Fox News - banned in Britain?

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Corn

Corn stated that the fairness doctrine got struck down because it was unconstitutional.

They say that if you repeat a lie enough, eventually you'll start to believe it.

Enough of this foolishness, post where I stated "struck down". "struck down" implies a censure by a court. "scrapped" simply implies it was no longer enforced, ie: discarded (if you have trouble understanding words, you can always visit dictionary.com)

Put words into my mouth all you want, it still doesn't change what I had said.

That "rule" was scrapped because it is unconstitutional not to allow editorial content.

You said it was scrapped because it was unconstitutional. This is not the case.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: jahawkinOther than Begala and Carville who get 30 minutes on Crossfire, I can't name any liberal commentators on TV. That's the problem.

Bob Shields, Al Hunt, Eleanor Clift, George Stephanopoulos, Susan Estrich, and Margaret Carlson are certifiable right wing whackos. Brokaw and Jennings are no-brainers as well. Cokie "Boggs" Roberts and Sam Donaldson have carried the water for the right so much it makes me wanna barf. We really do need a liberal voice somewhere.

I assume you're being sarcastic but its hard to tell because none of those people is really that liberal. Besides, which one is seen on a nightly basis on TV?
When do Brokaw and Jennings get to tout their political views?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: jahawkinOther than Begala and Carville who get 30 minutes on Crossfire, I can't name any liberal commentators on TV. That's the problem.

Bob Shields, Al Hunt, Eleanor Clift, George Stephanopoulos, Susan Estrich, and Margaret Carlson are certifiable right wing whackos. Brokaw and Jennings are no-brainers as well. Cokie "Boggs" Roberts and Sam Donaldson have carried the water for the right so much it makes me wanna barf. We really do need a liberal voice somewhere.

I assume you're being sarcastic but its hard to tell because none of those people is really that liberal.

No offense but your already tenuous grip on reality is slipping.

When do Brokaw and Jennings get to tout their political views?

Given that you don't consider Clift, Carlson et al "that liberal", there really isn't much left to discuss, however I will leave you with a choice tidbit from Jennings that I've always been fond of:

"Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming....Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week....Parenting and governing don't have to be dirty words: the nation can't be run by an angry two-year-old."
-- ABC's Peter Jennings in his radio commentary after the GOP won the House,Nov. 14, 1994.

No bias there.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: jahawkinOther than Begala and Carville who get 30 minutes on Crossfire, I can't name any liberal commentators on TV. That's the problem.

Bob Shields, Al Hunt, Eleanor Clift, George Stephanopoulos, Susan Estrich, and Margaret Carlson are certifiable right wing whackos. Brokaw and Jennings are no-brainers as well. Cokie "Boggs" Roberts and Sam Donaldson have carried the water for the right so much it makes me wanna barf. We really do need a liberal voice somewhere.

I assume you're being sarcastic but its hard to tell because none of those people is really that liberal.

No offense but your already tenuous grip on reality is slipping.

When do Brokaw and Jennings get to tout their political views?

Given that you don't consider Clift, Carlson et al "that liberal", there really isn't much left to discuss, however I will leave you with a choice tidbit from Jennings that I've always been fond of:

"Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming....Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week....Parenting and governing don't have to be dirty words: the nation can't be run by an angry two-year-old."
-- ABC's Peter Jennings in his radio commentary after the GOP won the House,Nov. 14, 1994.

No bias there.

So how much airtime do these people get? Cleft is on Foxnews like every 3 days.
And just because the MRC has dug up a few quotes from Jennings does not mean he is biased. If I watched years worth of coverage I'm sure I could find a few quotes that "prove" Jennings conservative bias.

 

[Corn]

You said it was scrapped because it was unconstitutional. This is not the case.

Yes it is exactly the case!!! Why does this have to be repeated again? Why?

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment.

The FCC scrapped this rule because they thought it was unconstitutional (and most likely not worth the expense to defend given the recent lower court losses outlined in my previous link regarding the fairness doctrine).

I realize you are functionally illiterate, perhaps my biggest mistake was to respond to you as if you weren't. In your imagination my use of the term "unconstitutinoal" evidently implied a protracted court battle leading up to the USSC whom, ultimately, in a landmark ruling "struck down" this rule. Neither the definition of unconstitutional, nor anything that I had said, implied this imaginary court battle. Besides, a court battle isn't always necessary to determine constitutional issues, especially when the supposed offender themselves determine they may be in violation, and act accordingly to change said behavior--such as in the case of the FCC with regard to the fairness doctrine.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Corn

You said it was scrapped because it was unconstitutional. This is not the case.

Yes it is exactly the case!!! Why does this have to be repeated again? Why?

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment.

The FCC scrapped this rule because they thought it was unconstitutional (and most likely not worth the expense to defend given the recent lower court losses outlined in my previous link regarding the fairness doctrine).

