Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"Hugs and kisses,Ma"
I must be undergoing some sort of mind warp because I still don't see how Comcast can effectively embargo these ads in the local area they are aimed.
I'll sleep on it (with the neat blankey you gave me) and see if it makes more sense tomorrow morning.
Would you like a gherkin for your merkin for Christmas?
The general theme that runs through many of your pieces on the media revolves around the concept that the media in general owes a duty to inform the public, in the public interest and for the public good.
Comcast's refusal to air ads critical of itself is one manifestation of this theme. The focus of much of television on the trivial, simple and insignificant at the expense of arguably more important and complex issues is another.
It strikes me that this is simply a the way things are versus the way you would like them to be argument. While not conversant with the applicable statutes I find it difficult to believe that there is something in law that would dictate the content of media dissemination, save and except that is be true or at a minimum fair comment.
Apart from the law I don't know how or why such an obligation on the part of the media would arise. The media is not a vocation or a calling, it is a business. I don't see any overriding moral imperative imposed on the media, such as the Hippocratic oath imposes on doctors.
All media, regardless of it's location on the political spectrum, is guilty (if that's even the right word) of being selective in what it chooses to broadcast or publish.
The concept that all such dissemination would need to be done with the public interest in mind is fraught with all kinds of practical difficulty, not the least of which is whether there exists a single entity that could be called the "public interest". What is in the public interest of one segment of society, may be considered adverse to the public interest of another segment of society.
Perhaps we should look in another direction. What if we sidestepped the question of regulating content, and focused instead on regulating ownership? There's ample precedent, and less risk of trampling on anyone's freedom of advocacy.
This is somewhat frustrating. I know the consolidation of media is bad. Jeez. I only have one question:
Did the group try to run the ad on a local comcast cable market. That is, did the group call up the markting dept. at the local Comcast Cable Provider in God's A-hole, PA, and try to buy time on a local market (that is in between Battle Star Galactica and Dr. Who re-runs at ten at night. Or, did they try to buy the time on a television broadcaster (or series of them) owned by Comcast. Or both. Its a legitimate, question, and one that seems necessary if you want to get to the bottom of exactly what is wrong about what Comcast did (we can agree they did something wrong). It seems like an easy enough question to get to the bottom of: Glenn's usual attention to details got lost in the shuffle here, so it would be great if he OR SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY HAS INFO ABOUT IT FROM THE SOURCE. Could clear this up.
PS: Glenn created more confusion about this by linking to the FAIR story in the update, which, if I read it right, is about Comcast censoring a journalist on one of its stations, not necessarily as a cable provider.
Oh, The FCC will revoke Comcast's license in a few days.
Same market interlocked ownership has failed. It will be disallowed and reversed.
Murdoch will have to start selling outlets.
The Roberts will get unDisneyfied.
Fox will be deported to Australia.
ABC will go solar; off air at sunset.
Newscasters and commentators, from here on, will be strapped to lie detectors while broadcasting.
That's why these companies are so frightened.
They know advertising is dangerous.
You can't sell time to just anyone.
An idea might be included.
Ideas aren't good for business as usual.
Only approved messages should be allowed.
We can't have anarchy.
We invest in pretty white noise to keep a lid on independent thought.
If people started to think whatever they wanted, they might change our children's minds.
We don't like that.
Children should be carefully lied to from birth. This country must remain as subserviantly inert as possible.
Vote Republican until everyone else is in jail or dead.
Support your local liars.
Kill truth wherever its ugly head sticks out of an individual.
Pray for idiocy.
Convict all minorities except white fascists.
Give foreigners wrong directions.
Send them back to Mexico, Canada or Cuba.
Let more people starve or be slaughtered.
Make Democracy poisonous.
Stay the course.
Nixon was right!
Honor John Birch.
Hate.
Spit.
Shun.
If someone doesn't understand, yell louder until they do.
If someone disagrees, call Homeland Security.
Keep America pure.
Apart from the law I don't know how or why such an obligation on the part of the media would arise. The media is not a vocation or a calling, it is a business. I don't see any overriding moral imperative imposed on the media, such as the Hippocratic oath imposes on doctors.
Journalism is not a vocation? Medicine is not a business? How romantic.
Look, Glenn did not call for any legislation to compel Comcast to accept political ads. And as far as I know, only candidate's ads must be accepted. But as libertarian as I am, I would be willing to investigate the wisdom of compelling media conglomerates that hold an effective monopoly to air bona fide political ads. (Perhaps with accompanying legislation providing that they may not be sued for any political/issues ads; that only the sponsor is subject to suit.)
Where a cable company does not hold a monopoly, there should be no state interference. But some municipalities are still giving essentially monopoly status to Comcast, for a variety of reasons that technology will soon render moot, but hasn't yet. Where that is true, it is corrupt for the primary media outlet to be able to keep political speech from the electorate.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
