Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Government Manipulation of a Free Press

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Government Manipulation of a Free Press (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/99275-government-manipulation-free-press.html)

Quote:

One of the problems there is with this concept of media bias. Higher ups at the outlets are so scared that the public will label them as biased, that they bias themselves toward bad coverage. We're so scared you'll think we're liberally biased if we tell you Bush screwed up, that we won't tell you bush screwed up unless someone else SAYS Bush screwed up.

The press used to go out and dig up the facts. Now they largely sit around waiting for some group to dig up the facts, then report it as "these guys say .. . " to avoid bias. Unfortunately, we're also avoiding our jobs when we do that.

Who's at fault for that? Well, partly the guys who scream "media bias" every time the media reports something they don't like. The rest belongs squarely with the media bosses who kowtow to that kind of manipulative bullshit.

I was reading somewhere online that the only reason the public was not made aware of Genetically Modified Organisms (or foods) until they were in place and legislated in favour of was that both political parties were paid off by the industry to support the policy. Thus, if one side is not crying about and opposing what the current administration is doing, then will the media cover the story at all?

Without turning this into a Paranoia Thread, I wonder here what stories have been ignored by ALL SIDES due to special interest groups putting the spin on, well... everybody?

People cried when CNN got very large: Less competition in the media reduced the checks and balances that maintained objectivity. Look at what CNN has done, however. They are substantially large enough to be able to fund foreign offices around the globe, and they have enough clout that foreign governments are pressured into allowing them access that small news stations simply would not recieve.

Yin and Yang, tradeoffs, okay. I am in favour of giving gounalists every freedom they can to practice their trade, and I believe that the Internet can have a positive effect in this regard. Can a reporter make, edit, and broadcast the story of their choice online? I would like to see it.

Maybe we could get a website dedicated to just this kind of thing; journalists from around the globe are offered a refuge, a place where their work can be published without edition. Very little would be paid, other than the joy of having the masses exposed to your craft.

It could be hosted in a country with the least amount of censure laws to prevent people screaming liabel and slander.

/Ben runs off to make his fortune...

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

I somehow missed this.

Most of us are held to disclosure regulations. We're required to disclose to our company any gifts, etc, we received (and kept) over the past year that are related to our jobs. Basically, if your disclosure sheet isn't blank, and you don't have a VERY good reason for it not being blank, you're in a LOT of hot water.

I had to follow the same kind of process when I worked in public radio. Oddly, now that I'm at a national print publication, they haven't made me do this.

Elphaba, I think I can safely say, looking at the history of journalism, things may not be as good as they were at one time, but they are certainly far better than they have been on the average. Media owners have always used their papers to do their bidding. The US entered a war because of a fabricated story in the New York Journal. Hearst wanted war, he got it by publishing an account of the bombing of the Maine, which most experts now agree was likely a boiler explosion.

I think through the mid 90’s, many journalists became lazy and thought of themselves as stars. Likewise, editors stopped editing and started “managing” coverage, and massaging the egos of their “stars”. The NYT was the worst of these (Jayson Blair anyone?) The Wash Post had their Ruth Shalit debacle.

As much as I dislike those insipid blogger segments on CNN, blogs have snapped many journalists back into line. I think things are better. The wiretapping story isn’t really getting big play because it hasn’t reached that part of the news cycle yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

As much as I dislike those insipid blogger segments on CNN, blogs have snapped many journalists back into line. I think things are better. The wiretapping story isn’t really getting big play because it hasn’t reached that part of the news cycle yet.

Perhaps not in print, but on the radio, all I hear the left talk about is the wire tapping story trying to make it into something it isn't. Its kinda cute as they dig thier own political graves for 2006 mid term elections :thumbsup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Well if all you hear is the left talking about wiretapping
you are either listening to socialist radio
or every political pundit on the airwaves is now left

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBen

Maybe we could get a website dedicated to just this kind of thing; journalists from around the globe are offered a refuge, a place where their work can be published without edition. Very little would be paid, other than the joy of having the masses exposed to your craft.

It could be hosted in a country with the least amount of censure laws to prevent people screaming liabel and slander.

/Ben runs off to make his fortune...

That would be a great project!
something like a xanga or livejournal
with membership open only to
journalists with the proper credentials.
Reporter pay could be tied to readership

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ustwo...not only are your comments (quoted above) unsubstantiated, but the following documentation backs an argument that they are untrue. Please raise the level of your efforts here. Your above effort reflects negatively on your credibility........

Quote:

http://www.fed-soc.org/pdf/domesticsurveillance.pdf
Below, two Federalist Society members (David B. Rivkin, Jr., partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Baker & Hostetler LLP, Contributing Editor to the National Interest and National Review magazines, and Member of the UN Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Robert Levy, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute) pose and then answer questions about the administration’s policy on domestic surveillance. [In the coming days, rebuttals by each will be posted on this page.]
We begin with five questions by David Rivkin, with answers by Bob Levy:

– The text of FISA §1809 is unambiguous: “A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance … except as authorized by statute.”

