will fox news somehow become marginalized in the future?

[patrick t. cakes]

do you think obama and the powers to be
will be able isolate fox somehow?
they have to be thinking about this



bidens interview with that nut in orlando started me thinking about this
could they somehow marginalize them by simply exposing them as laughable
journalist?

just wondering.


:donut:

[cliffordu]

1. Only if there is a god.

[KneelBeforeZod]

2. Is it consistent with the spirit of the ...

... the First Amendment to have politicians and Presidents seek to marginalize and thwart particular media networks? I am as uncomfortable with the intentional disruption of dissenting conservative media as I am with Bush thwarting dissenting "progressive" media.

The media should be free to question those in power without fear of retribution.

kbz

[Oregone]

7. Screw that part of the first amendment then...

Because despite "Freedom of Press", the US recently ranks 37th in the world for "Free Press", you know....

Why are you more confident that loosely regulated private corporations concerned with profit will provide more free, more true, and more informative news than a government entity or a more controlled corporations? Our "founding fathers" didn't envision 24/7, advertisement funded, entertainment driven news networks that offer more opinion as fact than actual reality.

[KneelBeforeZod]

13. And I'm sure you'll ...

>> Screw that part of the first amendment then...

And I'm sure you'd apply the same standard when we're not in power. This is a lousy precedent to set -- and will have huge ramifications the next time we lose an election (which will happen eventually).

>> Because despite "Freedom of Press", the US recently ranks 37th in the world for "Free Press", you know....

Not that I'm a big fan of our media ... but I'd question how those rankings are arrived at. This is all pretty subjective stuff.

>> Why are you more confident that loosely regulated private corporations concerned with profit will provide more free, more true, and more informative news than a government entity or a more controlled corporations?

I'm no fan of corporate-controlled media ... but I have (slightly) more confidence in that than government-controlled media. If the media is government-run, how can we expect it to report accurately on government activities?

>> Our "founding fathers" didn't envision 24/7, advertisement funded, entertainment driven news networks that offer more opinion as fact than actual reality.

They invisioned a press free from government intervention. They didn't know how the press would look ... but they did know that a free society requires that the government have no authority to delegitimize media outlets. It is for the public to decide ... as long as Fox has viewers, they deserve the right to broadcast and the right to access.

kbz

[Oregone]

15. A few points....

>> And I'm sure you'd apply the same standard when we're not in power.

Personally, I think common sense should reign above blind worship of men who live 250 years ago. If there are articles that need to be amended, then by all means, our "founding fathers" envisioned that and provided means.

>> but I'd question how those rankings are arrived at. This is all pretty subjective stuff.

Its from a Reporters without Borders survey

>> but I have (slightly) more confidence in that than government-controlled media.

Is the BBC, CBC, are NPR really that bad?

>> If the media is government-run, how can we expect it to report accurately on government activities?

You can have it privately run still with a true government oversight committee and strict standards. For example, limit "opinion and analysis" to 25% of broadcast, and have a specialized logo visibly on screen during such segments (violation of such, resultant to press credential suspension).

But you can have a government funded entity, which is funded such that it can run cable 24/7, that is run under the same standards by an external government run board. But just because the network would be funded by the government, that doesn't mean their newscast would be pre-screened and manipulated any more than corporate ran media. If anything, they should have more access to government information and employees, and hence, should be able to much more accurately report on government activities.

I think a problem is that you think that if it is funded by the government, it is an integrated part of the government. But it can be a loose branch that operates on its own accord under defined standards and is free to report on anything newsworthy. Of course you can envision negative intervention which would be impossible to prevent, but even private media is subject to this (message force multipliers, for example).

>> but they did know that a free society requires that the government have no authority to delegitimize media outlets

And that is where I disagree. If the owners of the press also are heavily invested in the military industrial complex, then it is within their interest to promote war. The idea that privately owned businesses will automatically create better news is false, because the outlets will 1) promote entertainment to increase ad revenue, and 2) promote government policies that help out industries they are invested in. Further, such businesses can promote ignorance, racism, and hate, and this should always be subject to government intervention.

A free society also requires an entity which looks out for the people and acts in their interests. If the media outlets, judged as a whole, are not doing this, then can the society be free?

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. You know why FDR created the FCC?

One Father Coughlin

Use the Google...

