Should "celebrity news" be banned from the cable news channels?

[Joanne98]

I just talking about CNN, MSNBC and FOX!(I know Fox isn't a real news channel but I'm included them anyway)

I have basic cable. I have hundreds of channels. WHY do I have to have Britney on EVERY day on EVERY channel! You know, they are NEVER going to stop this until some brave politician writes a bill BANNING NON NEWS FROM THE NEWS CHANNELS! It doesn't even have to pass. JUST WRITE THE DAMN THING! If we had a bill, with a number (HR000) then we could at least SPAM the news networks every time they did this.

Somebody, for God's sake, write a frigging bill! Call it "The NEWS is NEWS Act". The MSM has ALL THE OTHER CHANNELS! Why can't they just create ONE news channel for all the TRASH?

Something has to be done! Britney is going to be going to court every two weeks for the next YEAR! I can't take it anymore!

Do we have ANYBODY in the house who is brave enough to write a bill?

[RB TexLa]

1. Who would you suggest inact and inforce such a ban?

[Joanne98]

3. The FCC who else.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. What control does the FCC have over

the content of cable television?

[RB TexLa]

13. The OP wants a new law giving them that power

[MonkeyFunk]

21. such a law

would be blatantly unconstitutional. Damn that pesky 1st Amendment.

[RB TexLa]

The OP has a dream of the government locking up reporters for what they say

I don't think they are going to get far with their cause, but I guess everyone has to have dreams.

[Joanne98]

30. Britney pundits aren't reporters.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. Do you imagine there's

some federal licensing agency that determines who is or isn't a reporter?

[Marrah_G]

36. So reporters are only reports if they cover stories you approve of?

[Joanne98]

40. Britney isn't news and if u cover her you're not a reporter! IMO!

[Marrah_G]

45. Here is the clue you seem to be missing

YOU do not get to choose what other people find interesting or news worthy. YOU live in a democracy where YOU don't get to choose what other people show on stations they pay for.

News stations are not state run, they are businesses and they are there to make a profit. They report what people want to see. They report what draws viewers.

I am not sure what dimension you live in, but the real world does not revolve around what YOU want.

[Joanne98]

53. Oh! So u think Britney Spheres going to court IS news!

At least we got that straight. Now all I want is for U to have your OWN news channel and for me to have MINE! U can watch Britney. Lindsay, Paris all day long and be really well informed about all the important stuff and I can watch THE NEWS! OKAY?

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joanne98]

66. zzzzzzzzzzzz

:boring:

[Judi Lynn]

76. Absolutely not! These stations should show some intentions to serve the common good, or get out.

Normal, functioning adults are far too intelligent to be able to take time out of their days to listen to material which simply doesn't matter.

They are JAMMING the spots which should be reserved for actual information, and they should supply that information.

They are NOT using their first ammendment rights if they are gibbering. They are preventing real communication from occurring.

How anyone could support this crap is beyond me, Joanne98. It's the same as saying any sound you can make, any gesture you can accomplish, or picture you can draw, or photograph is also your constitutionally guaranteed right.

That's just not true. We shouldn't be headed for complete chaos: there's a responsibility to work toward a better functioning, less destructive world.

You're right, they are NOT reporters, never have been, don't intend to be. It's a horrible joke on the world so badly in need of help in the throws of a hideous, endless crisis.

[Joanne98]

38. So u think Britney should be the only news we get?

Quit twisting my words around.

[MonkeyFunk]

44. You shouldn't be surprised

when people jump on you for making such an idiotic assertion as in the OP.

The federal government hasn't the power or authority to protect you from being offended.

[Joanne98]

56. Okay! How about using the anti-trust laws. The media companies are to big.

There is no competition anymore.

[MonkeyFunk]

63. How about

the government not having control over the media?

Your position is truly idiotic.

[RB TexLa]

47. You said we needed a bill and that the FCC should enforce it. "who else" as you said

How did I twist anything?

[Joanne98]

58. I can't remember the last time the FCC put anyone in jail.

I just talking about defining what is what and separating them. I didn't say put them in jail, although I would do it in a heartbeat, WITH cameras so I could watch them suffer.

[RB TexLa]

64. I thought under your Homeland Media Content Control Act of 2007 it would be part of the power given

to them since you said it would be nice here and said you would want it done in a heartbeat with cameras on them in the post to which I am replying.

