The Deadly Irresponsibility of Newsweek Magazine

[wolverine]

Newsweek Apologizes

Notice this apology is to the victims of the violence that was sparked.
No apology for the harm done to the U.S. reputation abroad as to how it conducts itself.

No surprise they won't retract the story entirely.

 

[musicman]

Only about 1/3 of the stories on the Drudge Report have any accuracy.

The MSM is a much larger target than the Blogsphere. You hear of basically every error the MSM makes in the blogs, but you don't hear about every error the blogs make.

You're missing the point. The blogosphere belongs to everybody. Inaccuracies are called out in real time. Horseshit doesn't have a chance.

The people in control of Islam have unfortunately taken it in that direction.

They are then followed by the world's Muslims. Who are we to believe - you, or our lying eyes?

There used to be Christians who believed the Bible advocated slavery (and probably still are), and a large number of them didn't/don't believe in free will either.

They're poor Christians, then. The Bible acknowledges the existence of slavery; it doesn't condone it. And man's free will is the whole point of this wacky, wonderful exercise, according to Christianity. I've never heard anyone saying, "Love Jesus or I'll kill you." And, I've never heard anyone's death demanded for desecrating the Bible. Salman Rushdie's penalty, on the other hand, was perfectly proper in the eyes of mainstream Muslims - Yusef Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), for one.

Actually, during the Fairness Doctrine the media was much more objective and honest.

Sorry, my friend - I was there. Ever heard of a guy named Dan Rather? How about Gen. William Westmoreland? CBS News - and all the other hatchet-wielding alphabet networks, for that matter - have been in bed with the DNC for over thirty years.

I don't know of a single liberal who is fighting to reinstate it,

I'll do a little research and get back to you. Liberals are the ONLY ones who want it reinstated.

Maybe if there are liberals out there who want the Fairness Doctrine they want it reinstated because they think there is a conservative bias in the media.

A few faint voices began reporting the news objectively, and it was such a refreshing sound to America's tired ears that the MSM/DNC are fighting for their lives. The old ways are gone; liberalism can only thrive when it has a monopoly on the dissemination of information.

 

[freeandfun1]

Here are the salient points....

When Christ was on earth, He never led nor even advocated "wars" against non-believers. Mohammed himself actually led marauding bands of Muslims on a mission to conquer and destroy. Christ preached peace and love, Mohammed preached death and destruction.

 

[IControlThePast]

You're missing the point. The blogosphere belongs to everybody. Inaccuracies are called out in real time. Horseshit doesn't have a chance.

This is just my observation. Drudge does stories like saying Clinton was Kerry's running mate, the John Kerry scandal, the Blumenthal wife-beating, and more. Drudge himself admitted he is no more than 80% right on his stories.

Quite the opposite. It is very easy for the outrageous stories to fade off into electronic wasteland. People don't say "that's wrong information," they think "maybe that's right because Drudge is a newsource and probably credible" and just don't remember the story if they don't see it again because it was completely made up.

They are then followed by the world's Muslims. Who are we to believe - you, or our lying eyes?

They're poor Christians, then. The Bible acknowledges the existence of slavery; it doesn't condone it. And man's free will is the whole point of this wacky, wonderful exercise, according to Christianity. I've never heard anyone saying, "Love Jesus or I'll kill you." And, I've never heard anyone's death demanded for desecrating the Bible. Salman Rushdie's penalty, on the other hand, was perfectly proper in the eyes of mainstream Muslims - Yusef Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), for one.

There are both radical sects of Christianity and Islam, but the Islamic one has more followers. My Muslim friends are very much against the Terrorists, not all the Muslims in the world follow what the Terrorists believe.

You've never heard of the Crusdaes :tng:. Christianity has gone through a radical phase of being pro-slavery, burning people at the stake, the Children's Crusade, and quite a few other things a majority of Christians did. All of these actions do not detract from true Christianity, like the radical Terrorists do not detract from true Islam.

