I am of the opinion that media reform is perhaps the most important issue in American Domestic Policy right now. Free Press is uncluded in the First Ammendment.




http://www.corporations.org/media/



http://www.freepress.net/guide/airwaves.php

Here are the questions to debate:

1) How important is media reform?

2.) What reforms, if any, should be made?

3.) What is your interpertation of the 1st Ammendment regarding the press?

1) How important is media reform?

In my youth, this was a pretty important issue. There was a limited number of media outlets. Typically, in broadcast TV there were only three places to get national news (assuming you lived in an area with good TV reception) with one, maybe two extra sources to get local news. In some cases because of geography people we limited to just one source (yes youngin's there was a time without cable TV, Satellite TV, Blogs, Internet News Services, etc ).

The potential for abuse at the time was quite high. Depending on where you lived, you might never hear the other side of any debate.

These days however, there are more sources. It is the massive increase in available information and news from all angles that makes media reform an outdated ideal for the most part.


2.) What reforms, if any, should be made?

If there was one reform I would make it would be to require that public service announcements be aired in time slots that will best reach the target audience. Last night I was watching a late move. At 1AM or so a PSA, targeted at kids came on to profess the value of friendship and being inclusive. What good will that do?

3.) What is your interpretation of the 1st Amendment regarding the press?

I feel the press are entitled to the same freedoms as everyone else in regard to the first amendment. I believe the press were specifically mentioned to ensure their inclusion was crystal clear so that they were not oppressed as they were in other nations.

However, freedom of speech for the Press does not include a freedom to be heard, a right to be published or broadcast, or a freedom from criticism. We all have the freedom to publish whatever we like, so long as someone with money thinks it's marketable, we put up our own cash to finance it, we create blogs, write to editors, solicit opinion time on local news casts, or participate in places like AD.

Extremely important. Biased news organizations [Fox News, CNN, New York Times, LA Times (actually, pretty much every paper except for the Washington Post), etc] are adding to the ignorance, hostility and polarity of the United States. Media reform is one of the most important issues in the country, in my humble opinion, of course.

Well, I may be asking for a lot, but I would like one channel and one newspaper that is fair, balanced and unafraid...One. I love the Washington Post, the only fair newspaper, but can't get it delivered up here in Jersey, and my corner store rarely has it. So yes, one reliable print and broadcast journal medium is all I ask.

Well, here's where the trouble starts. Because of the first amendment, NO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE can occur during the reformatino process [or at all, for that matter]. The media has to reform itself, meaning the public has to push for fair coverage, I won't hold my breath...Anyway, the first amendment...Like any average Joe's right to free speech the gov't can't censor, or otherwise tamper or interfere with the press...Press and government should be separated as fiercely as Church and State, its equally important.

CP

I'm in agreeance. However, the deregulation of the FCC over the years has allowed for massive corporate entities to control the airwaves. This has certainly been a byproduct of powerful lobbying efforts by those corporations. Does the FCC regulate them, or do they regulate the FCC? What would a separation look like? If it looks anything like the "church and state" separation, I'd say it's a losing cause. The church is certainly influencing the state, (IMHO) based on my observations, but that's a different dabate.


http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/fairness.html



http://www.swingmusic.net/Save_Radio.html

While there may be a plethora of channels, it doesn't mean it's diverse. My main concern is with TV and Radio, the two avenues that the majority of America get their news from. The internet is a little bit different. It's much easier to get your opinions out there. Even though you may have to buy in to access through Time Warner, you get to say what you want.

2.) What reforms, if any, should be made?

Anti-trust laws should be applied. Corporations should not be able to dominate the market in the way that they currently do. The market must be diversified. It will promote competitive prices, as well as diverse news and opinion.

http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/antitrust/

Here are the questions to debate:

1) How important is media reform?
I think the media should respect society norms. We live in a capitalistic society based on values of science and religion. The media should not mold change through acceptance of abnormal behavior. Examples are numerous agendas from gay and women rights to political views of extreme left or right. I see cartoons that young people watch that minimizes masculinity and displays females superior to males. Likewise I see news programs that simply don’t report news they sell the news. Many television shows use hidden audiences to support agreement to the bias, whether gays kissing or a politician speaking. To me this sort of media is simply brainwashing and doesn’t reflect society norms.

Some human anthropologist considers art, in the case of media TV and music as essential as shelter and food to mankind tracing the need back to the caveman. Media should meet the need for art without affecting society’s norm and serve as a public service of art, entertainment and news that meets societies needs.
2.) What reforms, if any, should be made?
Ideally changes should be made to reflect our society majority’s norm. Present music, news, education, religion or public service information in a method as if it were a public audience with all age groups in the audience.

3.) What is your interpertation of the 1st Ammendment regarding the press?
Let me come to some conclusions before stating the facts at the time of adoption of the 1st Amendment.
My conclusions: All rights and free will come from a God; we as collective Americans must consider ourselves a superior race possessing higher values than other races; highest of our value is capitalism’s ability to cause us to believe we can control and understand our environment and accumulate wealth through work to that end.

