Let's start a class action lawsuit against the media

[mandyky]

I have so had it with the so called news media, especially, but also other media sources that provide "slanted facts".

The History Channel and Discovery channel should be made to run the same announcements they did when they ran through all the JFK conspiracies a few months ago. Same with Rush and Hannity and any radio talk show - any supposed news related show that is based on mostly opinion should have to have a disclaimer of that coming back into the show from commercial breaks.

CNN Time Warner, Fox News, and any other TV news channel that is classified as news channels should only be allowed to have so many "pundit" shows, or they must change their classification of from news channel to tabloid news or something. CNN is falsely advertising as "news you can trust". What news?! Fox is about as Fair and Balanced as I am Chinese.

We need to find an innocent person whose coverage in the news for crimes who was unable to find a fair trial by "news" media coverage.

So legal eagles and journalists and just concerned citizens, help me formulate my case. Ya game? I am deadly serious since letters and petitions don't work.

[Keebs]

1. I

LOVE IT! Something needs to be done.

[mandyky]

3. Well, put on your thinking cap and help me formulate a case

We've probably got 35000 people right here on DU who would join the suit, we could get MoveOn involved. Hell, maybe George Soros knows a lawyer.

[Ninga]

2. I will join you.

I hate to be a bore, but here it is again. Just skip just to the names of all of the media who advised Kerry in December of 2003.


http://truthout.org/docs_03121003A.shtml

[mandyky]

9. Know any lawyers or paralegals (online)?

That might be willing to help us formulate our case? We need to do more than talk here at DU if you all are serious. We need examples, we need legal resource sites, and we need folks who know a bit about constitutional law.

Any journalists out there wanna share what you learned in journalism school about ethics and legalities?

[calimary]

46. You betcha.

Just ask. I didn't go to "journalism school," per se. I just learned, in the field, from my college internship onward. I learned that you're supposed to be OBJECTIVE, DAMMIT!!! You're not supposed to take sides. And if you do, you're supposed to say so, in the interest of full disclosure.

One of the greatest compliments ever paid to me as a journalist was during the Reagan/Mondale debates. I was at a big L.A. station, doing morning drive news. I think I may have been news director there at the time. Whatever. Anyway, we had lots of freedom to do whatever we wanted - like call anybody to do phone interviews, and pursue whatever stories we could, with a local angle when possible, and try to be resourceful and creative and original in our approach. There were no supervisors - it was a small newsroom. Indeed, during that shift, I WAS the newsroom.

I had this pal who was the debate coach at Pepperdine University. He was as conservative as I am liberal and we both clearly knew this about the other. I arranged with him, before the debates, to do a phoner with him, at the crack of dawn the morning after each debate (my first newscast was at 6am, so everything had to be prepared WAY beforehand!), tape his comments and his postmortems and his overall review of the debate, and run it during the news as a sidebar to the coverage of the actual debate. Fun. Local angle. Enlarge upon the story a little. We did that the morning after each debate.

Afterwards, he told me that, had he not known my personal politics, he would not have been able to tell, by listening to me, which candidate I prefered. Like I said, that was THE single greatest and most prized compliment I ever got as a news gal. I treasure that memory to this day. I was ARDENTLY anti-Reagan, but it was NEWS I was doing, NOT commentary, NOT spin, NOT campaigning, NOT advocating, NOT editorializing. Hell, whenever we DID have an editorial, we had the general manager do it. It couldn't be one of us in the newsroom. I bent over backwards to keep my opinions and my slants OUT of the news I covered. Sometimes it was damned difficult. But it was my job as a journalist - to be OBJECTIVE AND IMPARTIAL. It's only then that you can do justice to any story. Otherwise you're a pundit or an editorialist.

In fact, I had one pal at another station who logged, and formally titled his morning newscasts as "K-West News and Comment." The call letters at the time were KWST. THAT was the standard opening and closing for every newscast. And then he liberally sprinkled in his own opinions during and after every story, if he had them. But not once did he ever try to pull a fast one, and mislead his listeners into thinking what he said was sheer fact. He even told me once, when I remarked on it, that he felt honor-bound to declare, up front, that this WAS COMMENTARY and not just fact-brokering. He was honest about it and didn't try to be sneaky.

What passes for objective news "coverage" now is enough to make me sick to my stomach.

[blondeatlast]

69. Liberalhistorian is a paralegal.

[liberalhistorian]

101. I am, indeed, and someone has already

PMed me to ask what can be done; it's a good thing they did because I would have missed this thread otherwise. I just started doing free-lance legal research, writing, and analysis for small law firms and non-profit and government agencies on the side in addition to my regular paralegal job, so I'm certainly going to look into this and see how viable it is and how we'd go about doing it. I'll try to give an update at the end of the week.

Someone please remind me if they don't hear from me on it, because sometimes things just get so crazy I need a little kick to get to something!

[mandyky]

103. Thanks!

We need a legal view to help frame whatever we do.

[mandyky]

113. Kick

nudge nudge

[Lone_Wolf]

4. great idea

If one is started, I will join

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. The media

Is as a diverse group as you can possibly imagine. Who would you include? Newspapers? What about alternative newspapers? Radio? NPR? Public Broadcasting? Cable? Magazines? Internet? DU?

Of course you can sue the media. You can sue anyone. You can and will also lose.

[Ninga]

8. Le'ts do a mind map and brainstorm

the options and possibilities. It's like lawsuits against tobacco companies, not all of them are named, just one.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Hate to be the bearer of bad tidings

But that 1st Amendment thingie is one hell of an issue to overcome. The fact that the media is more diverse than ever (as witnessed by this site's existence) is another argument against you.