I realize you are functionally illiterate, perhaps my biggest mistake was to respond to you as if you weren't. In your imagination my use of the term "unconstitutinoal" evidently implied a protracted court battle leading up to the USSC whom, ultimately, in a landmark ruling "struck down" this rule. Neither the definition of unconstitutional, nor anything that I had said, implied this imaginary court battle. Besides, a court battle isn't always necessary to determine constitutional issues, especially when the supposed offender themselves determine they may be in violation, and act accordingly to change said behavior--such as in the case of the FCC with regard to the fairness doctrine.

Link

The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). The Court ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights. Five years later, however, in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (418 U.S. 241), without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate". In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364).

The Court's decision led to the FCC reevaluation and discontinuance of the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC stated: "We no longer believe that the Fairness Doctrine, as a matter of policy, serves the public interests. In making this determination, we do not question the interest of the listening and viewing public in obtaining access to diverse and antagonistic sources of information. Rather, we conclude that the Fairness Doctrine is no longer a necessary or appropriate means by which to effectuate this interest. We believe that the interest of the public in viewpoint diversity is fully served by the multiplicity of voices in the marketplace today and that the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of the doctrine unnecessarily restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters. Furthermore, we find that the Fairness Doctrine, in operation actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and in degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists."

It is clear that the fairness doctrine was not struck down because it was declaired unconstitutional. You want to say otherwise??

 

[Corn]

It is clear that the fairness doctrine was not struck down because it was declaired unconstitutional. You want to say otherwise??

For the millionth time, when did I ever say the fairness doctrine was "struck down"? Where?!!!!

Hahahahahahaah!!!!!!!!!

This is getting sad, very very sad, so why am I laughing?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Corn

It is clear that the fairness doctrine was not struck down because it was declaired unconstitutional. You want to say otherwise??

For the millionth time, when did I ever say the fairness doctrine was "struck down"? Where?!!!!

Hahahahahahaah!!!!!!!!!

This is getting sad, very very sad, so why am I laughing?

OK, you said it was scrapped because it was unconstitutional.
Need I remind you, I said:

You said it was scrapped because it was unconstitutional. This is not the case.

To which you replyed:

Yes it is exactly the case!!!

The courts did not say it was unconstitutional, nor did the FCC state that it was scrapped because it was unconstitutional.

 

[Corn]

Meredith Corp. v. F.C.C., 809 F.2d 863 (D.C. Cir. 1987)

Look it up on Google.

The jist is that the FCC was compelled by the courts to defend the constitutionality of the fairness doctrine or repeal it. The fact that the FCC repealed it should easily clairify the FCC's opinion regarding whether or not they believed they would prevail or not.

 

[Bowfinger]

Here's an Op-Ed from the New York Times. I thought it was relevant since it discusses both the BBC and Fox News. It also discusses how media companies may bias their coverage to please the administration -- Michael Powell, Colin Powell's son, is chairman of the FCC -- and how the administration can apply pressure through the FCC. Here are a couple of excerpts with a link to the whole article if you're interested:

The China Syndrome
A funny thing happened during the Iraq war: many Americans turned to the BBC for their TV news. They were looking for an alternative point of view -- something they couldn't find on domestic networks, which, in the words of the BBC's director general, "wrapped themselves in the American flag and substituted patriotism for impartiality."

Leave aside the rights and wrongs of the war itself, and consider the paradox. The BBC is owned by the British government, and one might have expected it to support that government's policies. In fact, however, it tried hard -- too hard, its critics say -- to stay impartial. America's TV networks are privately owned, yet they behaved like state-run media.

What explains this paradox? It may have something to do with the China syndrome. No, not the one involving nuclear reactors -- the one exhibited by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation when dealing with the government of the People's Republic.

In the United States, Mr. Murdoch's media empire -- which includes Fox News and The New York Post -- is known for its flag-waving patriotism. But all that patriotism didn't stop him from, as a Fortune article put it, "pandering to China's repressive regime to get his programming into that vast market." The pandering included dropping the BBC's World Service -- which reports news China's government doesn't want disseminated -- from his satellite programming, and having his publishing company cancel the publication of a book critical of the Chinese regime.

[ ... ]

Meanwhile, both the formal rules and the codes of ethics that formerly prevented blatant partisanship are gone or ignored. Neil Cavuto of Fox News is an anchor, not a commentator. Yet after Baghdad's fall he told "those who opposed the liberation of Iraq" -- a large minority -- that "you were sickening then; you are sickening now." Fair and balanced.

We don't have censorship in this country; it's still possible to find different points of view. But we do have a system in which the major media companies have strong incentives to present the news in a way that pleases the party in power, and no incentive not to.