Interpretation of the US Constitution and the 1st Amendment are our nation was based on the pursuit of happiness based on common law, God given rights and free will within the limits of the constitution to be members of a capitalist society. The strong, hardworking would gain wealth and the weak would not prosper.

Because of common law and absence of modern communication the 1st amendment was based on face-to-face communication, mono a mono. This method of free speech was rated by the majority and not challenged in court but mono a mono, but nevertheless was representative of our capitalism system based on the pecking order of the majority.

Why do President Bush and I say God given rights? Capitalism is based on commerce in society based on religion and science. Science, or the study of metaphysics relate free will to cause and effect equal in all actions in the universe and conclude free will makes science irrational unless the original cause was God. That was the fact at the nations founding and nothing has changed.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. All wrong. At least as far as entertainment in the media goes.

As you note, we live in a Capitalist society. And, as many, many conservative capitalists here will tell you, it is the corporations sole job to maximize profits, to the benefit of the owners and stock holders. Period.

I'm sure you would like nothing more than a return to the days of "I Love Lucy", "The Dick VanDyke Show", and "Dragnet". The problem is, every network in existence, with the exception of Nick@Nite would be out of business in a year. It's simply not what people are buying. Do you honestly think that Fox puts on shows like "Temptation Island" and "Paradise Hotel" or UPN airs "Elimidate", NBC shows "Fear Factor", and Bravo broadcasts "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" because they lose money? Not on your life - they show these programs because there's a huge audience for it. And because they make the networks piles of money.

So, really, what is "societal norms"? People may certainly claim not to watch any of these shows in public, but somebody out there is watching them in droves, no doubt as a guilty pleasure. Like pornography, no one may admit to their friends that they look at it, but it's a billion dollar industry. Either the networks put this stuff out just to lose money, or someone is lying through their teeth about their viewing habits. And I don't think the networks are losing any money.

Let's talk about media as art for a minute, since you brought it up. How boring would it be, if every painting in a museum was a still life of a bowl of fruit, or if every piece of music was either classical or big band music, or if every comedy routine could only be from the Henny Youngman bag of jokes?

It's the art that makes us think, that makes us stretch our limits, that brings us along as human beings, more often than not. But again, that really blows your idea of what's "normal" out of the water. Because if Piccasso and Van Gough, if Elvis, or John Lennon, or Eminem, if Lenny Bruce or George Carlin don't get you to think, dance, or laugh, you're not human. The same thing goes for what's on TV. People only keep going back to forms of entertainment that resonate with them on some level.

Even if TV were to change to "respect societal norms", who gets to decide what's "normal", and what's not? Me? You? Some beaurocrat? Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell? No thanks. I don't want the job, and no offense, but I don't want anyone else deciding what I get to watch, when.


Nice idea, except for one thing. You have yet to define "society's norm", and while an audience may indeed be public, obviously all age groups and interests are not listening to the same things, or even come close. I no longer watch MTV for instance. So why should they have to accommodate my tastes, when I (and others my age) are obviously going to be a very tiny minority of their audience? What's in bad taste to me, may be perfectly fine for someone else. If I don't like what I see, I can change the channel.



Again, I don't think you are entirely correct here. The printing press was certainly in existance at the time, and phamphlets, newspapers and books were widely distributed. Not everything "speech-related" was done face to face. And of course, not everything that saw print was necessarily popular with everyone, or even a "majority" to have sales enough to make the author a profit, or in the case of, for instance, Thomas Paine, to make a large enough portion of the population think about the tyranny of the Crown enough to at least consider breaking free, and striking out on their own. And, as you may recall, this was most certainly not a unanimous, or even "majority" opinion, to begin with. Should the founding fathers have given up after the first treatise, simply because it did not fall within the "societal norm"? I thank the Maker that they did not.

1) How important is media reform?
Not desperately. I think that there is not a great deal wrong with broadcast media in the USA, particularly in entertainment. There is a broad spectrum of available drama & entertainment easily and widely available - for every Survivor or Big Brother there is a Sopranos or CSI (I don't mean to bracket these two together as if they are equivalent, just that there is high-quality drama available if you want it).

I agree with Nighttimer's position on this a lot more than I agree with Ol Sarge's, but hands up who's surprised that an atheist liberal thinks the media should not be forced to toe a "norm" that nobody can convincingly establish as being normal to everyone's satisfaction anyway?

2.) What reforms, if any, should be made?
Coming from the UK, where there are laws that require broadcasters to offer the right of reply and political balance in all news & current affairs coverage, and self-regulation to do the same in the press and in advertising, I think that the American broadcast news media could do with some kind of voluntary code of practice to ensure the same thing happens there.

The trouble with "market forces" determining that balance should be available is that for one thing, there is such concentration of market power in a few corporate hands (Clear Channel, Sony, NewsCorp, etc) that the consumer has less choice than it first appears, and secondly that no such thing as a perfect market anyway outside of a textbook. The closest anyone's managed to get to one in a mass consumer market is in FMCG grocery brands, and everything we know about that market tells us that considered decision making becomes overwhelmed by subconscious impulse above a certain level of choice. (In other words, too much choice can be a bad thing - but that's probably another thread in it's own right.)