That is where the Fairness Doctrine also came from

Don't need to silence or marginalize them...but that is exactly what they've been doing for over 30 years

And yes... like the generation of the 1930s we SHOULD DEMAND fairness in media

[Oregone]

19. And I often find the FCC to be a bit insufficient honestly

Its sort of a gripe I have about it all when I turn on the media and see the constant lies and ignorance being put forth (but many times, by "analyst" or "correspondents"). I want to see them revoke/suspend credentials, enact more news related fines, etc. Racism and ignorance is going unchecked on the networks lately, and they are anything but biases as of late.

My opinion is that on 1 hand, increase access to information/people/meetings and the power of press credentials in exchange for stricter standards on what is really news and what these biased networks are allowed to get away with. I would imagine an entity truly concerned with reporting news would take that trade off in a heartbeat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. We know you find everything in this coutry insufficient really

but there is no coincidence that the weakness from the FCC coincides with Reagan... and your life time

[Oregone]

21. And my life time? So do you blame me?

Look, I look back and I see there is a lot to be proud of before I was born...but I also see some of the heroes of our time would be daemonized as Marxists and traitors today, probably by their own fellow Democrats. So in such an environment, it should be no wonder how I would grow hopeless and disillusioned with the system, to such a point I shun it. It has transformed into an ugly, alien entity that I cannot relate to, nor hope will ever revive itself into a true organization for the people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. So the fight is over for you

I keep telling you..,ＷＯＲＲＹ　ＡＢＯＵＴ HARPER... that is your country now

As to the US. I haven't given up and as an IMMIGRANT I know this... EVERY GENERATION HAS TO FIGHT FOR ITS FREEDOM ANEW

You chose to leave

[onenote]

23. actually, that's probably not very accurate

First, the FCC was preceded by the Federal Radio COmmission, which was created by Congress in 1927 when Hoover was president. The reason for its creation was that without some form of licensing of the airwaves there was a very real prospect of stations interfering with one another. The FRC only regulated radio broadcasting. Telephony and other commmon carriers were regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The FCC was created by COngress in 1934 to essentially merge the regulation of broadacasting (Title III of the Communications Act) with the regulation of common carriers (Title II) in a single agency.

Father Coughlin actually started out as a supporter of FDR, but as time went on, he became virulently anti-semitic and otherwise just plain nuts. If FDR pushed for the creation of the FCC in 1934 in reaction to Coughlin, it was not a very successful move since Coughlin's ascent in popularity continued essentially unabated until around 1939, when the National Association of Broadcasters, which had first adopted a Code of Conduct without any enforcement authority back in the 1920s (pre FDR) revised it to give it some teeth, resulting in stations dropping Coughlin's show. The FCC, it should be noted, didn't adopt the Fairness Doctrine until 1949 -- a decade after Coughlin had been driven out of broadcasting.

Finally, while it is sometimes claimed that the FCC denied Coughlin a "permit" to broadcast at one point, there appears to be no basis for that claim. Coughlin did stop broadcasting for a period of time after the 1936 presidential election, but that was the result of a decision he made to leave the air after the candidate he supported couldn't even muster 1 million votes.

[wvbygod]

25. government entity or a more controlled corporations news reporting

You will find that most Americans are for a completely free press. There is always
Canada and other countries if you are looking for restrictions on free speech.

America has a constitution to protect such things as free speech, self defense etc.

[Oregone]

27. To be honest with you...

Ive already move to Canada, so your 'love it or leave it' argument falls on deft ears. :)

What I am saying is that a "Free Press" (owned by unregulated profit driven private entities) doesn't produce unbiased, unfettered, accurate, relevant, important news that is essential for a democracy. It produces that which I find in the sewer, and feeds the minds of Americans a healthy diet of shit.

[wvbygod]

30. I give Americans enough credit to decide for themselves what is shit

And what isn't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. And they have failed that test horribly so

after all Muricans are NOT exceptional and are subject to propaganda like any other people around this planet

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. You are right... that is why the Canadian press is far more

controlled than the US press.... :sarcasm:

By the by... the FCC is not forbidden by the First Amendment, neither was the Fairness Doctrine... nice RIGHT WING talking points you got there by the by

[wvbygod]

36. I really don't do "talking points"

Logic, compassion and sound reasoning are contained in most of my words.

[patrick t. cakes]

8. fox is a cancer to this country.

the conservative movement as well.

marginalizing is not taking away free speech.
its making them irrelevant to the discourse
of the nation.

let them speak.

[KneelBeforeZod]

10. Bush and his conservative minions ...

>> fox is a cancer to this country. the conservative movement as well.