Sorry, my friend - I was there. Ever heard of a guy named Dan Rather? How about Gen. William Westmoreland? CBS News - and all the other hatchet-wielding alphabet networks, for that matter - have been in bed with the DNC for over thirty years.

The collapse of the Fairness Doctrine had significant political effects. The new lack of distinctions between news, political advocacy, and political advertising, helped lead to the polarizing cacophony of strident talking heads that we have today. Read The Creation of the Media by Paul Starr, a Pulitzer winning professor at Princeton if you want to learn more.

I'll do a little research and get back to you. Liberals are the ONLY ones who want it reinstated.

If there is a liberal media, like people are claiming, why would liberals want the doctrine reinstated? To make the media less liberal?

A few faint voices began reporting the news objectively, and it was such a refreshing sound to America's tired ears that the MSM/DNC are fighting for their lives. The old ways are gone; liberalism can only thrive when it has a monopoly on the dissemination of information.

So then why would the liberals want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine to make the media more reliable and centrist?

Here are the salient points....

When Christ was on earth, He never led nor even advocated "wars" against non-believers. Mohammed himself actually led marauding bands of Muslims on a mission to conquer and destroy. Christ preached peace and love, Mohammed preached death and destruction.

Muhammed only fought in self defense, something that is also accepted by Christianity. Christ is considered an equally important prophet in Islam as Muhammad.

 

[Yurt]

I wish people would stop bringing up the crusades, that happened almost a thousand years ago, as present current political fodder.

Muhammed only fought in self defense, something that is also accepted by Christianity. Christ is considered an equally important prophet in Islam as Muhammad.

I dare say, you should do you research on this. This guy basically advocated the overthrow of the then current governing body and they wanted to take him stop. Big diff between Christ my man. Let me ask you this, if someone like Muhammad came to the US today (may already be here) and advocated the overthrow of the current US government and they imprisoned him, would you call a rebellion by him or his followers "self defense?"

 

[Bonnie]

IControlThe Past

don't know of a single liberal who is fighting to reinstate it, but I am because of how horrible the MSM is, and how it definately needs fixing. Maybe if there are liberals out there who want the Fairness Doctrine they want it reinstated because they think there is a conservative bias in the media.

Actually there are many prominant liberals looking to reinstate the fairness docrtrine, and don't kid yourself as to their motives being purely or even remotely ethical. They don't want the free market( the people) to decide what gets played in the media regarding news because they know the few real liberal outlets go away when depending on anything other than forced government money support. News is news and should be reported accurately and unbiased period, but commentary news and radio should not be controlled by government under the auspice of fairness, it is exaclty the opposite.

 

[IControlThePast]

I wish people would stop bringing up the crusades, that happened almost a thousand years ago, as present current political fodder.



I dare say, you should do you research on this. This guy basically advocated the overthrow of the then current governing body and they wanted to take him stop. Big diff between Christ my man. Let me ask you this, if someone like Muhammad came to the US today (may already be here) and advocated the overthrow of the current US government and they imprisoned him, would you call a rebellion by him or his followers "self defense?"

My point exactly is that they happened, but they don't denigrate true Christianity, especially now that the majority view has changed. Some Islam is still stuck a bit in the Fundementalist phase of not being able to adopt their teachings to the modern world.

I've done some research. In answer to your question, if he advocated the overthrow of the US government, I wouldn't claim what he did as self defense. However, I find the best analogy to be the one of the Revolutionary War. He split from his Mecca tribe to go to Medina, which resulted in a War against him by Mecca like we split from Britain to create our own nation resulting in the Revolutionary War. Not all rebellions are bad: one created the United States. Muhammad's response of self-defense was appropriate.

 

[Annie]

My point exactly is that they happened, but they don't denigrate true Christianity, especially now that the majority view has changed. Some Islam is still stuck a bit in the Fundementalist phase of not being able to adopt their teachings to the modern world.