The net effect being that broadcast news becomes more interested in segmenting it's audeince in such a way as to tell them what they will find most comfortable to hear, rather than anything as rarefied or abstract as the unvarnished, unspun truth. Clearly that is what most people want, but doesn't anyone else find it vaguely unsettling that we should want to try to organise society so that everybody gets what they want and never gets told anyhting they don't already know. Doesn't that rely on the benevolence and integrity of broadcasters (and other service providers, including politicians) rather too much?

3.) What is your interpertation of the 1st Ammendment regarding the press?
That the government is specifically prohibited from interfering with it in as much as legislating to limit what they can or cannot say. I don't think that the First Amerndment prevents government from approving or disapproving of certain parts of the media, though of course it does allow the media to ignore the Government's doing so.

This is, of course, the problem with my answer to part 2. A right to reply or a duty to oppose/investiate in broadcast news output cannot be enforced by government, and if commercial or soceital pressures were enough to ensure they existed, they would exist. So you'll either have to amend the Amendment, or just keep putting up with the output you've got.

You are correct about the capitalism influencing programming and yes I did like American media better in the pre-Vietnam era when a higher form of ethics existed. I have never seen any of the shows you refer to and will admit probably because of two factors; one that no one I know watches the shows so they won’t ask me about, did you see bla bla bla last night, and two I have a very large choice of what to watch. It is like the Super Bowl, I don’t even know or care who played because here it is all baseball.
I think shock TV is food for fat lazy people with no energy to live a life on their own and after consumption are dumber than when they started.
Music categorized as art by Eminen and gangster rap artist that speak to violation of law are, in Donald Rummy’s words, not helpful. Something not helpful is then harmful and serves no purpose other than to glorify anarchy or illegal lifestyle that as a result harms society.

I don’t think that is completely true. With entertainment choices people make other choices as many others and I do. The majorities of Americans are limited to choice and select programming like water flowing down hill, the path of least resistance. My son for example has a choice of maybe twenty youth channels and I catch him watching some sex neutral metro cartoon with voices of intellectuals coming out of young children, I interrupt and ask why are you watching that crap? He always answers the other shows are all reruns. Then I tell him to turn it off and either go play outside or play a video game.

My view is the FCC should be the monitor and the rules strait forward. No programming that promotes or supports lifestyle of illegal activities, from substance abuse, brainwashing programming disguised to incorporate you into the new herd, programming that disparages one’s religious beliefs or even encourages infidelity or any illegal activities. All of these forms of free speech are counter to society as a whole. Hollywood should not be able to drive an agenda on the public airways any more than the government.

I think if media companies couldn’t be creative enough to supply the masses with the entertainment within the limits I stated they deserve to go out of business. Now, I do agree that all forms of music, and artful entertainment be offered in public places where the public has the free will to choose to enter.


Our free speech was established to support our union and not destroy it. It was not, IMHO the spirit to burn the nations flag; it was not for an American Indian meet with popularity in condemning the Nation “the American people created” or to brainwash the masses or to blatantly encourage violation of popular created moral laws and norms. Free speech was created to allow no limits of religious speech and no limits of speech complaints against elected officials.

I think that this sentiment is one of the most troubling I've ever seen on AD. For starters, what is an "unbiased" news report? Lets look at the recent election for example. The headline "George Bush wins reelection" could be perceived as unbiased because it recognizes George Bush without any mention of John Kerry. Likewise, if you say "John Kerry loses election bid" then you are again showing a potential bias by focusing entirely on the loss of Kerry.

Now, I would have no problem with EITHER of these headlines, but they both have a "bias." Now, I get the impression sometimes that people don't know what a bias means. It isn't necessarily a fatal flaw, or an inability to speak from a neutral position. ALL it is is a "position." If you can explain to me how it is someone can report on something without taking a position, for example "the position of an outside observer," then you need to have a talk with a metaphysicist, poste haste.

So then how do we respond? If I recall, we had a similar discussion last year in the Fair Use thread. To modify what I wrote there... "bias" only becomes unacceptable when; The subject position of the audience renders them incapable of critically asessing the information. If Americans are incapable of rendering the truth from the information that is being reported, then you have a much bigger problem than just questionable reporting and broadcasting practices.

So then, is the "bias" in American media untenable because of a problem with media consumers, or does the problem lay with the broadcasters themselves. If you choose to blame the broadcasters, then you are either operating from the assumption that the standard American just isn't that bright, or you are suggesting that broacasters engage in widespread and incredibly complex manipulation and subversion of the facts. And that is an allegation which must be proven.

I find that hard to believe. I called for the news media in this country to inform the public, not pump propaganda into Americans' minds. Then I said that the news contributes to the hostility in this country, both seem pretty accurate to me.