[mandyky]

24. Slander and libel

are not allowed by free speech. The point is not so much not to allow them to say things, they have to tell the truth or they need new labels. Fox News is mostly opinion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Truth

Truth is wildly subjective. There are often numerous sides to any story and no two editors will agree on which is more valid.

[mandyky]

30. Truth, gossip, and conjecture

There are pretty clear lines between those 3. And then you add in soundbytes and taking things out of context. The news media has to be responsible, just like lawyers, doctors or any other profession for the result of what they do.

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. No, those lines are damn gray

I know. I used to be an editor. Even editors don't agree.

And there is no law that says the news media has to be responsible. In fact, they DON'T.

[MODemocrat]

50. The media's feeble mea culpa about "Dean's non scream"

is just pathetic. They should all have to have a special story explaining that it was all a bunch of crap they pulled on Howard Dean to weaken his candidacy. They should have to play it 24/7 for a month. I don't want the corporate media picking my President. There used to be people in the media who were very good and trustworthy, but to find one now is nearly impossible. They're just highly paid whores. :puke: :argh: :grr:

[cybildisobedience]

10. why not start with the corporations that own 95 percent of it?

Let's face it -- all this "media is so diverse" talk is what the media spokespeople themselves spout to convey the impression that anyone can find a broad perspective of opinion represented.
In fact, just the opposite is true. Look at the coverage of the lead-up to war -- some studies showed that less than 3 percent of people heard from on mainstream outlets represented the anti-war position. The rest were, "kill, kill, kill!"
If we go after the main corporations, we're really going after the main culprits.

[mandyky]

16. Exactly

We need to start with CNN Time Warner, Fox, Clear Channel, and General Electric (NBC).

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. The media

Have no obligation to tell the side of the story you wish. That's what the 1st Amendment means.

[rocktivity]

31. TV and radio news media have an obligation give all sides

because they're using airwaves they rented from the American people. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would be a big step in that direction.


rocknation

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Lacking the Fairness Doctrine

They have no such obligation. Even then, the concept of giving all sides is ridiculous because there might be 100 sides to any issue.

[calimary]

48. This is true. When I was at this one large station, we had a devil of

a time during the campaign season. Because we HAD to honor the Fairness Doctrine and make sure we could prove it with documentation. So when there was one candidate for office, and there were many other splinter party candidates, we had to do our best. Obviously there wasn't enough airtime (especially since this wasn't newsradio, it was an oldies station!) to interview them all. We had to pick as best we could. I think in one case we covered the Democrat, the Republican, the Libertarian, the Peace and Freedom, and one other person from somewhere else. I was advised, as the interviewer (and booker of said interviews) that I should document all attempts to contact and offer equal time to as many candidates as was considered reasonable. Our license was under serious challenge that year, and our parent corporation had been found guilty of some serious bribery, so we were on the hot seat to prove we were being responsible, and responsive, broadcasters. So we had to be absolutely immaculate about it. I was advised that, as long as I made a good-faith effort to contact a number of the candidates, and could further back it up with a nice broad variety of people who eventually got on the air, we were okay. Yes, certainly we didn't get to them all, but we made a serious effort, one we could back up with equally serious documentation.

We desperately need the Fairness Doctrine back, and its Equal Time provisions. That would indeed help. It'd be a big pain in the ass for broadcasters, but hey, that's why they get paid the big bucks. In perspective, seems to me it's a tiny price to pay for credibility and respectability that are unimpeachable.

[Eloriel]

53. Uh, the Fairness Doctrine did NOT have Equal Time

provisions (unless it was for candidates only). It simply provided for responsible people to be able to have SOME access (usually only 30 - 60 seconds or a few minutes at most) to respond if they thought a controversial subject hadn't included their point of view.

If it did provide for Equal Time for candidates, I'm not aware of it.

Good for you on your successes -- sounds like you did an outstanding job and it's a pleasure to "remember" the good old days while reading about them.

[calimary]

60. That's what I was talking about - the Equal Time provisions that

covered candidates in an election season - to help even the playing field a little, so more candidates than just the wealthy ones could get exposure for their ideas. Not everybody can buy all the commercial time they need. All war chests are not created equal.

[blondeatlast]

71. It can be addressed through the FCC, then on to the courts.

[blondeatlast]

70. You said it--as I say later in the thread, CBS is an obvious start.

[dpibel]

65. Oh, What a Good Point!!

As Dr. King used to say, "This institutional racism stuff is wayyyy complex. I mean, who should we boycott? Lunch counters? Bus lines? Cities? Counties? States? We might lose. Hell with it. Let's go drink beer."

And who can ever forget Dr. King's legendary, "Don't Rock the Boat" speech?

[blondeatlast]

73. Some people on this board just don't get sarcasm, I'm afraid.

[Sterling]

88. Thx lol

I was about to explode with frustration til I read you post. Too funny. Too sad you had to post it too.

[lovedems]

6. That is cause worthy of attention!

I think the media personalities try to be the news instead of report it. Look at the idiots Wolf and Judy. They are incapabable of reporting the news without offering their misguided, uninformed opinion. They cut people off who are giving an opinion opposite of their own. Most of the time, those are opinions that I would value but oops! We can't have the commentators looking foolish now can we?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. Dismantle NewsCorp?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1072923

[mandyky]

11. Your URL crashes my computer

What forum and title of post?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. it works for me

"Should the Fox NetworkNews Corp. be dismantled?" on this forum

[Piginzen]

12. I don't think so

Sure, why don't we just crap all over the 1st ammendment?