[Marrah_G]

48. Your response makes no sense.

[RB TexLa]

11. So someone who reports such should be fined or put in prison?

[Joanne98]

15. That would be nice, but fines would do!

[Marrah_G]

22. So you are against real criminals being in jail, but you think locking up reporters is good?

~scratches head~ Okay, I really don't get it.

[Joanne98]

31. I wasn't thinking about reporters. I was thinking about executives!

[Marrah_G]

39. Oh , I get it....

No.....actually I don't... It makes no rational sense.

[Joanne98]

41. Having Britney on your news channels isn't rational either!

[Marrah_G]

52. ~self- delete~

My mom always said.... If you can't say something nice...then say nothing at all. So here I am saying nothing at all.

[NYCGirl]

2. No. NT

[Joanne98]

4. Why?

[NYCGirl]

16. Because government mandated speech is wrong. NT

[Joanne98]

28. It's not mandated speech, it's separation of news and trash...

which BTW isn't NEWS. If they can't GET THE TRASH OFF THE NEWS CHANNELS then we could always use the Anti-trust laws to BREAK THEM UP INTO LITTLE PIECES! Take your pick becuase something is going to happen. I DARE them to do Britney everyday for the next year. Go for it!

[NYCGirl]

49. Who makes the judgement? It's a very slippery slope you're proposing. NT

[ChenZhen]

5. What would they talked about for the other 23 hours?

No one wants to hear about children in Dafur.

Maybe we should just ban 24 hour news networks instead. :)

The irony of Ted Turner and what his network has started.

[Joanne98]

6. There a tons of things they could talk about! They just don't want to!

[Marrah_G]

7. No news should ever be banned n/t

[Joanne98]

12. Britney going to court ISN"T news! Maybe that's the problem

At least we could pass a bill DEFINING what news is an isn't. YELLOW journalism ISN'T news!

[Marrah_G]

17. So who gets to decide what is news?

Perhaps you should move to China, I hear they are very good at censuring communication. You would fit right in.

[Joanne98]

42. Do u think Britney going to court is news?

[Marrah_G]

55. Nope, but someone else does and they have the right to choose also

[onenote]

73. so, exactly how would you define what constitutes "news"?

If you think the line is easily drawn, give us some language.

[ChenZhen]

19. Youre right. There is probably another Label Pin conspiracy.

Blah...maybe we should just tune out collectively from this trash.

[Marrah_G]

25. Choosing to tune out is different

Someone else choosing what I see is another story all together.

[bullimiami]

9. no, but "news" should have to be labelled as such and factual.

otherwise it would be entertainment, opinion or editorial and wouldnt carry the same requirements.

fox 'news' would not be able to label any their shows as news shows unless they changed their act drastically.

[Clark2008]

10. Violation for the First Amendment.

Next...

[Joanne98]

20. All I want is a separation between news and trash!

But everybody knows they won't do it unless forced to! I just want someone to write the bill so we can use it as a threat! It doesn't have to pass!

[Selatius]

26. It's not that I don't oppose trash on TV, but whose definition of "trash" do we use?

That's the problem.

[Joanne98]

68. We could use Britney and Kfed as guidelines. lol

[Marrah_G]

27. Then turn the station when it comes on

This isn't rocket science.

[Joanne98]

69. What channel do u suggest? There isn't one. That's the point.

[LeftCoast]

14. How about we start by banning it in GD?

:)

[sutz12]

18. Now, now. They've already decided what we want to see and hear...

:shrug:

[Joanne98]

72. Actually u may be right. It can't possibly be the ratings.....

The only people who watch this shit anymore are in hospitals or nursing homes.

[Touchdown]

23. No. I say ban all 24hr, "news" channels.

They don't inform or serve the public good. Two essential themes of corporate charters.

BTW: "E!" was created for celebrity gossip already, so they don't have to create one. Just use E! for what it intended.

[Selatius]

24. Better idea: Get the government to start initiatives for non-profit news outlets.

Such news outlets would be totally funded by a donor list of viewers. No commercials, no conflicts of interest. The FCC can allot to them airspace as a public service to the people, available to all viewers. Individual donors should have a cap on the amount of money they can donate to such an entity to prevent wealthy individuals from gaining undue influence over the programming.