I don't see a headline as "biased journalism". That's not what I mean at all. When I say "biased journalism", I mean content. For example, bad news [i.e. from Iraq] is front page news, but positive news articles [if they're covered at all], are page A 19 material to most newspapers. The media in general reports the news from a liberal bias, or in the case of Fox News, from a conservative one...To me, there is no such thing as "liberal news" or "conservative news", there is only the news...News coverage should have a balance of both sides.

UJ, you're a smart guy, you probably like to analyze figure things out [so do I] and I can definitely respect that [who couldn't?], but how is it the job of Americans to "render the truth from the news"? After all, the job of the media is to render the truth from everyone else, their job is to present Americans with solid facts, not an interpretation, which then must be interpreted in order to obtain those facts...The media's job is to inform, Americans shouldn't have to read in between the lines in order to get the "real news" [which isn't to say they shouldn't if they need to].

I do think that Americans are "bright", however, I do think that they are widely misinformed as well...Just look at the amount of people who still think Saddam attacked us on 9/11. So no, Americans aren't stupid, but they are misinformed, or ignorant, about some things, that is. I do think that the bias problem is the fault of the journalists themselves. I say this because I don't think that minimizing ones personal bias from an article or laying out a paper that includes articles from both sides of the aisle is impossible...I think that some journalists in the mainstream media just don't care enough to do it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to Add:
OlSarge, what are you basing this on...You say this as if it is fact, but there is no Constitutional evidence to back it up. Free speech means just that, free speech, we can say whatever the Hell we want [see what I just did there, I'm so clever ].

CP

...or to blatantly encourage violation of popular created moral laws and norms.

If our founding father's had adhered to this line of thinking then nothing would have ever been published that was counter to the rule of English law, resulting in far fewer people being incensed and willing to fight for freedom. We would be currently living in the Colonies if our fore-father's had thought as you do.

Segregation was the result of popularly created laws and "norms", and it was considered moral by the majority for a very long time.

Who is to judge what is moral? more here

Since you oppose the violation of "social norms" then you should take issue with yourself. What is on TV is the "social norm" for the MAJORITY in America. This is because what is on TV is determined by what the largest group of people will watch, because it is the most viewed programs that receive the most advertising revenues.

The "social norm" in America is that Premarital sex is OK, in that this is the opinion held by the majority of Americans (Source (see #9)). So, since you support the "social norm" can I assume would support shows that glorify this?

The "social norm" is that the majority of Americans have tired sex outdoors or in a public place (source]source[/URL]), so can I assume that you would support programing that illustrates these practices?

Post after post, in topic after topic you talk about the "social norm". What I want to know is WHAT OR WHO DETERMINES WHAT IS THE "SOCIAL NORM"? It seems obvious to me that you don't believe these "norms" are set by the majority of American's because activities engaged in by the majority of Americans in the real world frequently conflict with your stated definitions of the "social norms".

I read these posts about upholding the social norms and Stalin comes firmly to mind. You say "Social Norms" but it reads much more Like "OL Sarge's way" to me.

So, just to be clear I will ask again.

You state that media should be restricted to upholding "social norms".

I'm asking you to clarify, what are these "social norms" and what or who determines there status as "social norms"?

Off-topic? I think your response would be on topic in that it would be clarifying you stated position on the topic.

You are very clever, but the 1st Amendment says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
And the question was: What is your interpertation of the 1st Ammendment regarding the press?
So what is your point? It didn’t say anything about TV or radio or hate speech or other variables like slander or screaming fire in a theater, all after what was written is “interpretation” and has added to its meaning as is your clever interpretation.


Moral laws and norms… in post #5 at link http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=140018 I wrote:

I base moral law on the concept that the constitution and all American laws are made on moral choices of free will and in the study of free will philosophy cannot, nor science explain free will as it contradicts scientific rational order of cause and effect as explained by the philosopher Jean Buridan. Therefore, moral law and norms in the case of America are one and the same. Regardless if everyone watches the Dukes of Hazard or Horny Housewives on TV the laws the people create are based on moral law. In other words when the FF used the term “creator” (GOD) it was because moral could not be explained any other way as a base of morals.

Our free speech was established on the founding of our government and not the events leading up to it.

Just before the constitution was created burning witches was moral. Following the creation of the constitution segregation was considered moral as was slavery and minimizing women rights. So who is to judge what moral is? Your answer as to what is moral is the law the majority who makes the laws or fails to change them.

Your link refers to morals in a much different definition, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor and medical care and other social concerns to blame on morals as you as an individual judge morals. Here is the path: Rights come from the Creator, (God), free will comes from the Creator, (God), the constitution limits the free will and the majority exercising their rights create moral laws. So if media contradicts the laws the moral majority created it is counter productive to the society. Otherwise, since the majority defines the moral and law the laws would be otherwise.

Conclusion for clarity:
Picture freedom as an animal or person on a land (the USA) free to his or her free will and God given rights without fences or boundaries to do as his or her free will and God given rights would direct. That is freedom without rules. Now picture that same freedom constrained by government, it is like putting a fence around your free will, the fence being a law or group of laws to live within. Picture a bird cage and a monkey and outside of the cage is freedom but inside of the cage is nuts and the monkey reaches in to grab the nuts but can’t remove his hand from the door because of the nuts made his hand to large to fit. The nuts are your social security number and passport and the government the cage and the cage. True freedom is outside of the cage but safety and security is connected to the cage.