I've done some research. In answer to your question, if he advocated the overthrow of the US government, I wouldn't claim what he did as self defense. However, I find the best analogy to be the one of the Revolutionary War. He split from his Mecca tribe to go to Medina, which resulted in a War against him by Mecca like we split from Britain to create our own nation resulting in the Revolutionary War. Not all rebellions are bad: one created the United States. Muhammad's response of self-defense was appropriate.

Not totally Chrisitian aggression. From:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6981/defense.htm

Popular perceptions paint the Crusades as an act of Christian aggression toward as alien Eastern culture. Although the desire to enrich Europe with captured plunder and lands, and the desire to spread the faith of Christianity were two important catalysts to the declaration of the Crusades, they were not the actual reasons that motivated these wars. Pope Urban II officially declared the First Crusade on Tuesday, November 27, 1095, with the goal of liberating the land formerly held by the Christians; and the liberation of oppressed Christians in the Middle East. Urban's declaration shows that the Crusades were not an aggressive venture by the Europeans, but rather a defensive move to count what they perceived as a looming threat to their lands and their faith.

Eastern aggression indirectly led to Pope Urban's declaration. After the death of Mohammed, Arab armies began successfully invading other nations. The Koran condemns aggressive acts of warfare, however, and a justification for these violations of Mohammed's principles was needed. Muslim jurists formed the concept of the jihad, or holy struggle, as the sought-after justification. The jihad's objective was to conquer the rest of the non-Muslim world "so that the world could reflect the divine unity [of God]" (Holy War, p. 40).

Under jihad, Arabs "conquered Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt" (Infopedia, Byzantium). Constantinople survived two sieges, one in the 670s and another in 717-718. After the decline of the influential Abassids, the more belligerent Seljuk dynasty dominated in the 11th and 12th centuries. The Seljuks converted to Islam in the 10th century and controlled most of Iran and Iraq under Togrul Beg (c. 990-1063). Togrul's successors, Alp Arslan (c. 1029-1072) and Malik Shah (1055-1092) extended the Seljuk empire into Syria and Palestine. In 1071, Arslan conducted a campaign that resulted in the battle of Manzikert, where he routed the Byzantines. The battle of Manzikert "was the indirect cause of the Crusades" (The First Crusade, p. 28), heralding Byzantium's loss of control in Asia Minor. This loss of control "lay behind the appeal to the West in 1095" (The Crusades, p. 2). For the next ten years, Byzantium was in chaos and unable to counter the Turks. Then Emperor Alexius I of Byzantium ascended to the throne and waited for a suitable time to launch a counter-offensive against the Turks. By 1095, Alexius was ready to attack the Turks, but he desperately needed soldiers for his army. Alexius decided to send envoys to Urban's Council at Piacenza, who appealed to the assembled bishops and to the Pope to "send members of their flocks eastward to fight for their faith" (The First Crusade, p. 40). It is said that Urban told his audience that "a grave report has come from the lands around Jerusalem and from the city of Constantinople" (The Cross and the Crescent, p. 18), referring to Alexius' request for aid. Urban also stated that

'. . . a people from the kingdom of the Persians, a foreign race, a race absolutely alien to God . . . has invaded the land of those Christians, has reduced the people with sword, rapine and flame. . .' (The Cross and the Crescent, p. 18)

Clearly, Muslim aggression acted as a catalyst to Urban's declaration....
[...]

 

[BR-549]

My point exactly is that they happened, but they don't denigrate true Christianity, especially now that the majority view has changed. Some Islam is still stuck a bit in the Fundementalist phase of not being able to adopt their teachings to the modern world.

I've done some research. In answer to your question, if he advocated the overthrow of the US government, I wouldn't claim what he did as self defense. However, I find the best analogy to be the one of the Revolutionary War. He split from his Mecca tribe to go to Medina, which resulted in a War against him by Mecca like we split from Britain to create our own nation resulting in the Revolutionary War. Not all rebellions are bad: one created the United States. Muhammad's response of self-defense was appropriate.

even if you bomb them to hell.. Islam is a violence based religion.. Wahhabism is rampant and growing.. Small percentage my ass... Muhammed himself raped and murdered. Killed those who would not convert. There is no comparison. Christianity is the light of the world, Islam, if we don't fight it like hell, will bring darkness to us all. Geez how do you sleep?

