cannot see how it wouldn't be abused sooner rather than later. 
'Say what we want you to say or we will fine you or remove your licence to broadcast.'

By forcing them to put on the other side, you limit what they can and do say and making them say things they might not want. Aside from news shows, aren't most of the shows (not including the obvious entertainment shows) more or less commentary or talkshows? What classifies as a news show?

[Zakharra]

It won't prevent them from saying things like 'He's a commie/corp shill/liberal/conservative/neo-luddite'.

I do think it might cut back on 'Because I disagree with his outlook/thoughts/existence he needs his head cut off' on the air.

Freedom of Speech isn't a shield behind which you can trash talk to garner ratings and then when something happens say 'I'm a journalist' or such.

You can say it.. if you're willing to accept the consequences of your words. Be it getting sued, curb stomped or being called a stupid git.

Freedom of speech is all well and good, but you have to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions.

Too often today Freedom of Speech is used to get out of those consequences, whereas Justice Holmes was all for saying what you wanted IF you could take the consequences.

I'm all for consequences. If a commentator, show or group pissed people off, go for it. They can lose support and money as companies and groups pull funding. Show it that way, but do not necessarily restrict what they can say. An example is the companies that pulled their funding from Wikileaks when those stories broke out. Wikileaks did something they didn't approve of. And people who supported what Wikileaks did attacked those companies for doing that. Consequences.

Political ads are often inflammatory and paint the other person in fairly negative terms. They always have been. Through innuendo and subtle (sometimes not so subtle) wording/sounds/pictures they get their point across.

They shouldn't call for the killing  of someone, ads I mean, but can an individual call for that, give his/her opinion?  It depends. If they say we'd be better off if this person was dead, I might not like it, but they can say it. Now if they were calling for the murder of someone, that  is different, I will agree.  Calling for the murder of someone is going too far.

[Foxypockets]

I didn't say hurtful things. That was not a term that I used. I said "If you damage someone's career or lifestyle by lying about them," which is much more specific than "hurtful things." In the case of "hurtful things," anyone who gets butthurt about any stupid little thing would be in the right. And that's silly.

And limiting what a person "would" say is completely different than limiting what a person "could" say, which still seems to be the direction you're approaching it from. By enforcing more severe consequences for libel or slander, as well as enabling people to defend their positions (or requiring that news stations allow people to defend themselves/their positions), then people would have to pay higher consequences for their actions. You've just said that you're all for that. Higher consequences means that people would be less willing to break the rules.

Thus changing what they "would" say, but not changing what they "could" say. Besides, people are much less likely to go all redfaced and slanderous when they're actually faced with the person they're talking about. Which would also change what they "would" say. Not through punishment, but through social interaction. Nothin' wrong with that.

[Oniya]

It's like when my mother said she wanted me to talk to a priest because she was 'worried about me playing D&D'.  I told her 'Fine, but you have to talk to one of my friends for an equal amount of time.'  I was perfectly willing to talk to the priest, and would have allowed him to say whatever he wanted to say.  My mother opted not to agree to that.

Interestingly enough, when my family was 'forced' to interact with my gaming friends at my wedding (I met Mr. Oniya while he was GMing, one of our other GMs was the best man, another one was the maid of honor, another member of the crew played the bagpipes...) the reaction was that they were 'intelligent, articulate and - um - er - fun.'  Social interaction.  Go figure.

[Vekseid]

So much for the Freedom of Speech clause then.  Many talk shows do political commentary, the Fairness Doctrine would seriously cut in to what they could say about a candidate since they could and likely would, be forced to let another side be shown/talked about on their shows. If they do not want to show the other side, they should have to be made to.

Freedom of speech protects ALL speech. Even that we do not like, including lies.

The specific terminology of the Constitution is the Freedom of the Press, and its intent is to foster the uninhibited distribution of facts. Lies are not covered by this, slander and libel are not covered by this, threats are not covered by this, incitements to violence are not covered by this. These are all classifications of speech that the Supreme Court has, in one way or another, ruled as not being protected speech.

And people should have the right to respond when they are accused of something. Up until the moment they are convicted.

That includes damned near every single political campaign being run nowdays.

And you don't think it would be better for that crap to stop?

[Oniya]

And people should have the right to respond when they are accused of something. Up until the moment they are convicted.

People are even given the right to respond (should they choose) after conviction.  In the federal system, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(4) provides that the court must "address the defendant personally in order to permit the defendant to speak or present any information to mitigate the sentence."