You know, 'Ol Sarge, most of this sounds just like so much double talk. Either that, or you truly do not understand what the Constitution is all about.

The Consistution is not a set of moral laws or norms created to tell us what we should do, or how we should live. The Constitution was written specifically to outline and restrict the power the government has over us, not the other way around.

That's perhaps why so many of the SCOTUS decisions seem to violate your sense of "societal norms". It's not that they are just being contrary. Indeed, they are looking at the laws brought to them to decide, in the light of whether or not people are going to be violating some vague "morality" built into that law, but rather, if the government writing that law has overstepped their bounds, in terms of unduly restricting rights of the individual, or the country as a whole.

So, we've established that the government cannot restrict (to a large extent) what may be televised or broadcast, at least within the time frame where children may reasonably be expected to be watching. In other words, no blatantly foul language or nudity.

We've also established that, for the most part, the Networks, and radio stations are only going to put on what sells to the American public. If it doesn't sell, it won't be on the air very long. That means a majority of the viewing public is going to be watching, which as OverlandSailor pointed out, makes that programming far closer to the societal norm than your interpretation.

Again, you keep saying that the media should respect "society's norms" and we keep showing you that that's exactly what they are doing, within both the First Amendment and a Capitalist Society. So, what, exactly is it they are not "respecting"? And if you don't like what's on Tuesday night on CBS, or Thursday night on NBC, or Saturday night on HBO, can't you change the channel, and choose not to watch their programming? Of course you can. So why do you feel it incumbant upon yourself to turn all of the networks programs back 50 years, or to turn it into all PBS, all the time?

OK, assuming you do not have a direct line of communication with the "creator" then how do you know what the creator says is moral?



So then do you actually believe that our founding fathers, men who consistently wrote about their fear of tyranny resulting from OUR new government did not wish there to be a voice of dissent, advocating rebellion if there was no other recourse? Then what was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?



Interesting interpretation of my link. That link is a post from my Blog. In that post I advocated NO specific morals. I merely pointed out that the politicians who like to use "morality" as their big argument seem to have alot of personal issues with morality themselves. I also tried to show that different opinions on most issues can ALL come from a moral point of view. I advocated nothing, and I have NEVER been a rob from the rich give to the poor kinda guy. Illustrating Hypocrisy in not advocating policy. However, in the ever worsening partisan country we live in, daring to question the sincerity on side is cause to assume that someone is a supporter of the other. Funny thing though, I was referencing congress in general, not one side or the other.





Lets assume that these morals from the "creator" are found in the Bible. Should I them assume that you support the stoning to death of adulterers? The sacking and destruction of cities where the majority holds different religious beliefs? Etc? The Bible is FULL of actions most people would see as HIGHLY IMMORAL today. So, what is the source of these morals and "social norms" where does one go to learn them?



Not trying to be insulting, but I think I missed the clarity part. So, you are suggesting that all of the government controls are wrong as they restrict our good given right to freedom, but then suggest that the government should control the freedom of expression of the media to limit what our citizens can be exposed too?

You are aware of the channel knob on you TV correct?

Now, the "clarity" I was seeking was what those "social norms" are and where they come from. You cleared up one side of the question. You suggest they come from the "creator". Now, how about the what they are part. What is the reference source one can go to and find these "norms"??

I have been speaking about public airways not cable or satellite reception being owned by a company. Radio and network license TV stations. If you have to buy it then I don’t see need for restrictions, e.g. movies at the theatre, a CD at the mall as it is in another helm of free will out of the public space. Like the Philly 5, they should not expect privacy in the public, should they not want to be bothered by free will and speech of others then go to a private hall or rent a sports arena and exclude the free will of others.

If the majority passes just laws, and that is how they are passed, they may be challenged to a court but the majority makes them, then those laws are the public free will of the majority. If one of the laws says it is illegal to sell or use illegal drugs then the entire public arena should support use and sale of illegal drugs being illegal. Likewise murder or fist induced abortions, all against the laws passed by the majority and not overturned by a judge. Why then should an artist insist it is good to get high, buy drugs with the money he saves by aborting his pregnant wife with a fist beating to the womb and then kill a cop when he is about to be caught? It is illogical in the public arena to me please explain how such would be if I stood in front of a cop with my pregnant wife and said at the top of my lungs highest, meanest voice I’m going to kill that baby, then you and take your gun and sell it to buy me some drugs and then sell them to your kids. Does my free speech allow such freedoms? How about if I stand beside a cop playing music over a public license radio station at the same volume and lip sinks the same recording of what I just said in person is it now free speech art?


If my hand is out of the cage I use my own moral judgment, for example if I bought an island. But, if my free will is entrusted to the government and my hand is holding my US SSAN and Passport stuck in the door of the government cage I trust the government’s moral leaders created laws based on the morals of the citizens who elected them.