These organization, as slanted an innane as they might be, have a right to say whatever they want and present the news whoever they want. People are smart enough these days to see through blatant misinformation. Slander is the only viable issue to be taken to the courts. If CNN or Fox start making me mad, I change the channel or go in the internet.

Would you like someone telling your how to speak?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

no one is denying them free speech!

Corporations are chartered by state governments. The people in FOX, Murdoch and the rest have all the free speech they want. We don't have to give them *exclusive* rights to broadcast spectrum, or limit the liability of their shareholders.

I'm 100% for the First Amendment.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. States don't control the Constitution

And if they start trying to do that, believe me we will all suffer.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

25. exactly, states don't control the Constitution

I'm glad for that too. States do charter corporations and they have the responsibility to regulate them in the public interest. They create them, they should control them.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Not the press

They should NOT control the press. Do you realize what you are advocating? Local control of the media?

I imagine Georgia would eliminate all MENTION of the word evolution in the media in its state. Can you imagine how that would work for the Internet?

[mandyky]

104. The point is not control but labeling

much like ratings on movies. Fox News and CNN should not be labeled news channels unless they serve up news. In no way should Hannity or Rush be considered news. They are opinion/entertainment.

[shance]

54. Exactly. They are engaging and inflicting irreparable harm on all

Americans by denying us honest and objective information vital to the sustainment of a Democracy, or a Republic for that matter.

The media is threatening the overall existence of our countries long found success and well-being by deliberately suppressing the vital information necessary to survive and thrive as a successful, viable nation,

and instead is overloading the airwaves with sensationalistic material that promotes violence, blatant materialism, repetitive unhealthy messages that promote feelings of inadequacy and create doubt and psychologically manipulate.

I could go on. I bet every American in this country would jump on this lawsuit. Everyone I talk to cannot stand the quality of our media, be it Conservatives, Moderates, or Libs.

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. You bet wrong

I for one would not join in this suit. I think it misguided and a huge waste of time.

Rather spend your time getting your version of the word out than complaining they are not doing so.

[cryofan]

19. 1st amendment speaks to govt control, not civil remedies n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Civil remedies for what?

Because you don't like their coverage?

Do you realize how silly that sounds?

[cryofan]

32. has the media damaged some group of plaintiffs, that is the question

I think they have. And so therefore the courts are there to provide a remedy for such damages.

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. Go right ahead and sue

Keep the lawyers happy. But you will lose.

[cryofan]

40. gee, thanks for giving your permission

we have all been waiting for that....

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. You don't need my permission

To waste the time of the courts, your time, taxpayer money, your money and the time and money of the media in an attempt to trample the 1st Amendment.

[mandyky]

42. How does what we are doing trample this?

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.

Free press does not mean they get to be irresponsible or lie or misrepresent facts.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Of course it does

How you define "irresponsible" is different from me and different from the next guy or gal. And facts are always open to interpretation. Witness the many debates we have on historical issues even here at DU if you doubt that. And with history we have years, or even centuries of analysis.

News is history in the making and is subject to interpretation, bias and everything else.

If you feel that you were personally slandered or libeled, then by all means sue. But if you simply dislike the media, then you plan on wasting a lot of time, effort and cash green.

[mandyky]

28. If I tell a lie and get called on it

I EXPECT to be told what to say and not say.

As for people being smart enough - just who do you think Ldotters and ditto heads are? They hear this crap and take it as news and fact. I am not saying they can't say stuff, I am saying if they do say certain things as facts and they aren't facts, they should be labelled as something besides news.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. News and Opinion

ALL news contains opinions -- opinions of writers, editors, reporters, and even photographers. Just what news is chosen demands an opinion. How it is displayed involves many others. What information is included involves a host of others. Etc.

If you wish ALL information in the world to be labeled opinion, that's fine, but silly.

[calimary]

49. Agreed. But the one problem with your argument is

that many people are NOT smart enough to see through blatant misinformation. Try asking a cross-section of average Joes whether Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

They still assume that it's legitimate truth because that's how it used to be, and well, since there's "truth in advertising," they couldn't say that on TV if it weren't true, right? I cannot tell you how many times I've heard this come out of people's mouths. The folks on radio and TV come into people's lives, living rooms, and bedrooms. We trust them. Especially in the intimate medium that radio is, where it's just you and the microphone, and you're just talking to one person out there, just you and them, it's EXTREMELY intimate. People come to trust, based on that. So they have a LOT of misguided trust to place in these people. It is NOT reasonable to assume that everybody has a bullshit detector when it comes to the "news" on TV or radio, or even in print. Many people just eat what they're fed, without analyzing or questioning. They assume that the reporters/anchors have already done the analyzing and questioning - even though we all know those same reporters/anchors have been absolutely asleep at the switch.

I'm not on the air in news anymore, but I still see this all the time, and when I'm invited to talk to classes or groups about it, this comes up all the time. People are shocked that the media might be biased. And when you question them about it and find out what it is they're watching most often, more often than not, it's FOX News. Besides, that same FOX News is the one that blares out, over and over, thousands of times every day "FAIR AND BALANCED!" You hear that enough, you start to believe it. I've run into far too many people who've been had, that way.

P.T. Barnum was right. There IS a sucker born every minute. And just about all of them are regular FOX viewers.

[Silverhair]

84. Do realize how elitist you sound?

"many people are NOT smart enough to see through blatant misinformation"

So you are going to decide for them what ideas they may or may not be exposed to? That has a name - it is tyranny. You are anti-freedom.