 

[IControlThePast]

Actually there are many prominant liberals looking to reinstate the fairness docrtrine, and don't kid yourself as to their motives being purely or even remotely ethical. They don't want the free market( the people) to decide what gets played in the media regarding news because they know the few real liberal outlets go away when depending on anything other than forced government money support. News is news and should be reported accurately and unbiased period, but commentary news and radio should not be controlled by government under the auspice of fairness, it is exaclty the opposite.

Apparently quite a few people here seem to think the free market isn't doing a good job by evidencing CBS, this Newsweek issue, the cover of the War. The free market would succeed here if news was judged on merit instead of entertainment. People would rather watch the Daily Show or The Worlds Wildest Crashes IV than read an article in the Atlantic Monthly. Imagine the type of world we would live in if people were only told what they wanted to hear.

You make it seem like the government would have a vice grip on the media while in reality what the Fairness Doctrine did was much different. There were the personal attack and political editorial rules for allowing opponents of broadcast ideas the option to express their dissenting opinion. The personal attack rule is pertinent whenever a person or small group is subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations must notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said, and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The political editorial rule applies when a station broadcasts editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulates that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

And my overall point about bringing up the Fairness Doctrine:

If you oppose the Fairness Doctrine and believe in a liberal media, you are in logical bind. The only attack against the Fairness Doctrine is the "free market" one. Therefore if you believe in the liberal media and attack the Fairness Doctrine, you belive the liberal media was created because the free market destroyed conservative outlets whose views couldn't stand on their own. I can't see any conservative attacking the Fairness Doctrine and believing in a liberal media at the same time.

 

[freeandfun1]

Apparently quite a few people here seem to think the free market isn't doing a good job by evidencing CBS, this Newsweek issue, the cover of the War. The free market would succeed here if news was judged on merit instead of entertainment. People would rather watch the Daily Show or The Worlds Wildest Crashes IV than read an article in the Atlantic Monthly. Imagine the type of world we would live in if people were only told what they wanted to hear.

You make it seem like the government would have a vice grip on the media while in reality what the Fairness Doctrine did was much different. There were the personal attack and political editorial rules for allowing opponents of broadcast ideas the option to express their dissenting opinion. The personal attack rule is pertinent whenever a person or small group is subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations must notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said, and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The political editorial rule applies when a station broadcasts editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulates that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

And my overall point about bringing up the Fairness Doctrine:

If you oppose the Fairness Doctrine and believe in a liberal media, you are in logical bind. The only attack against the Fairness Doctrine is the "free market" one. Therefore if you believe in the liberal media and attack the Fairness Doctrine, you belive the liberal media was created because the free market destroyed conservative outlets whose views couldn't stand on their own. I can't see any conservative attacking the Fairness Doctrine and believing in a liberal media at the same time.

You love to ignore facts when you dribble your... well, dribble.

The media (to a large extent) is liberal. However, for so long, they had a tri-opoly (for all intents and purposes) and they were able to hold onto their power. Now that FOX and other outlets for news are available, they are falling fast. So I am against the Fairness Doctrine as I believe the free-market route is the best to take. I also don't think we need it because now it is obvious the MSM is in a downward spiral that they ain't gonna pull out of.

 

[IControlThePast]

even if you bomb them to hell.. Islam is a violence based religion.. Wahhabism is rampant and growing.. Small percentage my ass... Muhammed himself raped and murdered. Killed those who would not convert. There is no comparison. Christianity is the light of the world, Islam, if we don't fight it like hell, will bring darkness to us all. Geez how do you sleep?

Wahhabism is a radical fundemental sect of Islam, not true Islam. We definately need to fight the "Islam" of the Terrorists. You have any links from reputable sources to back up your facts? Oh, and I don't sleep, don't need to, at least not yet.