... would no doubt declare that WE are a cancer on this country. That the people in power believe some particular group, ideology or network is a "cancer" does not give them the right to deliberately seek to marginalize or thwart them. When Bush does this kind of stuff, we cry foul -- we cannot simply turn around and do the same thing to them. It is entirely inappropriate for a President to deliberately target particular media outlets simply because they represent a worldview that disagrees with the political party in power.

>> marginalizing is not taking away free speech. its making them irrelevant to the discourse of the nation. let them speak.

I wasn't speaking of the freedom of speech ... but the freedom of the press.

kbz

[patrick t. cakes]

26. define press..

one can argue if fox falls into that category.

i would like to see the far right conservative movement marginalized
much like the KKK etc...

we should most certainly ostracize negative elements in our society...
by any means necessary.

[Oregone]

28. This is a good point...

Define "press". :)

I think privileges should be given accordingly to those that fall in that definition, and taken away for those who do not.

[lelgt60]

35. and who decides? n/t

[katmondoo]

3. Too many people are so controlled by Fox that

they are no longer able to think for themselves. I have witnessed this in my daughters in-laws. They hang onto every word said on Fox (O'Reilly especially) It's definitely scary how their minds are manipulated.

[Fuzz]

4. When Democrats stop going on the channel

[mile18blister]

5. My fantasy:

They shrink to the point where we can drown them in a bathtub.

[LatteLibertine]

6. Many of their audience

are ancient. Eventually, they will die off. Some of the younger ones may wake up and tune out. Luckily, a good number of racists are among the very old too, so that situation should improve as well. In a few years :D

I'd love to see KO and Rachel kick them squarely in the ass. If they keep going the way they are it could happen.

[salguine]

9. It's not like they're not already exposed as laughable journalists to anyone

who isn't log-stupid. The better question, perhaps, is "will the electorate remain as stupid, ignorant, and easily manipulated in the future as it is now?"

[volatileblob]

11. No, if Obama wins, Faux News will keep the spirit of lies and prejudice alive for the Morans n/t

[4lbs]

12. Freepers will "cling" to their Rush Limbaugh, Faux News, and Drudge Report.

n/t

[Dr. Strange]

14. Quite the contrary.

Once Obama wins, Fox and Limbaugh will be breaking out champagne. How long has it been since Rush had a best-seller?

His 1992 book, "The Way Things Ought to Be" and the 1993 "See, I Told You So" were bestsellers. But his 2003 book, "Well, Things Aren't Really Going So Well," and the 2006 "Fuck! Is Bush Done Yet?" didn't fare so well.

One or two years into Obama's presidency, he'll have another book out. You heard it here first.

[Orsino]

17. Only if legislation with teeth can separate Big Money from media ownership.

As long as Rupert Murdoch can buy his way to viewers' eyes, he will. As long as this media access gets him the ears of Congress, he will use that to influence legislation. His voice will continue to be more important than ours.

[scheming daemons]

18. All cable news is already marginalized.... When we're not in the middle of an election, very few

watch Fox, CNN, or MSNBC.

[W_HAMILTON]

24. I think they're already marginalized.

It seems like public figures -- even news anchors -- have been pretty brazen lately in pointing out how biased Fox is. I figure that's the most we will get, unless Fox News completely goes under, which is unlikely.

I'm pretty please with how they've been "marginalized" by almost everyone, except of course for those that still buy into their crap.

[IsItJustMe]

29. They already are. Anyone serious about real news is not watching Fixed news. If you are in it for

the entertainment, if that is what you want to call it, Fixed news is your channel.

To me, they are the National Enquiry of the msm. Hate, attack, and lies 24/7 with just a very small touch of honest reporting now and then to keep the LIV coming back for more.

[Swamp Rat]

33. FUX Noise is already marginalized.

Only nutjobs and the ignorant watch it.

[ThoughtCriminal]

34. They are marginalizing themselves

The disconnect between "Fox Reality" and "Observable Reality" has become just too obvious for anyone but the most devoted. I've found that even true believers are reluctant to admit that the source of their information was FOX because of the inevitable ridicule that invites.

I think it is also worth pointing out that Fox News is a cable channel, not a broadcast station. I believe that FCC jurisdiction is limited at best since cable is not part of the broadcast spectrum. I do not think it would be subject to the Fairness Doctrine, even if it was re-instated.

[Edweird]

37. Not a chance. They will dog Obama relentlessly. Manufactured controversy galore.

Endless hyperbole. It will not be pretty.