[Sterling]

91. I don't get that either.

People are dumd so we have to lie to them to make them smarter and better informed? Makes no sense.

[calimary]

111. Guess you missed my point.

I tried my damnedest when I was on the air to give both sides. Especially during a newscast. In fact, during campaign season, be it with candidates or propositions, we HAD to offer both sides. I also described how, when we had candidates running for something from MANY parties, I tried to reach as many of them as possible to give them airtime. I talked to, and put on the air, many people from different political arenas, and I certainly didn't confine it to just liberals or just Democrats.

Tyranny was not what I was after. I was paid to do news, NOT opinion or commentary. I tried to deal in facts. I think I accomplished that. Judging from the reactions I got to my work from listeners and fellow pros alike, I'm guessing that I succeeded.

If you consider that a substantial number of Americans still believe, for example, that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, where do you think they got that? There was precious little on or in the news, either network or cable, that attempted to disabuse them of that notion. Certainly bush and friends didn't deny this until a few months ago. But if you tuned into most of the leading information brokers like the Fox News people, Rush Limbaugh, even a lot of people on MSNBC and CNN, and the Tim Russerts and George Wills of the world, that's all you'd hear. That's all you DID hear. And if that's the only source of information people have, what else are they going to have that counter-balances that, or attempts to set the record straight? Check out some of the posts by ex-g.o.p.er and other "recovering republicans" who accepted as Gospel truth what was told to them by commentators they trusted. They assumed it was true. As they assumed this was true, they assumed there was no need to listen to anybody else in opposition, because there would be no truth coming from such opposition. Ex-g.o.p.er has said, himself, that it was only when he realized that these people had axes to grind, and he started seeking out other information in alternative sources, only then did he start discovering the real truth. I'll be happy to plug his thread here. You can see that effect for yourself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1078403

and this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1080085

(on edit, added links. I hope I did that correctly - it's worth reading)

Perhaps I should have worded it "many people are not well-informed enough to see through blatant misinformation." If they don't know it's misinformation because they never listen to anything different, then they CAN'T see through it. They don't realize there's anything to see through.

I'm not the one who's anti-freedom, not by a long shot. If THAT's what you got from my posts, that's unfortunate.

[blondeatlast]

74. On what planet? Not any I'm familiar with...

People are smart enough these days to see through blatant misinformation.

The vast majority are not aware that the media is one multi-tentacled giant. I can't emphasize this enough: they honestly believe it has to be the 100%, unspun truth if it's reported. This is what we are up against; why the lack of WMDs, the leak of Valerie Plame (treasonous), the Halliburton connection, etc, ad nauseum, doesn't matter to them.

Edit: oops--welcome to DU.

[Sterling]

92. Tell the truth.

It's really that simple. Tell the truth and the whole truth. Anything less is dangerous to democracy.

[cryofan]

15. I have been thinking along the same lines

THis idea goes right to some of the most famous parts of the Constitution and the heart of how politics works with the mesia today.

[lastknowngood]

17. Let's have Edwards file the case

n/t

[mandyky]

21. Are Press Releases from the WH, as well as other sources

a matter of public record? Can we request those?

[ldf]

23. excellent idea!

they have the rights to the "PUBLIC" airwaves in order to keep americans informed.

at the worst, they are guilty of purposely refusing to air newsworthy information, for their own financial and political gain, while successfully lobbying to dictate policy for their own benefit. i believe that is exactly what is happening.

at the very least they are grossly negligent in not airing newsworthy information.

either way, they have lost all legal, moral and ethical rights to the "PUBLIC" airways.

if they start spewing garbage about free speech, then we can just point to cbs refusing to allow "free speech" when it runs counter to their own goals. besides, all that air time, be it ad, or programming, is free speech, IF you have the money to purchase it. that means it's NOT free.

and all while this court case is taking place, every single employee of every network should have to run a gautlet of angry americans, just to enter or leave their place of emplyment.

harsh, maybe. but the foundations of our democracy are under attack. their discomfort with the situation they have made for themselves should be irrelevant. just how far are they willing to go to assist in the destruction of democracy, for a paycheck?

i would gladly join you in your lawsuit.

[Emboldened Chimp]

33. What about filing an anti-trust suit or...

go after them for some sort of conflict of interest? Though I am completely ignorant of how the law works, my common sense tells me that if you could prove that the media knowingly manipualted the public for its own gain, then maybe there can be some sort of legal action we can take.

[mandyky]

34. Got some examples?

I agree, it may be an anti-trust issue. I am working on a list of lawyers to contact.

[mandyky]

38. Kick

kickity kick kick

[petrock2004]

39. surewhynot

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[calimary]

43. Media malpractice and gross dereliction of duty.

Or, could they be accomplices to all the bush crimes? That, of course, assumes that the bushies will be tried for anything (which they certainly should!).

But as a former journalist, I am utterly appalled at what's gone down and what our so-called "watchdogs" have allowed themselves to sleep through. I am just floored. Ashamed. It makes me glad and proud, and relieved, to be able to say I am a FORMER journalist. I wouldn't want my name associated with what passes for journalism nowadays. It's just shameful. A complete disgrace. GROSS dereliction of duty. Utterly disgraceful.

I'd support such a lawsuit. I'd even love to testify.

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. Gross dereliction of duty

Is not an offense for which the media can be sued.

They have no obligation to you to do duty as you deem it. And, given that you have given up your claim on impacting the process, you can't claim that they are not open to other views. You seem to have left voluntarily, as did I.