Of course it was for speaking out against government and freedom to speak of religion as the two major conflicts of the era. The government was not supposed to be out of the people’s control, therefore first and second amendments. Think about it,,,the people, and the majority given the power verses the government.

Yes, I think I understood where you were coming from in your blog and I like your writing. But the moral of the American capitalism system was purposely set up so the word compassionate conservative capitalist could never be used together. It was set up for citizens to choose hard work, education pays off and alternate route of laziness ends in misery. There were other capitalism systems in Western Europe and even Karl Marks developed a social capitalism system but ours was developed on moral, hard working well educated society flourishing allowing for the majority to prosper leaving others to the love of their families and the pity of the church. FDR is the one who tried to incorporate compassion into government and it just doesn’t fit the FF’s capitalistic system. That is why Bush always said I’m a compassionate conservative but before taking another breath qualified and said through support of community and faith based organizations not the government.

The government adopted common laws, which included such laws and were taught in public schools as late as the 1940’s. A child molester was punished in the public square by stoning, property removed along with any personal property and ousted from the community. My dad said in WV in his youth (he was born in 1905) a child molester didn’t even warrant court, they took him in the woods and stapled his family jewel cords to a tree stump and untied him and gave him a sharp knife and bandage. Likewise, a person entering the community without property was held suspect especially if he looked as if he had been stoned. Laws merely changed as society changed; when I was a very young child in WV much of the Old Testament was still enforced. All common laws adopted by our nation are a combination of pre-Bible and post Bible morals.


My point the absolute freedom comes not from government but the Creator, the dignity of “rights” and the free will of man. If a person would be truly free he or she must be without government. The problem is the need for a samurai in totally free society, read ancient Japanese rise of the Samurai as a need because throughout history evil has traveled to peace as heat is conducted to cold in a piece of steel. The government is a contract for security in which you give up part of your free will to the government as stated in laws created by a republic democracy. These contracts are the social norm. If you would be free from the government contract on your own island you could decide morality.

Your argument is that in America you can have it both ways and I disagree. For example should your moral judgment say no harm is done if a six month child gives you oral sex on your island it would be morally legal. But if you are a US citizen the moral laws you agree to in contract say it is illegal. So in America you should not air on the public airways “art” about six month old child giving you oral sex or any other violation of established law in the contract.

You see I see no difference between glorifying law violations. Gangster rap, I did what I had to do, I already had one kid (I aborted the woman with a fist beating) so I could have my money for my buzz in the night and have my hoe to rub on later on. In the public air is hate speech, no different than saying lets go killing N’s or F’s, if you are the little girl whose mom was beat up and baby brother killed. It’s not art and the guy doesn’t live on his own island. The social norm is the legitimate law on the books as established by moral representatives of the herd.

You do realize, that in actuality, the farther away from actual "work" you get, the more money you make? I'd say that Hard work ends in misery, at least in my vision of what "work" is. It usually involves sweat, and some physical labor. That doesn't get you far. Also noteworthy, many of our wealthiest elite are dropouts, so the education thing doesn't really get you there. What gets you there is innovative ideas, and the ability to exploit others, or "capitalize" on their gullibility for your own profit.


Somehow this debate has shifted from a focus on media reform to a conversation on religion and government. Nobody responded to my idea of imposing anti-trust standards. Let me reassert something. If the Airwaves are public property, why can the public have virtually no access to them, or decisions about how they are utilized? I would happily debate Gog given rights and religion vs government with you, but this topic is media reform. You cannot address the realities of media reform whith quizzical conversations about theology.

Reality: A handfull of corporations control the vast majority of the public media, radia, TV, newspapers, and internet portals. I believe this is problematic. When you control the media input to society, you then get to control the information access. This control has a tremendous impact on politics, culture, and religion (look at the televangelists) Regardless of the myriads of channells to choose from, they are all owned by the same handful, and have been filtered through the same corporate lense for your viewing enjoyment.

What is not aired on the news is just as important as what is aired. For example, not even the most liberal of all stations would air something like this:

http://tinyurl.com/6yhcl

Now I'd say that's a pretty important piece of news that Americans SHOULD know, but because of the current state of affairs in the media, they do not.

All of this bantering about creators, and "God-given rights" is not productive, or on topic. You are throwing up a smokescreen, and not addressing the issue. The FCC is not a God given anything, and the corporate media moguls have capitalistic rights, granted by power, and money. I suggest you refocus on the topic at hand, and leave your religiosity for a different debate.

I understand where you're coming from Ol Sarge...My only question is...How can one interpret the words free speech to mean anything other than the right to say whatever you want? That's my major objection to what you are saying.

CP

I believe a media reform is a must for America to make it through the next century. Most if not all problems with America result from badly reported media, nd biased opinions from reporters that care more about a pay check than putting out the facts. Every form of government in history has had a downfall no matter how subtle this is our downfall. I personally, believe the media should be taken over by the government to display facts not just what the public wants to hear. The media influences nearly every un-knowledgable person's decision. The media is the entire reason that Kerry (an obviously incompetent candidate) got as far as he did and nearly caused the United States to end in an abrupt destruction. The media is the main reason that the United States has become the country it was always meant to be.

