Rob37
Silver Member
- Feb 4, 2017
- 2,148
- 262
- 95
- Banned
- #1
This is not about what is, but what ought to be. First Amendment ensures a free press. This is an implicit check on the government. Like all checks, the goal is to prevent power from becoming concentrated. Concentrated power can facilitate tyranny, and that will not be tolerated. But there is no effective check on the press, which leaves them vulnerable to corruption and being commandeered by a particular political faction.
The problem is that the press is not independent from the political process today. Their number one motivation, clearly, is money. There is not necessarily anything wrong with a profit motive, and it is certainly preferable to government subsides. However, the major media companies are owned by huge conglomerates of organizations and it is very easy for them to conceal conflicts that compromise their independence.
Moreover, the profit motive is of such high priority in today's chosen media business model that the motivation is to produce story after story to fill the short, recurring news cycles. For example, there is the fake news where the alleged facts in the story are false. This is when the media reports that the Atlanta Falcons beat New England in this year's Super Bowl. Such a story is fake. But then there is also "fake news" in which the reported facts may be true, but the spin is fake. Therefore, it does not even approach the threshold necessary to deem it news or newsworthy. An example of "fake news" is that the nation was rooting for Atlanta to win the Super Bowl because Tom Brady is a friend of Trump, and that Trump supporters feel vindicated by the Patriots' Super Bowl win. Neither of these two stories are newsworthy. What's worse is that the media will fill news cycles with "fake news" involving actual newsworthy individuals. This is when it gets dangerous.
Finally, news organizations can themselves be biased. No sane person can watch CNN or MSNBC and not conclude that there is a leftist, anti-Trump bias. Over 20 years ago I took a poly sci course on media in college as an undergrad. The professor was a leftist pig. The overriding theme taught in that class was that the media is anti-establishment, meaning that they will be tough on everyone in power. It was a good point, I thought. But then watching the media slam Bush, then get wet over Obama, then furiously attack Trump, leads me to conclude that while the media may have some institutional anti-establishment bias, they can clearly have political bias too.
The media has taken sides. They have chosen to be anti-Trump and pro-Democrat. This is unacceptable and outside of the bounds of the constitution. You cannot have a free press if the Gov regulates it, OR if the media chooses sides.
Where are the checks on the press? There are none. The FCC cannot legally regulate political content. Free market principles do not apply because the major broadcast organizations have a virtual monopoly. Social media and online sources have made a big difference. Kudos for this. But the big broadcast media grosses GOBS and GOBS of revenue. The free market cannot be an effective check on the big boys.
There is nothing indicating that the content of the media cannot be regulated. Doing so is not necessarily inconsistent with a "free press". All we need is an effective check on media power to keep them accountable to the people. For example, maybe we create an FCC-like, independent and bipartisan panel to monitor content and assign a bias rating to each licensed media outlet. The bias rating is published so that people can make an informed decision on where they get their news and information. The president can appoint the panel members, subject to Senate approval, and the panel should have to provide and annual public accounting to Congress. Further, the panel should have a mandate to rate every licensed media organization and to provide a written factual basis for their rating. The panel cannot shut down or punish anyone. They merely make a factually based rating and publish it. Call is "FIB"... Facts in Broadcasting. The FIB Panel issues its annual "FIB Ratings."
Something has got to be done because today's broadcast media's business model, bias, and love affair with "Fake News" is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.
The problem is that the press is not independent from the political process today. Their number one motivation, clearly, is money. There is not necessarily anything wrong with a profit motive, and it is certainly preferable to government subsides. However, the major media companies are owned by huge conglomerates of organizations and it is very easy for them to conceal conflicts that compromise their independence.
Moreover, the profit motive is of such high priority in today's chosen media business model that the motivation is to produce story after story to fill the short, recurring news cycles. For example, there is the fake news where the alleged facts in the story are false. This is when the media reports that the Atlanta Falcons beat New England in this year's Super Bowl. Such a story is fake. But then there is also "fake news" in which the reported facts may be true, but the spin is fake. Therefore, it does not even approach the threshold necessary to deem it news or newsworthy. An example of "fake news" is that the nation was rooting for Atlanta to win the Super Bowl because Tom Brady is a friend of Trump, and that Trump supporters feel vindicated by the Patriots' Super Bowl win. Neither of these two stories are newsworthy. What's worse is that the media will fill news cycles with "fake news" involving actual newsworthy individuals. This is when it gets dangerous.
Finally, news organizations can themselves be biased. No sane person can watch CNN or MSNBC and not conclude that there is a leftist, anti-Trump bias. Over 20 years ago I took a poly sci course on media in college as an undergrad. The professor was a leftist pig. The overriding theme taught in that class was that the media is anti-establishment, meaning that they will be tough on everyone in power. It was a good point, I thought. But then watching the media slam Bush, then get wet over Obama, then furiously attack Trump, leads me to conclude that while the media may have some institutional anti-establishment bias, they can clearly have political bias too.
The media has taken sides. They have chosen to be anti-Trump and pro-Democrat. This is unacceptable and outside of the bounds of the constitution. You cannot have a free press if the Gov regulates it, OR if the media chooses sides.
Where are the checks on the press? There are none. The FCC cannot legally regulate political content. Free market principles do not apply because the major broadcast organizations have a virtual monopoly. Social media and online sources have made a big difference. Kudos for this. But the big broadcast media grosses GOBS and GOBS of revenue. The free market cannot be an effective check on the big boys.
There is nothing indicating that the content of the media cannot be regulated. Doing so is not necessarily inconsistent with a "free press". All we need is an effective check on media power to keep them accountable to the people. For example, maybe we create an FCC-like, independent and bipartisan panel to monitor content and assign a bias rating to each licensed media outlet. The bias rating is published so that people can make an informed decision on where they get their news and information. The president can appoint the panel members, subject to Senate approval, and the panel should have to provide and annual public accounting to Congress. Further, the panel should have a mandate to rate every licensed media organization and to provide a written factual basis for their rating. The panel cannot shut down or punish anyone. They merely make a factually based rating and publish it. Call is "FIB"... Facts in Broadcasting. The FIB Panel issues its annual "FIB Ratings."
Something has got to be done because today's broadcast media's business model, bias, and love affair with "Fake News" is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.