[depakid]

47. Actually the do have a duty

to act in the public interest. Their broadcast licenses are contingent upon it, and in the past, people could bring complaints to the FCC (and the FCC would sometimes file actions) for violations of regulations that were meant to ensure that broadcasters lived up to those duties.

Among the first actions that any Democratic president needs to undertake involve reinstatement of many of those regulations- along with vigorous enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance.

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. That is a small subset of media

Not THE MEDIA and even then, it's more of a complaint that could be argued either way than a class action suit.

Here's a question for you since you support broadcast violations. Do you think the Internet should be included in that sweeping government control of speech? Think hard my friend.

[dpibel]

66. A Small Subset?

Television and radio are a "small" subset of the media. Would you enlarge on that, please?

And no, they're not the same as the internet, since the internet is not licensed, and, thus, does not include in its license an obligation to serve the public good. But radio and television are, and do.

But you know that.

[Muddleoftheroad]

72. Yes, a small subset

There are how many hundred daily newspaper? How many thousand weeklies and monthlies? What about magazines? Newsletters? E-mail? The Internet?

TV news and blab radio are highly visible to us and we watch them closely because we are politics junkies. Much of the rest of America does not.

[dpibel]

79. You.....have.......got........to........be..........kidding

This is a joke, right?

Americans watch how many hours of TV a year?

Americans watch the TeeVee news and consider themselves informed.

I realize you speak from highest authority, but, really now. The only possible sense I can make of what you're saying is: "There are thousands of newspapers and magazines, so long as you count Xeroxed fanzines and throwaway shoppers. But there are only a thousand or two TV and radio stations. QED, the print media has greater impact."

If I've got that wrong, please straighten me out.

But you're running a dodge here by trying to argue numbers when the point is influence.

Only political junkies watch TV? On planet where?

C'mon Muddle. I've seen you do better than this.

[Muddleoftheroad]

82. Watching TV doesn't mean watching news

Americans watch TV, that doesn't mean anything about news. We overestimate the reach of TV and radio, especially cable TV. Face it, most Americans rely on other sources for their information.

The total daily circulation figures according to the Newspaper Association of America for 2003 indicate 55.4% of adults read the daily paper and 63.1% read the Sunday.

http://www.naa.org/info/facts03/4_facts2003.html

The total weekly circulation figures as of 2002 fave 7,467 newspapers with a circulation of 50 million.

That doesn't count non-weeklies of course.

Now, show me the network news shows with thos kind of numbers.

[dpibel]

87. Odd, Isn't It?

As a first matter, it is equally true that "read the newspaper" hardly means "read the news." Do you really think that there's not a substantial proportion of people who would say they read the newspaper so long as they glanced at the headlines and read the sports page, the comics, and, most importantly, the ad circulars?

Second, there's the matter of polls and polls. You cite the poll of a completely unbiased source: the very industry that is the subject of the polls. Newspapers do have an interest in big readership figures, don't they, given that their ad revenues are based on how many eyeball they can deliver to the ads.

Compare what the Pew Center found:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=156

That survey, which I'd tend to trust more than the Newspaper Assoc. of America (but that's just me) found this:

Percentage of Americans watching local TV news: 57
Percentage of Americans watching network news: 32
Percentage of Americans watching cable news: 33
Percentage of American listening to radio: 41
Percentage of American reading the newspaper: 41

To me, that says that 65% of Americans get their news from the TeeVee. Maybe the difference is that Pew asked about news consumption rather than "reading." Maybe the difference is bias. Whatever the source, it's quite different from the NAA.

It certainly doesn't support the notion that the TV and radio are some small subset of the media, though, now does it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

96. Subsets

Of course they are a subset. Even if I supported your math (I don't) you are again leaving out literally tons of other media. There are magazines, newsletters, e-mail and Internet. There's books as well.

In short, TV and radio are pieces of a very complex pie.

[dpibel]

99. Well, you've really got me there

You seek to create your namesake, more than anything else, but that's not news.

But, boy! You've pinned me to the wall, and I've got to admit that broadcast media are a subset of all media.

Of course, I never denied that, so I'm not sure what you've proven.

Mainly that you engage in a style of argumentation designed to obfuscate, rather than enlighten.

You have yet to address the issue of public obligation arising out of public ownership and terms of licensure FOR BROADCAST media, regardless of whether it's a small, medium, large, gigantic or tiny subset of all media.

When asked about that, you say broadcast media is a tiny subset. When it turns out that's a howler, you say, "Well but it's still a subset."

Here's a subset of all available questions for you: What, precisely, does the subsetness, or size thereof, of the broadcast media have to do with anything?

What this really comes down to is, you object to a careless use of "the media." Way cool. Whyn't you just say so?

Attention all!!!!

Muddle wants you to be more precise!!!

We could primrose path this for a long time, but I've taken enough elfin leaps along that trail for now.

Maybe you can chum up another one; there's schools of us.

[Muddleoftheroad]

100. Sarcasm

Doesn't become you. But you knew that.

You continue to UNDERrepresent the impact of other media. Not me. YOU continue to under consider the use of other media in gaining news and information.

We both cited stats and they disagree with one another. Shocking really how obfuscating that can be.

I HAVE addressed the issue of public obligation. That means this is an FCC issue and not a court case. If you have issue with one of the networks, challenge their license. It's not a class action suit.

In case you missed it, this orginal thread was about suing that evil and all-encompassing "media." Where this thread developed was the result of several comments pointing out that there is no great "media" out there. In fact, it's broken up into numerous component parts.