1) How important is media reform?
I believe media reform is mandatory for the further survival of the United States. Without this reform the media will continue its downward assent towards complete and utter doom or democracy.

2.) What reforms, if any, should be made?
I believe the media should be mainly either government organized or government supervised. The media should be put in complete control of the opinions of America because they are the ones that will be effected. A group of unbiased, well-proportioned individuals should be set apart to make the news public. No private enterprises and all just straight facts. If people want to simply be entertained then they can find a new location for that entertainment. The news should be 'news' straight facts unchanged for interest purposes.This is a very radical change and probably will not come to pass although, I believe it to be the best way to assess the situation.
There is an alternate route. To have government supervised news. Currently, the media can put out whatever they please and much of that data is modified for entertainment purposes. My solution is to have a small governmental group designed to find and point out these defects and changes.. The group would also have to be random in gender, age, beliefs, and party. The defect to this solution is that no matter how un-biased and incorruptible the government representatives may be there will always be those that are biased and corruptible.

3.) What is your interpretation of the 1st Amendment regarding the press?
I believe at the time of the 1st Amendment the world was definitely not at this kind of a situation. Although the Constitution is a brilliant document it is not up to date. The current media is much different then the media then which mainly was composed of a printing press run by Ben Franklin. Modern media must be dealt with, with modern laws.

Thank you, for reviewing my document and please note I would be happy to have replies, or have defects pointed out. I am young and incompetent but would like to learn. Point out my mistakes (for I know there are many) so that I can do better in the future. Again I thank you for your time.

It seems to me that the problem lies in how we define property rights in the US (and the rest of the world for the most part).

While broadcast spectrum rights only cover one outlet of the media, the effects of concentrated ownership there have a ripple effect throughout the rest of 'media'.

It analogous to the increasing concentration of wealth in the US and world.

Major broadcasters obtain rights to occupy certain electromagnetic spectra, to the exclusion of other potential users. Unlike newspapers, no one can create new broadcast spectra. Except for in a few recent cases, they do not pay market rates for them. To this end, they are using what may be considered the property of the people of the United States without compensation. Because the 'price' for using these spectra is below the value to the companies, these companies gain a windfall profit. This profit is then used to purchase other spectra and media outlets, to the exclusion of potential competitors.

The means to correct this oligopoly on spectra is to periodically auction the rights to said spectra, highest bidder gets use at the next highest bid.

I would allow, but do not necessarily favor, a small portion of the payment to be made in public service announcements.

A side benefit of requiring a market rate fee, through the auction, for use of frequencies is the encouragment of economic use. If AOL must spend money to occupy a certain frequency band, they will likely develop technology to increase the bandwidth transmitted through that band.

As an aside, I'd like to see the revenue generated from such a plan divided equally amongst citizens in the form of a refundable tax credit.

Do you really believe that a government takeover of media would "display facts not just what the public wants to hear". Remember, elected officials (government) tell lies to the public on a regular basis because it's what the public wants to hear. That's how they win votes.

How you attribute the media to the Kerry Campaign doing as well as it did is beyond me. There was at least as much pro-Bush coverage, if not more. The media coverage of the 527 PAC's like Swiftboat Vets, etc...certainly didn't help Kerry. I think your statement there is a bit unrealitsic.

You can watch C-SPAN if you want, but even there you just see the spin from each side. News, based on just the facts doesn't exist. Someone has to decide which facts to give the public. Do you report increases in enemployment, or increases in job production? They are both facts, but the spin lies in which one you choose to report. Of course the government will report increased job production, it makes them look good.

Freedom of the Press in the First ammendment means Free from Government control. The Press is supposed to be the "People's Watchdog" of the Government. You'd never have any idea what the corrupt politicians were up to if it were government controlled. I suggest you rethink this position.

What kind of country do you think the US was always meant to be, and how has the media prevented it from being that?




Now that's an interresting idea! What about Public Media, in a non-profit capacity? You mention auctioning off the resource, as it is public, but what's to prevent the dominant corporate entities from just gobbling it all up at auction anyway. Without some regulation on how much corporations can CONTROL, what would be the point. They've got the resources to outbid almost anyone. Who could compete at auction with GM, Disney, Time Warner, etc? They got to where they are by buying out the competition, thanks to the "deregulation" on how many stations could be owned by the same corporation.

I don't remember the book I read that said this, but it made the point that the press should act like another check or balance of our government, but not supported by or controlled by the government.

Essentially, it should be the snitch that publishes the shenanigans that go on in all levels of our government. If that is reform, so be it. On the other hand, the various forms of media should be held accountable when they screw up. Their level of ethics should exceed those of our government officials. Granted, it seems that would not be asking much of them, does it?

