Does the Corporate media have a right to lie to us and control our elections?

[Blue Congress]

In court filings, NBC painted itself as the victim. Attorneys for the network wrote, “Mr. Kucinich’s claim is nothing more than an illegitimate private cause of action designed to impose an equal access requirement that entirely undermines the wide journalistic freedoms enjoyed by news organizations under the First Amendment.” Attorneys for General Electric’s NBC also argued, “A television station does not have to grant unlimited access to a candidate debate. If anyone’s First Amendment rights are being infringed, they are MSNBC’s.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/16/breaking_the_sound_barrier_democracy_now

I know that many people still trust the Corporate media because they believe they can't just lie to us on TV? Shouldn't there at least be a disclaimer "we reserve the right to lie" or something?

[Fresh_Start]

1. "might makes right"

the American philosophy of foreign affairs applied to domestic matters.

Sucks, doesn't it.

[CarlWoodward]

2. Well

The media DOES have the right to lie. And we have the right to change the channel.

[damntexdem]

7. Really, do we? Which channel could I have changed to and had Kucinich in the Dem debate?

An important segment of the populace, of the electorate, and of the Dem Party went unrepresented with the exclusion of Kucinich.

And with their exclusivity, not to mention actions on MI and FL, both the state and national Dem Party apparatchniks are threatening to (or succeeding in) pissing off a good part of the electorate in an election year where the Dems MUST win if we are to have any chance of getting our coutnry back.

Yes, the MSM lies, largely at the behest of the GOP; but the Democratic Party leaders are enablers.

[damntexdem]

3. Last night's debate was a travesty perpetrated by MSNBC.

Kucinich was invited, disinvited, got a court ruling, told with the rest of us by MSNBC that he would be there, then disinvited when the NV Supreme Crsp, er Court, ruled they could exclude him. Talk about yanking around the electorate!

And Dennis was needed: on at least two issues, all three Dems caved to the right.

Then there's the further issue of Gravel.

[meegbear]

4. Why yes. Yes they do.

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”

<snip>

http://www.projectcensored.org/Publications/2005/11.html

[LynzM]

8. Oh, nice.

:wow: Hadn't seen or read that before, you better believe it'll be reposted.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

20. I wish that case would've been pushed to the top, to the SCOTUS.

Then, the American people would know, once and for all, that the media has become #1 enemy to democracy along with their corporatocracy.

It should have been pushed through, for purposes of certainty. But, the powers-that-be prefer uncertainty and likely provided the plaintiffs a comfortable "hush fund" to maintain the status quo.

I am not kidding when I state that this nation, as a democratic institution, is not only being threatened but attacked by every and any vicious economic arms available.

[spanone]

5. evidently

[Peregrine Took]

6. I heard a discussion on Chicago radio last night with a local RW gasbag

and a newspaper editor who (the latter) said he often had to make the decision to eliminate information about "fringe candidates."

I think that's where the problem comes in - they (the media) have no right to decide who is fringe or who isn't.

If a person gets at least 1% of the vote they should be allowed in all debates, interviews,etc. until they either drop out or are eliminated by the voter.

[Ravy]

9. Yes, and it is preserved in the First Amendment. nt

[peace13]

10. The debates need to be moved out of the medias control.

We were robbed last night. I don't care who your candidate is. Today you should be hopping mad because tomorrow, yes tomorrow, there is a good chance that it will be your guy on the outside and oh how you will squeal. Trust me, for the good of the order we have got to set this right.

[Blue Congress]

13. The 'news' needs to be taken from their control

What we are dealing with is fascist control- there must be something we can do about it!

[onenote]

23. and put under the control of the "government"? No thank you very much.

[onenote]

22. so who should run the debates?

And who will decide what questions are asked, who asks them, what media outlets cover it, who directs the cameras, etc etc.

The government? A non-profit?

I don't think there is any perfect solution. I would prefer that the debates were treated as a news event that any media outlet could choose to retransmit. And while I preferred the approach of having the League of Women Voters sponsor the debates, I don't see any constitutionally viable argument for preventing newspapers, radio stations, cable networks, broadcast networks, or Internet websites from sponsoring them.

[Mutineer]

11. The answer is

apparently, yes they do.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

12. They were given the power to buy the right to destroy democracy and fuck the people,...

,...some years ago.

Now, whatcha' gonna' do about it?

I say mass protest the corporacrat mediahos!!! :patriot:

[dkofos]

14. They do have the right to lie to us. So, would you trust them to NOT

control the elections??

[Blue Congress]

15. Has it always been this way?

So many people just assume they are telling the truth.

[Desertrose]

16. Once upon a time, news was a tad more objective.....

News was reported rather than created as it is now.