[Joanne98]

35. That's a great idea but they are attacking PBS already with privatization!

I would be nice to create a 24 hour news channel setup like c-span with everybody paying 5 cents extra on their cable bills. God it would be so worth it. I would pay 5 dollars extra on my cable bill just to get rid of the crap!

[Selatius]

50. PBS operates in a different manner.

There, programmings are often funded based partly on government grants and the rest from private business. What I'm saying is the government should set up a space in the air waves for non-profit, privately run news outlets. Of course, to qualify for the space, you have to follow the guidelines such as a donor list, donor contribution caps, and establishing the right of the donors and workers at the firm to vote for company senior executives. Think of it as a news co-op enterprise, where viewers and workers are the owners.

The government wouldn't have to provide very much money to begin with. All it does is make the field ready for such firms to enter the airwaves. Technically speaking, the firm would already be privately owned, owned by the viewers.

[Joanne98]

61. So u don't think the way c-span is funded is a good idea?

I'm not arguing with yours but it's so hard to get any quality with the advertizers destrying everything. I'd like to keep them totally out of it.

[EFerrari]

29. Isn't it easier to just ban cable news in your livingroom?

I haven't watched Cr@P Not New, Mendacity Supplied Nightly By Cranks or From Old X-Files for years.

[Joanne98]

43. No!

[EFerrari]

LOL! Okay!

[Mike03]

32. What, and deprive ourselves of learning of the antics

of Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie and company?

Actually, I don't have a strong opinion on this issue, but since the American Viewing Public is more mesmerized by the tribulations of the Anna Nicole Smiths of the world than what is going on in Iraq, I don't see how this could ever be enforced. Too much advertising money depends on the debacles of the Rich and Famous.

[Joanne98]

67. That's true. But we should have a choice. That's all I'm asking for.

Just put them on different stations.

[porphyrian]

33. No. Media regulations need to be rolled back to pre-reagan standards. - n/t

[Joanne98]

46. Pre-Reagan? Thanx no rolled back. That's brought back!

[MrModerate]

37. Really.Terrible.Idea

While I agree that Britney Spears is not "news," and don't give a rat's ass which dive she passed out in last night, that's just *my* definition. Other people have other opinions, and as an earlier poster pointed out, "news" (however defined) should never be censored (there are some rare exceptions, of course).

It's bad enough that the corporate shills shut down meaningful info -- get the government involved and things will be much worse. Can you imagine a Bush administration FCC deciding what was and wasn't appropriate for the people to hear about? (Wait! They're doing that already! Oh Shit!)

There are real news stations out there (I suspect that Paris, Britney, Lindsay, et al have had *very* limited exposure on CSPAN). CSPAN viewership may be low, but frankly, the American public is not especially serious-minded, and it's not a surprise that a bimbo self-destructing draws more attention than an academic holding forth at a conference.

Be more worried about corporate censorship of real news than a surfeit of fake news -- that's where the danger lies.

[Dulcinea]

51. Absolutely not.

If you don't care about celebrity news, change the channel!

I couldn't care less about Britney either. I use my remote often!

[AlCzervik]

54. cable "News" is mostly "Opinion" shows. It shouldn't be called Cable "News".

thats the law i'm for, don't call yourself "News" unless thats what is actually contains.

[Joanne98]

59. Thankyou. I would be happy with that.

[onenote]

75. Again, exactly how would you define "news"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. This Is Better Than A "Zandor" Thread

:applause:

[Freddie Stubbs]

62. Who would determine what is is news and what is 'nonnews?'

:shrug:

[Joanne98]

84. I said celebrity's.

[Joanne98]

65. Okay! I didn't know this thread was going to get such response..

So I'm going to have to make a last response because I can't sit at this computer all day. I'll end with this....

I'm serious about this. I don't know how it should be done but I think most of the country is fed up. Doing something about this would be wildly popular. The MYTH that people are getting what they want is just not true.

Whether it's defining what news is or creating a public channel (advertiser free) is think it's something that we as a country are going to have to do. The MSM has no conscience. They will never do anything. We need the news it's too important to be let up to greedy assholes.

We could always use the anti-trust laws. We could create and enforce "guidelines". All la Carte is also a great idea. I hate the fact that 90% of my channels are worthless! example: I have an uncle who watches nothing but the Sci-fi channel. Why should he pay for the rest of the crap?