Freedom of the press, to me, means that no one, not even the owners, has the right to slant the news to influence the rest of us. But how likely is that? What we now know as PR was once proudly called propaganda. It was only after we gave propaganda a bad name by accusing our war time enemies of using it that the word gained its current stigma.

I would like to think that we will, someday, have an education system that truly produces an informed, intelligent electorate so that we can identify the Bull Droppings when we hear it, read it, etc. Until then, the majority of us will probably continue to be the proverbial mushrooms in the dark.

Well, they don't pay anything, relatively, now, and they don't own it all. If broadcasters had to pay market rates for their broadcasts rights, they'd quickly figure out how to fit more channels in any given band, driving down the per channel cost, opening the door for competitors.



On the first point, I believe this is why we should keep the internet free from taxes or too many regulations. I think that the internet will break the back of the oligopoly on media communications.

I agree completely on the second point.

Ok, this was my first post and looking back on it I realized all of my mistakes. My propositions were based on my opinion not the facts. A media reform is ridiculous although some actions should be monitored. There is problems with society, if we spend to much time in one area the others will easily be corrupted. A media reform although possible would be irrational for the people of the United States. I take back everything I said in the previous post.

1) How important is media reform?

It is of very little importance, unless of course the right wishes to add the media to institutions like the Presidency, Congress and the Courts that it already controls. The real importance here is that we have yet another potential power grab. We should have seen this coming more than a decade ago when Dan Quayle laid his family values hickey on us.

2.) What reforms, if any, should be made?

A better question might be who will make these reforms and how they will be enforced without trampling on the 1st Amendment. If there are abuses by the media they can only be corrected by a public with enough awareness to distinguish between propaganda and fact. That's a tricky proposition, though. I consider Joe Scarborough an unabashed and un ashamed propagandist. Others who post here see him differently. Turning the knob to a different channel or taking a different newspaper has the potential of driving advertising dollars in one direction or another.

3.) What is your interpertation of the 1st Amendment regarding the press?

While the media has changed, the freedom of press amendment has not—it is absolute and should remain that way. Even the FCC’s crackdown after the famous “wardrobe malfunction” was a bit too much to suit me.

The right is massively outnumbered in the media BOF...And that's part of the problem, not that I want a conservative media [not anymore than I want the current liberal one], the media needs to go back to being the government watchdog. A fair, moderate, balanced medium between those with power and those without. I do agree with your assessment that the government CANNOT get involved with media reform. However, there is noooooo way that the media is going to change by itself. I think average, everyday people need to start holding the media accountable, only then will it reform itself.

CP

That wasn't the point at all. I think there is a move on the right to capture more of the media to go along with control of our major political institutions. MSNBC, for example, recently hired Monica Crowley to go along with propagandists--Joe Scarborough and to a lesser extent Pat Buchanan.

I think the idea of a liberal media is myth, and I''ll stick by my assetion that there's a concerted moved on the part of the right to grab some power in this area as well as one to grab power in academia through Horowitz's "Academic Bill of Rights."

Watchdog bull. Scarborough went after Lesley Stahl this week for trying to get a straight answer out of Tom DeLay.

Edited to add:



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7128885/

That's what I'm saying, the media is not the gov't watchdog anymore, just partisans on both sides trying to brainwash America. Whether it be by the right or left, no one is giving Americans the news.

I can kinda of see where you're coming from when you talk about Scarborough...But Buchanan? He is nothing if not an independent conservative. He is no big fan of the Bush Admin., in fact he has a counter-"neo-con" magazine in which he blasts the Administration reguarly.The American Conservative.

CP

I do like Pat Buchanan better than I do Scarborough. There are times when Buchanan plays things pretty straight. There are other times when he isn't so objective. When Scarborough and Buchanan are on together they tend to feed off each other's emotions. From what I've seen, particularly on Convention After Hours, Scarborough brings Buchanan's standards down; Buchanan doesn't bring Scarborough's up.

Exactly the point of this entire thread. The most noteworthy group I've found pushing media reform is the Free Press. They have an impressive list of backers from the entire political spectrum. As is - Americans can't really trust mainstream media to give the information they need to make informed deciasions. This is not a partisan issue. Support comes from across the aisles.

Here's the breakdown from the Free Press on Issues:
http://freepress.net/issues/

Personally, I support the Free Press, and their agenda. Their analysis, and thei plans seem legit. I donate time and money to them. If anyone is going to push this issue it will be the Free Press (IMHO)

As far as the liberal media anecdote FAIR's analysis of Dan Rather's carreeer doesn't show him to be quite the "liberal journalist" that he's been painted.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2460



The FAIRNESS DOCTRINE needs to make a return! Read this article to see how it was put down!
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053


FAIR says:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101

This is the most important issue in America in my opinion. Media IS the issue. It must be diversified. The mega-corporations must be busted up, and ownership rights must be limited, as they origionally were. The system worked for the People, not the media moguls. They lobbied for deregulation, and got it: Now they can run the country! They make nice with the White House and all is good. They have the Power to DESTROY the Administration if the White House acts against their interest. This is BAD BAD BAD for the PEOPLE.