That means what this thread really calls for can't work. Then, as the thread redefined itself, it began to talk about broadcast media. Where does that concept begin and end? Does it include just TV? TV and radio? Or do we go further and include the Internet? And, can you reasonably exclude one from the others in this day of multimedia enterprises? And, before you say you can't include the 'Net, rememeber that all TV networks have websites now. So if you seek to limit speech on TV

To file suits against the media is a frivolous waste of time. All it will do is get the media -- all media -- against you. Why? Because they will see such suits as I do, as threats to the 1st Amendment.

So, go ahead and file your frivolous challenge to the FCC and let is fall on deaf ears and let the rest of us try to do something productive with our time.

[Sterling]

90. I make a fat living from TV.

So do most of my friends. It is the dominant medi in the US hands down.

Just ask record companies if they need MTV to push their acts for example. You can create waves upon waves of trends and fads at will when you have a lock on TV.

[Sterling]

89. I am so tired of the internet arguement.

It just shows that some people don't have an understanding of the media in general.

You don't need an FCC liscense to have a site for a good reason. Almost anyone can have one. The pulic airwaves and cable channels are very limited. There has to be guidlines to ensure they are not used to stiffle some views and promote others.

Also the "they are after our internet" line is a RW talking point to frighten people away from things like the fair play doctrine.

[Muddleoftheroad]

97. The Internet is part of the media

These days, it's a big part. And how to differentiate from one type of media to another is increasingly difficult. Is CNN a broadcast network? Or is CBS? I would argue they are multi-media entities. If you use the FCC to clamp down on one, how does that impact the other?

And trust me, Asskroft would LOVE the power to crack down on the Internet.

[calimary]

51. Certainly did leave voluntarily. I retired.

But if indeed I have "given up" my "claim on impacting the process," I can absolutely claim that they are not open to other views. I do that by staying informed, myself, and reading and researching all I can. And when I see things that back up this assertion, like the leaked memo from one of the FOX News people, describing the daily directive came down from Roger Ailes' office about what was to be covered and how it was to be covered, specifically pro-administration spin, and how everyone on the staff got such a memo, I consider that indicative that they are not open to other views. Watching the results only confirms that. Watching the overall coverage from every outlet I've watched, for several years now, confirms that. Watching how, over and over, there is a news story covered, with react, and the only react, repeatedly, is from the same side (republican), or maybe having three conservatives interviewed and ONE liberal, I call that bias. While I am not sitting at the assignment desk in any of those newsrooms, I know what I see when it comes on the air, or hear when it comes over the airwaves.

I know how I would have felt, as another working stiff in the newsroom dependent on my paycheck and NOT in a position to call the shots, what the implication is when the CEO of the company (Jack Welch of NBC) comes down to the newsroom on election night, having already gone quite public with his candidate preferences. While that might not have made ME slant the news, to have him there, I know of many other people who would have been very intimidated. And in this climate, who knows how they would have fudged things?

You are, of course, quite correct about the First Amendment. Realistically, such a suit attempting to hold our media accountable would go nowhere fast. But it might shake up a few people. And yes, I am VERY good at tilting at windmills...

Where'd you work? When did you bail? I left the AP in 1996 - for two little people I'd missed too much, back at home.

[blondeatlast]

75. Whatever happened to their collective spine, and

the ability to ask follow-up questions? Why do they follow the administration's "rules?" If it happened today, would Watergate have been a groundbreaker? I was in my early teens, but it absolutely appalled me what happened, and the press was on it like flies to honey.

I've wanted to ask these questions for so long--hope you don't mind.

[shance]

52. Six degrees of separation.....***

Ive been thinking about this too.

What do we do?

Whatever it is, lets DO it....***

[loudsue]

55. Sign me up! I've had it with the bunch of 'em....

Last night watching CNN at about 2:00 a.m., I was staying awake long enough to hear a story about some mountain climber who wrote a book called "Touching the Void". Everytime there would be a newsbreak between commercials, the commentator would give "teasers" about this mountain climber guy.

Well...it took almost an hour. She would give one bit of news, and (I started counting them...) then it was followed by EIGHT commercials. Again...one bit of news....Seven commercials. It went on that way.

We'd all be better off to throw our damn TV sets out the window, and start printing our own newspapers, handing them out on street corners. "The DU Daily"....I can see it now! All we have to do is print out our favorite threads, and sell 'em!

Shoot! We even have an astrology page! O8) I think it'll sell! O8)

I'd still like to sue the media for failing to provide a service that the MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC would be served by. After all, more than half of all votes in the 2000 election went to Gore. This part of the public has been disserved ( :silly:is that a word? :think:) by lack of critical news coverage....about that VOTE itself, not to mention everything else that impacts us tremendously.

We need lawyers and MONEY!! But I think it's time we sued.

:kick:

[leesa]

56. As long as it's for treason against the United States

I would gladly see Rush, O'Really, Wolfie, Insannity and all the other treasonous media whores do a Goebbels.

[Sperk]

57. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-MEN to that!!!! Talk about your false advertising!

Actually, they should all be tried for treason, for REFUSING to defend our country from the enemy within by CONSTANT lies of omission!

:mad:
still waiting for ONE intelligent question regarding 9/11....waiting......still waiting...........
:mad:

[Norquist Nemesis]

58. Talk Radio is the biggest harm

I have so had it with the so called news media, especially, but also other media sources that provide "slanted facts".

I've had it with being bashed day in and day out on talk radio. The 'news media' has watched this market soar and frankly, the radio is the biggest threat with the largest impact.

Think about it...how much does the average person spend watching TV news vs. listening to the radio? It's the radio during the commute, during the trips to the store, during the long drives, etc. And radio is an invasive medium, not passive as TV is.