Whatever.. I think it's going to happen and it's worth talking about.

Have a nice day!

[MonkeyFunk]

70. You're just wrong

if the country were "fed up" with celebrity news, they'd change the channel.

Your original idea continues to be idiotic.

[Joanne98]

74. Actually they've turned the TV off. Have u looked at the ratings?

[MonkeyFunk]

77. And C-Span does nothing

but continuous "news". It's ratings are far lower than MSNBC's or CNN's.

The cable networks are in business to get viewers. If Britney didn't get them, they'd show something else.

Your idea is idiotic.

[Joanne98]

81. Brian Lamb says he doesn't know what c-spans ratings are.

[MonkeyFunk]

82. do you think they're higher

than CNN's?

[Joanne98]

87. I don't know. According to Brian Lamb there are no ratings....

for c-span. He gets asked that question a lot. I would guess that CNN's are higher though at least in the day. C-span has a lot of the insomniacs!

[MonkeyFunk]

91. Then you are truly ignorant...

edit: and your position is idiotic.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

71. ...

"The MYTH that people are getting what they want is just not true."

The media do what they do to get ratings. Higher ratings mean more advertising revenue. So it's pretty clear that the people are getting exactly what they want, and deserve. If they didn't, they could simply turn it off, the advertising revenue would go away, and the media would start doing something else. Your refusal to turn the TV off leads me to believe that you're getting what you want too.

[Joanne98]

78. But the ratings are in the tank but u do make a good point...

I approached this subject all wrong. I'm going to analyze the rantings and next time I will use them to humiliate. that shouldn't be hard since nobody even watches tv anymore.

[NeedleCast]

79. It's not going to happen

And while you might think it would be wildly popular, you're mistaken. Celebrity news is what is wildly popular and what makes shows like Jerry Springer so successful. People love to talk about and gossip about other people. Moreover, they like to hear about shocking people doing shocking (or stupid) things.

Regardless, your idea is terrible. It's a kick in the balls to the first amendment and I damn sure don't want any government agency in charge of what I can see on my TV.

I'd think the fact that the majority of poster here are in vehement disagreement with you on this issue would maybe make you review your opinion, but I guess not.

[Bill McBlueState]

80. no

No, for the same reasons as other posters. Little things like government control of the media.

Cable news sucks, so I don't watch it anymore. Haven't since the 2004 election. My TV viewing is a lot more relaxing as a result.

[JitterbugPerfume]

83. congress shall make no law

in abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press etc

you have the right to say it , and I have the right to tell you it is unconstitutional

[Joanne98]

86. Okay. Then I guess we'll just have to nationalize the airwaves!

If we got rid of the advertizers it would probably fix itself!

[JitterbugPerfume]

90. Joanne, I HATE that crappy celebrity news

and you are right, what sponsors and advertisers want, sponsors and advertisers get! It appeals to lowest common denominator brain dead people , who can be controlled. Sorry if I sounded snarky

[La Lioness Priyanka]

85. first amendment

[Joanne98]

88. Before I go here is a link to some ratings....

O'Reilly and KO! Liar has 2 mill and Keith has 2.4.
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/politics/cablenewsratings.htm

At least we know there are a couple of million people in the country watching tv. lol

[WinkyDink]

89. So you want the gov't to determine the allowable subject matter? Good one, Bunky.

Is Gore a politician or a CELEBRITY? (He's not in office.) Is Ahnold BOTH?

What is your definition that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should use?

[WinkyDink]

92. (Dupe)

[Dark]

93. No. I love hearing about Paris Hilton's latest fuck-up

I hate that phony slut.

[nam78_two]

94. I can't think of a way this could be done

But I would be all for it. I just don't think there is a way to so it.

I cannot think of anything more pointless, trivial and idiotic than the celeb culture. It is stupid and sick, the obsession our culture has with this garbage and while it can't be banned I think realizing it is trash is important. I recommend your OP not because I think it can or should be banned, but because I realize like you do, how anti-intellectual & vulgar our current celeb-obsessed culture is :-/.

Can you imagine how informed and erudite most people would be if they had the level of information they do about Britanny or Lohan's life, except about stuff that actually matters :eyes:? I share your disgust for the celeb culture :puke:.