 

[IControlThePast]

You love to ignore facts when you dribble your... well, dribble.

The media (to a large extent) is liberal. However, for so long, they had a tri-opoly (for all intents and purposes) and they were able to hold onto their power. Now that FOX and other outlets for news are available, they are falling fast. So I am against the Fairness Doctrine as I believe the free-market route is the best to take. I also don't think we need it because now it is obvious the MSM is in a downward spiral that they ain't gonna pull out of.

That's going to be a hard fact for you to prove, although I'd like to see your attempt. I keep an open mind. Even if you look at the free market and compare the Fox ratings vs. all other MSM outlets combined, Fox ("the conservative") is losing to the "liberal" outlets. However, the only reason why Fox recieves the most viewship is because it did the best job of doing entertainment instead of news.

The MSM isn't going anywhere quite yet. What has started to happen is a polarization of the MSM, shifting to provide unreliable news to ideologically homogeneous audiences. Unless we change, in the end there will be no news. There will only be partisan spatter and entertainment, but it will still be controlled by the MSM. The blogsphere will just be a recruiting ground of prospective writers for the MSM.

 

[freeandfun1]

Even if you look at the free market and compare the Fox ratings vs. all other MSM outlets combined, Fox ("the conservative") is losing to the "liberal" outlets. However, the only reason why Fox recieves the most viewship is because it did the best job of doing entertainment instead of news.

You contradict yourself here.

How can they be losing yet have the most viewship? DOH! Nice try.

 

[IControlThePast]

You contradict yourself here.

How can they be losing yet have the most viewship? DOH! Nice try.

Because, correct me if I'm wrong, Fox has the most viewship of any single outlet, and that's why. If everything else in the MSM out there is a vast left wing conspiracy, then to compare liberal vs. conservative viewership you must compare Fox vs. all other outlets.

 

[freeandfun1]

Because, correct me if I'm wrong, Fox has the most viewship of any single outlet, and that's why. If everything else in the MSM out there is a vast left wing conspiracy, then to compare liberal vs. conservative viewership you must compare Fox vs. all other outlets.

FNC has been beating all the MSM channels (CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS) COMBINED.

 

[IControlThePast]

FNC has been beating all the MSM channels (CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS) COMBINED.

I'd doubt that, link?

Is it still in the lead with all the MSM print circulation outlets added too?

 

[Bonnie]

Apparently quite a few people here seem to think the free market isn't doing a good job by evidencing CBS, this Newsweek issue, the cover of the War. The free market would succeed here if news was judged on merit instead of entertainment. People would rather watch the Daily Show or The Worlds Wildest Crashes IV than read an article in the Atlantic Monthly. Imagine the type of world we would live in if people were only told what they wanted to hear.

You make it seem like the government would have a vice grip on the media while in reality what the Fairness Doctrine did was much different. There were the personal attack and political editorial rules for allowing opponents of broadcast ideas the option to express their dissenting opinion. The personal attack rule is pertinent whenever a person or small group is subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations must notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said, and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The political editorial rule applies when a station broadcasts editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulates that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

And my overall point about bringing up the Fairness Doctrine:

If you oppose the Fairness Doctrine and believe in a liberal media, you are in logical bind. The only attack against the Fairness Doctrine is the "free market" one. Therefore if you believe in the liberal media and attack the Fairness Doctrine, you belive the liberal media was created because the free market destroyed conservative outlets whose views couldn't stand on their own. I can't see any conservative attacking the Fairness Doctrine and believing in a liberal media at the same time.

But again you are lumping commentary driven news with actual news. The liberal media will fail eventually because of conservatives and bloggers who are now taking them to task for their incorrect or biased news journalism, notice how many liberal news outlets have been outed for such mistakes in the last two years or so. That had nothing to do fairness but of freedom to correct what's not correct, that comes from a freedom of the press.