What we need to do is the same thing conservatives did...point out at every turn the conservative bias. Write letters to the local newspapers. Write to the sponsors of the stations letting them know your displeasure at the bias of the station they are supporting. If you're really motivated and organized about it, invite the public and have a coffee/discussion group with topics on media bias holding it in a civic center or library. Get the word out and keep singing about it. But don't bother wasting time calling the station...you'll only get hung up on.

[banana republican]

59. denial of service

Would a DOS suite work???

I have been denied service due to the spamming of the airways by CBS????????

[DEM FAN]

61. Where Can I Sign.

Lets Do Something.

[OutlawCorporatePolls]

62. i am in.

here, take that front runner!

http://www.skerry.info

i am the new media.

[dmr]

64. I'm in too

Not sure how this can be done, or even if it would work, but I'm willing to make a lot of noise. The Fairness Doctrine was taken away for a very GOP reason. They have been on a mission, and it is destroying us.

It is not in the best interest of our country and we the people not to be given the accurate facts in which to make our own decisions.

I have often thought about how certain media outlets spin stories in favor of a particular political parties' agenda. If the media reported the news without bias, would there have been as many Americans supportive of the pre-emptive strike upon Iraq where countless human beings were injured or killed? If the media was truly doing it's job, would they and Bush* still be trying to sell the dangerous WMDs in Iraq? If they were doing their jobs, would everyone and his brother be blamed instead of making the man in charge accountable?

Watching the news has become a sideshow, not only is there the verbal spin, there is also the visual and audio spin. The station draped in stars and stripes, red, white and blue, and patriotic music in the background. It gives the unspoken message that the spin is actual truth and fact, and what is best for America. Put this all together, and it can make the average, busy American take this in blind faith exploding into a patriotic fever. Which of course, is the goal.

Political parties spin, that is a given. But the media has a responsibility to inform me truthfully, without bias, if not painfully, the facts, and nothing more. They also have a responsibility to investigate, and report it - no matter how painful the facts may be.

Considering how liberally bias the media is today, I would think the Right Wing would be the first in line in all this. <sarcasm>

Most of us have all posted here on the hypocrisies of the media between how they treat Bush* compared to how they treated President Clinton. If they believe they are fair and balanced, then they should have no problem with no commentary and unbiased reporting.

I don't know, but I often think about the collusion involved, and the many messes we are in today.

As Joe Friday would say, "Just the facts, mam, just the facts."

[dusty64]

67. Sounds good!

:kick:

[blondeatlast]

68. Great minds, and all that... I was thinking the same thing last night.

Make it a Constitutional issue aup front--the denial of CBS to run the MoveOn and (holding my nose) PETA ads would be a great start.

We might be better off figuring out a way to implant a spine in the press, though.

[ecstatic]

77. Great idea!

I think we Dean supporters "get it" when it comes to the nasty tricks the media has been playing. Its so disgusting to me, and its not ethical.

Playing Dean's "scream" 700+ times in 2 days, and giving Bush & Co. a free pass on lying to go to war??!! Unbelievable. Americans deserve to get the same kind of journalism that happens in almost every other country in the world.

[ecstatic]

78. First thing to do would be to get several hundred observers to take notes

On the news coverage on the major stations for a certain period of time (like a month). Note the negative and positive key words that are used in relation to Democrats vs. Repubs, African Americans, Muslims, minorities, George Bush, etc.

Do tests to check for rater agreement.

Compare the news reported to the major events occuring during that period. For instance, did another Bush lie get revealed quietly while the media decided to go on and on about Michael Jackson instead?

Maybe poll some volunteers prior to and after certain news segments about certain people (i.e. Dem. Candidates, etc.). See if their opinions or favorability ratings changed. Also, viewers can be quizzed on their knowledge of the most important current events.

Actually, I met a guy who was doing a study on whether or not Fox News was biased against blacks (he said the preliminary data showed that FNC used negative words in association with EVERY group).

[mandyky]

85. This is a must

for building a case. We need examples, and we need certain case points. We also need to keep track of "unnamed sources".

[gulliver]

80. A class suing another class. Neat idea!

I'm in!

[Silverhair]

81. Another anti-freedom idea.

You are trying to get a federal judge to force a private organization to carry your political viewpoint. Won't fly. The first amendment, which you don't seem to understand or respect stops you cold.

The answer is to start your own liberal news organization and to compete in the marketplace of ideas. You would have to get viewers for yourself. Or would you want the gov't to also require people to watch?

It is the media's freedom to carry whatever viewpoint they want to. Sorry if you don't like the results of that freedom, BUT IT IS THEIR FREEDOM. Your idea is simply anti-freedom.

[Sterling]

93. You are not free to hijack public airwaves for your agenda.

Or maybe you are these days, it's still wrong and must not be tolerated. The truth is not a contest over who has the most money to compete in the "market place" of ideas.

Anyone who thinks what is happening on Fauzx right now or the SuperBowl has anything to do with freedom probably has no idea what freedom really is and what it took to get this far.

[Silverhair]

95. "The Media" is a whole lot more than just the broadcast media.

And even the broadcast media has 1st amendment rights.

So your version of "the truth" is the only right one and the power of the gov't must be used to make every media outlet obey it? Sounds like tryanny to me.

[dpibel]

94. What Part of Limited, Publically Owned Resource

Are we all having trouble with here.

Consider this: The Fairness Doctrine was done away with by presedential fiat, not because it was unconstitutional. Think about it. If there was a first amendment issue, do you really think that the nice folks at the networks just overlooked it?

