Letters to the Editor
-
Handling nuance and insecurity
I've worked in mainstream media for quite a while in Europe and the first thing they tell you as a starting journalist is: make sure that a 14-year-old understands what you write; a stupid 14-year-old, I learned soon enough.
MSM hasn't commented on their mistakes because they think their readership can't handle nuance, can't handle the relativity of daily reporting, opinions, and all the inaccuracy and mistakes that come with it.
They underestimate their audience.
Furthermore, in times of war, MSM feel they háve to be strong and faultless, just like their holy president. Admitting mistakes might make the public insecure and doubting about the Big American Mission. And you don't want that in times of war, and you certainly don't want responsibility for it.
One truth over nuance and discussion. One truth over democracy. That's how Plato beat the sophists, by the way.
Basically, it's propaganda. That's why I quit journalism.
-
"We do have a libertarian Government."
!?! Stupidest thing lwm ever wrote.
The closest thing to a libertarian government was the first try at a constitution that the founders wrote. It was the Articles of Confederation, which had a central government as weak as a kitten.
After a decade came the overthrow of the government and the present constitution which centralized power in the executive. The executive has been sizing ever more power since.
-
how many people will be able to afford cable? ...
... We'll be in a full blown depression.
True. And it was arranged for you by the Fed. The central bank gives you a depression and no one sees that dismantling the overseas empire to save trillions would help.
And yahoos argue over the ancient fairness doctrine. Blah!
-
In all fairness ...
Paul Dirks: Lets get back to the orinal topic of Glenn's post which is the fact that the Cable channels are all carefully avoiding mention of the NYT expose of their use of ex-generals as propogandists.
Here we have a situation which the Fairness doctrine would be powerless to address but where competition among news organizations actually allowed the story to break. The New York Times had to sue in order to get the documents for their story via the Freedom of Information Act. Since they aren't (as far as I know) directly affiliated with any cable networks, they were able to report the story. Had the job been left to Time-Warner, no such luck.
Had there been a fairness doctrine in place there wouldn't have been any story. Had the broadcast media been required to either report the situation fairly and accurately or provide time for rebuttal it would not have been possible to present propaganda as news (unless, of course, there was no one who considered the presentation unfair or inaccurate, something I consider unlikely). With a fairness doctrine, the propaganda can be countered in real time, not five years later. Perhaps there would have been no retired general or colonel who would have been willing to step up and demand time for rebuttal, but I'd like to think that there are some of our former warriors who have the required backbone to stand up for the people's interests over the corporate government's.
In the run-up to the Iraq war, who would play the role of agreived party who required free time to rebut? Natalie Maines? Saddam Hussein?
Scott Ritter? Brent Snowcroft? Anthony Zinni? Hans Blix? Juan Cole?
I hope you can see that we agree on broad goals, and that I do see a role for government regulation, but regulating content remains a taboo as far as I'm concerned.
As the discussion has progressed it has become increasingly clearer that neither you nor Mona understands how the fairness doctrine works. The fairness doctrine doesn't regulate content (except to the extent that it requires fairness and accuracy; admittedly, if one can't outright lie then that restricts the conservatives' ability to argue). The fairness doctrine gives the public the right to regulate content by demanding time to rebut content that it considers unfair or inaccurate. The FCC didn't monitor broadcasts and say to broadcasters that they couldn't say something because it was unfair or inaccurate. Anyone who had a complaint first took it to the local broadcaster to ask for time for rebuttal. Usually the local broadcaster gave them the time if they felt that the complaint was justified, but if the broadcaster didn't agree with the claim for rebuttal time then the complainant could file a complaint with the FCC who would then adjudicate the matter.
But because the fairness doctrine gave the public this right, broadcasters were usually much more scrupulous about presenting information fairly and accurately in the first place.
Yes, I think we agree on broad goals but disagree on where the emphasis should be. But it's important to remember the history. First the fairness doctrine was eliminated (1987) then media consolidation was enabled (1996). The first was doubtless necessary for the second, because without the fairness doctrine it was possible for the media to tell us what a good idea media consolidation was with nobody to object. Perhaps the proper way to put the toothpaste back in the tube is in the reverse order that it came out and media consolidation should be undone before reestablishing the fairness doctrine. But you need both or else you get propaganda for news and no one gets around to pointing this out until five or six years after the fact.
-
Correction
Ah, libertarians. Their unstinting faith in the ability of people to govern themselves without government ... is always inspiring.
-
Um...
!?! Stupidest thing lwm ever wrote.
I didn't write this: "We do have a libertarian government."
Just sayin'.
-
Two things
CNN this morning started off with a report on Carter's trip to the ME. A viewer-participation 'quick vote' online is currently showing 74% of viewers in favor of Carter's meeting versus 26% opposed.
McCain, of course, has spoken out strongly against Carter's efforts while his own adviser, Tom Loeffler, lobbies for the Saudis who fund Hamas.
http://tiny.cc/3cJRT
McCain has also been cautiously critical of Obama's relationship to Wright. Not a peep from any quarter about Mccain's ongoing endorsement from Uber-cracker, The hateful bigot, Rev. Hagee.
Secondly, another brief segment on CNN as well, featuring a brief interview with the father of a US serviceman serving in Iraq. He commented that the son went twice for 8 weeks without a shower and 28 out 32 in his company suffered concussion or other trauma from IEDs.
And some would suggest that the troops are not receiving sufficient training.
Hell, these guys couldn't be better equipped to return stateside, assuming they survive, and take refuge permanently under a bridge.