Question, when was the last time you heard a liberal news commentator actually called that in the press of by their colleagues? I have not, I have heard them labeled journalist... But how many times have you heard the conservative or extreme right wing label given to Rush, Hannity, Levin, Ingraham instead of just journalist or news commentator??? How about all the time?

Go back to the 70's and early 80's when the fariness doctrine was in place, radio was almost non existant, and if the liberal press was making gross statements and mistakes in their reporting no one was calling them on it.
The best way for accuracy in the media is for freedom period, and allow people to see each media source for what it really is.

Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair
by Adam Thierer
Executive Memorandum #368


October 29, 1993 |



Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the "fairness doctrine." The legislation, entitled the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993," is sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat, and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner, the North Carolina Democrat. It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles. The legislation now before Congress would enshrine the fairness doctrine into law.

The doctrine's supporters seem not to appreciate just how much the broadcast world has changed since 1949. With the proliferation of informational resources and technology, the number of broadcast outlets available to the public has increased steadily. In such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard. The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as "unbalanced" views.

Tested in Court
The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate" (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC's action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress.

As an independent regulatory agency, the FCC has the power to reimpose the doctrine without congressional or executive action. So far, the Commission has taken no position on the Hollings-Hefner legislation or expressed an interest in reregulating on its own. Current FCC Chairman James Quello, though, has stated that, "The fairness doctrine doesn't belong in a country that's dedicated to freedom of the press and freedom of speech." (Doug Halonen, "Twelve to Watch in 1993," Electronic Media, January 25, 1993, p. 66.) The Clinton Administration has not taken an official position on the legislation.

Supporters of reviving the fairness doctrine base their argument on the very same three faulty premises that the FCC and most judicial rulings have rejected.

Faulty Premise #1: The "scarce" amount of spectrum space requires oversight by federal regulators.

Reality: Although the spectrum is limited, the number of broadcasters in America has continuously increased.

Supporters of the fairness doctrine argue that because the airwaves are a scarce resource, they should be policed by federal bureaucrats to ensure that all viewpoints are heard. Yet, just because the spectrum within which broadcast frequencies are found has boundaries, it does not mean that there is a practical shortage of views being heard over the airwaves. When the fairness doctrine was first conceived, only 2,881 radio and 98 television stations existed. By 1960, there were 4,309 radio and 569 television stations. By 1989, these numbers grew to over 10,000 radio stations and close to 1,400 television stations. Likewise, the number of radios in use jumped from 85.2 million in 1950 to 527.4 million by 1988, and televisions in use went from 4 million to 175.5 million during that period. ("The Fairness Doctrine," National Association of Broadcasters, Backgrounder (1989).)

Even if it may once have been possible to monopolize the airwaves, and to deny access to certain viewpoints, that is impossible today. A wide variety of opinions is available to the public through radios, cable channels, and even computers. With America on the verge of information superhighways and 500-channel televisions, there is little prospect of speech being stifled.

Faulty Premise #2: "Fairness" or "fair access" is best determined by FCC authorities.

Reality: FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is "fair" nor enforce it.

The second fallacy upon which the doctrine rests concerns the idea of "fairness" itself. As defined by proponents of the doctrine, "fairness" apparently means that each broadcaster must offer air time to anyone with a controversial view. Since it is impossible for every station to be monitored constantly, FCC regulators would arbitrarily determine what "fair access" is, and who is entitled to it, through selective enforcement. This, of course, puts immense power into the hands of federal regulators. And in fact, the fairness doctrine was used by both the Kennedy and Nixon Administrations to limit political opposition. Telecommunications scholar Thomas W. Hazlett notes that under the Nixon Administration, "License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings." (Thomas W. Hazlett, "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment," The Public Interest, Summer 1989, p. 105.) As one former Kennedy Administration official, Bill Ruder, has said, "We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." (Tony Snow, "Return of the Fairness Demon," The Washington Times, September 5, 1993, p. B3.)