So much for the Fourth Estate..... everything is now controlled by the corporate estate.

[Spike89]

18. Fairy tales start that way...

There have always been journalists and there have always been publishers. Broadly, I'm defining journalists as unbiased reporters of the truth as best they can and publishers as those who profit off the news business. With very few exceptions, the power has very much been with the publishers, printing presses were very expensive, then radio and television broadcast facilities came along, also expensive. Printing is now relatively cheap and you can find plenty of journalist-dominated publications--usually independent small circulation papers and magazines run by idealists. Obviously, the Internet is an even less expensive form of media to publish on and as we all know, there are plenty of independent sources for information on the Web.
My point isn't that the MSM isn't corporate dominated, but it pretty much always has been--at least, rich folk have owned the media. I'm not so sure things were better in the old days when a Hearst could drum up a war for his own benefit.

[Blue Congress]

19. somehow, I think we use to have higher standards?

There must be something we can do? I have already shut of my TV, but so many Americans are addicted to it, they will not shut it off and seek the truth for themselves.

[onenote]

24. Yes, let's harken back to the good old days.

All the way back before there was even any electronic media. To the days of the Lincoln-Douglas debates when newspapers backing Lincoln printed transcripts of the debates that corrected grammatical and other errors in Lincoln's comments, but left Douglas' side uncorrected. And newspapers that supported Douglas did the same thing in reverse. Bad journalism? Definitely. Something that the government should've stepped in to address? Not a chance.

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. I don't recall Lyndon LaRouche ever being invited to any televised debates

[robcon]

17. They have every right to say whatever they want... 1st amendment.

n/t

[onenote]

25. No one ever answers this question: how do you define "corporate" media

Is it just that the form of ownership of the media outlet is a corporation rather than a sole proprietorship or a partnership? Does that if I set up a corporate structure to own a community newspaper that its "corporate media"? Presumably not. So its not the corporateness. So is the size? Presumably that has something to do with it. Was TBS corporate media when it owned one struggling UHF station and a billboard company? What about when it added the Atlanta Braves and converted that one station into a nationally delivered "superstation"? Did that cross the line? Or when TBS started CNN, or Headline, or TNT? Did it become "corporate media" at that point and if so, exactly what was the tipping point? Or was it not until TBS merged with Time Warner?

Again, it would be nice if someone could define what constitutes "corporate media" so we could figure out what would be acceptable in its place. (Or is this like obscenity: you know it when you see it?)

[Blue Congress]

26. Mega corporations with conflicts of interest?

I like to use Corporate media to illustrate quickly and simply what is going on. When people say "Mainstream media" and MSM it gives them more credit than they deserve.

[onenote]

28. and in what era was "corporate media" not the norm?

Consider CBS. It started out in the pre-television station days as the owner of individual radio stations and a network that provided programming to a growing number of affiliated stations around the country. By the late 30s, CBS had added a record company to its business line-up. With the advent of television, CBS eventually became the dominant provider of television programming both through its owned and operated stations in major markets and through an extensive network of affiliates from coast to coast. In most parts of the country at this time viewers had only two other choices of television than CBS: NBC or ABC. Starting in the 1960s, CBS (still largely controlled by William Paley), expanded its business diversification even further: at various times its stable of commonly owned properties incuded music companies (eg fender guitars), sports teams (eg NY Yankees), magazines, film studios, home video companies and even toy manufacturers.
The late 60s and early 70s are sometimes said to be a golden era, event though viewers had only three choices of what to watch in almost all cases. This is the era when CBS carried programming that tweaked the powers that be, such as the Smothers Brothers. Of course, its also the era where CBS blinked and cancelled the Smothers Brothers and replaced it with Hee Haw.

Ultimately, Paley sold out to Lawrence Tisch, a billionaire who's company, Loew's owned all sorts of stuff including a cigarette company, hotels, insurance, oil and gas properties, and even bulova watches) in the 1980s. From there the network and and its related non-Loew's properties (at least the ones that hadn't been sold off by then), were sold to Westinghouse Electric -- manufacturer of all sorts of home appliances, among other things, but arguably a less diverse company than Loew's. Westinghouse, renamed CBS Corp., eventually sold itself to Viacom, a company that started out as the television syndication division of CBS (but eventually spun off as a separate entity to comply with FCC "finsyn" rules). Viacom also owned television stations and cable systems, although it sold off the latter a while back.

So, exactly when were the good old "pre-corporate media" days?

[leftofthedial]

27. of course they do.

you're probably one of those pinkos who wishes St. Reagan hadn't single-handedly defeated the commies.


this is AMURKA dammit! And corporations are allowed to do whatever the hell they want to do. Who is smarter, pissypants? You or the Harvard MBAs at NBC?