Some cases for more government regulation of media ownership and content (NOT censorship though)

[alp227]

Lately, I've been monitoring trends in the broadcast media and have been way less than happy.

1. The news

America's supposed to be a democracy, right? Not according to the mainstream media. Turn on your local talk radio station, CNN, or Fox News, and dip your mind into a sewage of spin, lack of balance, misinformation, unresolved talking heads, and insults to your intelligence. These factors affect how Americans think about our politics and policy (such as the war, health care, etc.) Not to mention the abundant evidence of unfairness and imbalance in those news networks that are so frequently accused of "liberal bias"; Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and Media Matters for America are just a couple of organizations that have compiled research and analysis about that.

Steve Rendall wrote a comprehensive article on the FAIR website in 2005 explaining how the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine caused talk radio to swing sharply to the right in the name of business and profit rather than public service. So now you know why Rush Limbaugh is so proud to call his fans "dittoheads". Because he's brainwashed them with his endless spewing of lies, bigotry, and general idiocy.

2. The ongoing corporate suckup

Recently, Comcast bought NBC Universal. Freepress.net has described it as a monopoly move that'll hurt consumers by jacking up prices and promoting a more homogenous, less diverse batch of programming. It threatens local and independent producers.

3. Dishonest marketing
Fox News has promoted itself as "fair and balanced" ever since its inception in the late 1990s despite the overwhelming evidence of conservative bias on the station. MTV and VH1, two "music video" stations, have denigrated into water sewage treatment plants of low-quality "reality TV" shows. But at least occasionally VH1 might show "100 greatest songs" or classic rock programs, but still Viacom has profited off the mindless captive audiences of the lame Real World, Flavor Flav, dating, or spoiled/trust-funded/white/gated-community high-schooler orcollege-age shows (I mean Laguna Beach and The Hills). Where has the Federal Trade Commission been all these years of lies?

Think about this. In Canada, the Canadian Radio/Television Commission (CRTC, the Canadian component to America's FCC) actually imposes genre restrictions as a condition for broadcast licenses for cable networks. One CRTC decision found that MTV Canada violated its condition of being a general "teen-oriented channel" by showing TOO MUCH music (in Canada, there's already MuchMusic for that kind of stuff). I can't really find a specific page for the Canadian law, but I found a couple of news stories/editorials that have expressed opposition:
- Andrew Coyne, "Begone with 'genre protection' --and other ancient CRTC relics". National Post: September 14, 2007.
- "Jim Shaw no-show for CRTC TV hearing". CBC News. April 23, 2008.

Wouldn't it be better for the FTC/FCC to police Fox News's slanted opinion shows and often factually inaccurate news reporting? Or to make sure that channels like MTV and VH1 live up to their names? Call me a communist, socialist, nanny stater, whatever you will, but I believe in honesty not censorship. I'm not one of those Parents Television Council reactionary, anti-sexuality, pro-abstinence warriors, but rather one who believes that broadcasters should live up to their missions to serve their viewing audiences and that journalists should correctly inform the public about what's truly going on in the world and how government actions will affect their lives.

One point of view I do share with the PTC is cable choice: allowing consumers to pick and choose which cable channels they want to receive if they subscribe, rather than those bundles with all the crap you'd rather not watch. It's out of personal choice rather than a moral agenda. (Notice how the PTC loves to hate Viacom-produced shows, ranging from South Park to whichever reality crap is polluting VH1 to even Glenn Martin, DDS on Nick at Nite.)

PS: Thank you user Amerigo Vespucci for that thread about MTV's new Jersey Shore reality show that critics have accused of racist stereotyping against Italian-Americans. With more regulation, shows like that would've been tossed to the cutting room floor.

[virgogal]

1. Regulating content would BE censorship IMHO.

[alp227]

3. I didn't mean the "You can't say that" sense

But rather the "You can say that and have to say this too"...hence the Fairness Doctrine.

For general broadcasters, "if you say that you gotta mean it". Does that amount to restricting expression "IYHO"?

[pleah]

2. k&r

I'm opposed to any form of censorship. kick and rec. to see what others think

[endless october]

4. i'm against regulating opinion content. nt

we have libel and slander laws already. they seem to be adequate.

[showpan]

5. but then we have inadequate

monopoly laws and all the major media outlets being owned by huge corporations who have interests in making and controlling government policies.

[endless october]

6. i am not against regulating monopolies.

however, i do have a problem with the government getting involved with regulating opinion programs.

[NoNothing]

7. You'd have a leg to stand on

If you were talking about broadcast programming. Like, where they actually use licensed EM spectrum to beam programs into peoples' homes whether they want it or not.

But that's not what you are talking about; you're talking about cable television. Nobody is forced to have cable television in their homes. So I say, if you don't like it, don't buy it. The FCC has no jurisdiction here.