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm

 

[IControlThePast]

But again you are lumping commentary driven news with actual news. The liberal media will fail eventually because of conservatives and bloggers who are now taking them to task for their incorrect or biased news journalism, notice how many liberal news outlets have been outed for such mistakes in the last two years or so. That had nothing to do fairness but of freedom to correct what's not correct, that comes from a freedom of the press.

Question, when was the last time you heard a liberal news commentator actually called that in the press of by their colleagues? I have not, I have heard them labeled journalist... But how many times have you heard the conservative or extreme right wing label given to Rush, Hannity, Levin, Ingraham instead of just journalist or news commentator??? How about all the time?

Go back to the 70's and early 80's when the fariness doctrine was in place, radio was almost non existant, and if the liberal press was making gross statements and mistakes in their reporting no one was calling them on it.
The best way for accuracy in the media is for freedom period, and allow people to see each media source for what it really is.




http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm

Notice the Fox mistakes? Here are some quotes attributed to Kerry by Fox in October 04. "Women should like me! I do manicures," "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great?" and "I'm metrosexual [Bush's] a cowboy." All of these happened to be false. You know there would be hell to pay if CBS said these and switched Kerry and Bush. I've got an article from this month from Fox that says Saddam was involved in 9/11, which we have no proof for.

How many Democratic "commentators" are there? The only ones I can think of are Franken and Moore. Maybe it is because there are not very many liberal commentators if most of the media is liberal, but 73% of FOX News stories included editorial opinions, compared to 29% on MSNBC and 2% on CNN.

Now, nothing like debunking those big ole biased think tanks

The Fairness Doctrine does not limit reporting on controversial stories. The FD does not stifle free speech, only allot air time for people who are attacked to respond. Any "unbalanced" view can be aired as long as there is a chance for an opponent of the view to respond. It does not violate the First Amendment as one source implies.

Faulty Premise #1: The amount of broadcast time on each single channel has not changed from 24 hours per day. There shouldn't be a Democratic News channel and a Republican News channel, each inaccurate. Each channel should maintain fairness, as well as the whole spectrum.

Faulty Premise #2: It is not hard to monitor all of the MSM. The Fairness Doctrine, once enacted, rarely does have to be enforced, because violating the Fairness Doctrine would be a big blow to any outlet that describes themselves as Fair and Balanced or Fair and Accurate.

 

[musicman]

Drudge himself admitted he is no more than 80% right on his stories.

That still puts him way ahead of the MSM/DNC. Also, you stated - unequivocally - that Drudge is only right 1/3 of the time. Good thing we're not checking YOUR accuracy, huh?

It is very easy for the outrageous stories to fade off into electronic wasteland.

Good! That's where they belong. The blogosphere works.

The collapse of the Fairness Doctrine had significant political effects. The new lack of distinctions between news, political advocacy, and political advertising, helped lead to the polarizing cacophony of strident talking heads that we have today. Read The Creation of the Media by Paul Starr, a Pulitzer winning professor at Princeton if you want to learn more.

Do I detect a whiff of elitist arrogance? Save it. I understand Ward Churchill has a whole drawerful of accolades.

If there is a liberal media, like people are claiming,

Do you seriously deny it?

why would liberals want the doctrine reinstated? To make the media less liberal?
So then why would the liberals want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine to make the media more reliable and centrist?

As has been ably pointed out by other members of this board, liberals want it reinstated because A) they aren't the only game in town anymore, and B), now that the market has expanded beyond the friendly confines of their former monopoly, they understand that an increasing number of Americans recognize their garbage as...garbage. They're dead men walking, like their bed partners in the DNC. And, just as the DNC will do anything they can to circumvent the will of the American electorate, so will the MSM welcome any artificial means by which they can circumvent the market. It's a simple matter of survival.

But, you know what? I was right. You ARE an elitist. The news is just too vital a potential weapon to trust to the market, isn't it? We're all just slack-jawed yokels waiting for the next sound bite. Lead us, o Rush! Matters of this importance need to be handled by the true professionals - the products of our finest journalism schools - the denizens of Upper Manhattan - the folks who have learned to think the "correct" way - in short, our betters. Right?