TV and radio use PUBLIC airwaves. That means they are owned by the public. The brave free-market entrepreneurs who license their chunk of the electromagnetic pie do so under increasingly slight limitations.

But look, all y'all constitutional law experts (this is especially cool for libertarians): What we have here is not a first amendment issue. It's a pure matter of contract law. It goes like this. Party A has something that party B wants to use. Part B sez, "You can use it under the following terms and conditions." If Party A finds those terms and conditions favorable, the two parties make a deal.

I suppose part of your confusion might lie in the fact that one of the parties here is the federal government. But the first amendment says, "congress shall make no law." It does not say, "congress shall make no contract."

The essence is a contract between broadcasters and we the people. At the simplest level, it's a breach of contract case, although it would more likely have to be cast as a matter of administrative law and licensure.

But a free speech issue it ain't.

(edited to unbotch html)

[PaDUer]

83. Phil Berg? the atty

who's doing Ellen Mariani's case re 911? Do you want to contact him?

[mandyky]

86. We need a list of attorneys

who do this kind of thing and then we need to price their services, as well as figure out what we need research wise and what we would claim for. Class action or anti-trust would work. Anti-trust is done by states' state attorneys, right?

I don't need to be the spearhead for this, people can contact whomever they wish and get as much free advice as we can get. If you think Phil Berg is the go to guy, contact him, run the idea by him, and see what he says.

We need to find a lawyer (maybe) who sort of agrees with us, because this is not gonna be an easy case to make and it is going to be a long process.

[PaDUer]

106. I will call Phil this evening...

in the meantime, I know there are some attys on this list who might be able to shed some light on this subject or even know another atty who would jump on this...

Remember when the freepers sued for Vince Foster's records because they were so convinced Hillary was involved...they did most of the work, research themselves, which kept the cost down..

[mandyky]

107. Let us know what

he says and suggests. We can start a thread in Meeting Room to coordinate efforts, once we have some sort of battle plan.

[mark414]

98. YES!

i'm down

[ElsewheresDaughter]

102. what we need to do is lobby congress to bring back the "fairness doctrine"

that Reagan had deregulated!

[mandyky]

105. Anyone have email addresses to MoveOn and MWO?

We need to get the word out and get more supporters. I posted at Smirking Chimp, feel free to rewrite and post the original post to other forums like DU.

Also, we need the email addies of the FCC commissioners and media whores at FOX and CNN. Also we can call Cable companies and Clearchannel, etc. We also need folks to call their State Attorney Generals about how to go about an anti-trust suit.

[eyeswideopened]

108. I agree... Count me in

Wouldn't it be great if they could have an electronic trial ... on the net... Judge and all.

[mandyky]

109. Please keep this kicked

We need to do this!

[bilbobaggins]

110. Dear Lord, will everyone just stand back and think!

I want everyone to re-read all the posts in this thread. Then I want you to consider the story of how a native american council makes decisions by thinking of their effect 100 years ahead. Do you realize just what you are asking? Here is a summation of the thoughts being bandied about.

1. Reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine
2. Sue the media for lying or spinning the truth to fit a politcal agenda.
3. Ensure all news is labeled as such, without bias or opinion. Anything else must be labeled Opinion/Entertainment

The first one I won't touch. Personally, I don't agree with the Fairness doctrine. It was imperfectly implemented and difficult to maintain. Many forget or don't know the FD also mandated so much local time be spent airing "local interests" stories and such. To be forced to cater to EVERY viewpoint is unrealistic at best.

The 2nd point is silly and asinine. Sue the media for lying? Does that mean the burdern of proof must hold up in a court of law? Should we try them in front of their peers? And is it really lying if a news agency is merely repeating what they were told by their source? And how do you determine if its a lie if its merely a political opinion or position? Who gets to decide which is a lie? What is an acceptable agenda?

I have news for you. EVERY news editor has an agenda. Albeit, most agendas are oriented toward truth, others may be oriented towards family safe news or so-called "positive news". If local news station reports that mother was taken into custody by the police, are they lying because they omitted the part where she stuffed her child in the closet for 3 days without food? Many consider an ommission to be a lie also. And what about impressions? Rep. Cynthia McKinney was reported as being a tireless worker for the poor. Would that be a fair characterisation if it was learned she actually had a tax payer billed limo drive her ONE BLOCK to her office every morning? Can we sue for that ommision?

Believe it or not, a news channel is just not a news channel anymore. They now broadcast news magazine shows, specials, interviews, opinion and entertainment. Some have argued that we need to look after the dumb and brain dead in this country because they can't distinguish between real news and infotainment like O'Reilly, Hannity or Matthews. Should we become the babysitters of everyone's fragile IQ? Who gets to decide what gets labeled as news? News organizations decide every minute of every day what news get disseminated. Now we should have a federal mandate of what news gets reported? What if a newscaster slips and calls Michael Jackson's actions "strange"? That is definately a characterisation, not news. Should the show be fined because an opinion was interjected?

Many here have decried this thread but their comments have not bee countered. One being, what is truth? There is a legal definition of truth as it pertains to who is doing the reporting. News organizations are careful to say "Whitehouse sources say..." because that gives them a legal out. Merely paying a lot of attention to those whitehouse sources does not rise to the level on deception.

What I am saying is, be careful. I read this thread and I got a sick ball of worry in stomach because the natural outcome of this is restrictions on my freedom of speech. We are free to say what we want, the government is not required to ensure our voice is heard.

And remember, the republicans, libertarians, greens, socialists, communists, etc can play at this game too. Focus your energy on creating new outlets, not destroying what we have.

[mandyky]

112. kick

kick