– I know of no court case that has denied there is a reasonable expectation of privacy by U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens in the types of wire communications that are reportedly monitored by the NSA’s electronic surveillance program.

– [I]n FISA §1811, Congress expressly contemplated warrantless wiretaps during wartime, and limited them to the first 15 days after war is declared.

Quote:

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunh...d/13428787.htm
"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate."

-- Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/no-legal-basis/
SCHIEFFER: The Secretary of State said this morning that the president has statutory and constitutional authorization to do what he did. So I’ll start with Senator Graham. Does he have that authority, Senator?

LINDSEY GRAHAM: If he has the authority to go around the FISA court, which is a court to accommodate the law of the war of terror, the FISA Act was–created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don’t know of any legal basis to go around that. There may be some, but I’m not aware of it. And here’s the concern I have. We can’t become an outcome-based democracy. Even in a time of war, you have to follow the process, because that’s what a democracy is all about: a process.

Quote:

http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/...20/179727.html
Why didn't he ask Congress

Dec 20, 2005
by George Will

WASHINGTON -- The president's authorization of domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency contravened a statute's clear language. Assuming that urgent facts convinced him that he should proceed anyway and on his own, what argument convinced him that he lawfully could?

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...r-powers_x.htm
Posted 12/28/2005 8:57 PM Updated 12/28/2005 9:17 PM

War-powers debate on front burner
By David Jackson, USA TODAY

.......Some conservatives question Bush's decision to forgo court warrants in conducting the NSA surveillance. Bruce Fein, who worked in the Justice Department under President Reagan, said Bush acted "with a flagrant disregard for the separation of powers."

"Will Bush concede there are any limits to his authority to conduct the war on terror?" Fein asked..........

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240003
......Fein went further in an appearance on National Public Radio:

On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want -- I don't need to consult any other branches -- that is an impeachable offense. It's more dangerous than Clinton's lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that ... would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.......

Quote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ep/20051223/...sinmediaatlast
......The sudden outbreak of anger or candor has been sparked by the uproar over revelations of a White House approved domestic spying program, with some conservatives joining in the shouting.

Ron Hutcheson, White House correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers (known as "Hutch" to the president), observed that "some legal experts asserted that Bush broke the law on a scale that could warrant his impeachment." Indeed such talk from legal experts was common in print or on cable news.

Newsweek online noted a "chorus" of impeachment chat, and its Washington reporter, Howard Fineman, declared that Bush opponents are "calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already hauled forth no less an authority than John Dean to testify to the president's dictatorial perfidy. The 'I-word' is out there, and, I predict, you are going to hear more of it next year — much more."

When chief Washington Post pollster Richard Morin appeared for an online chat this week, a reader from Naperville, Ill., asked him why the Post hasn't polled on impeachment. "This question makes me mad," Morin replied. When a second participant made the same query, Morin fumed, "Getting madder." A third query brought the response: "Madder still."

Media Matters recently reported that a January 1998 Washington Post poll conducted just days after the first revelation of
President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky asked about impeachment.

A smattering of polls (some commissioned by partisan groups) has found considerable, if often qualified, support for impeachment. But Frank Newport, the director of the Gallup Poll, told E&P recently that he would only run a poll on the subject if the idea really started to gain mainstream political traction, and not until then. He noted that he had been besieged with emails calling for such a survey, but felt that was a "well-organized" action.

Still, he added, "we are reviewing the issue, we take our responsibility seriously and we will consider asking about it."........

.......Todd Gillman wrote in the Dallas Morning News: "Rep. John Lewis (news, bio, voting record), D-Ga., suggested that Mr. Bush's actions could justify impeachment." And Froomkin cited Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in surveillance law, saying 'When the president admits that he violated federal law, that raises serious constitutional questions of high crimes and misdemeanors."......

.......But John Dean, who knows something about these matters, calls Bush "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." ........

......As Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said recently, referring to the spy program controversy, "I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.".....

Quote:

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/...a635906430.txt
Hagel: No president above the law
BY DON WALTON / Lincoln Journal Star

Sen. Chuck Hagel said Wednesday that Americans can be protected against terrorism without violating the law or ignoring civil rights.
Hagel

Hagel is one of two Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee who have called for an investigation into President Bush’s decision to order domestic intelligence surveillance without court approval. “No president is ever above the law,” Hagel said in a telephone conference call from Washington.

“We are a nation of laws. You cannot avoid or dismiss a law.”

At issue, Hagel said, is whether the decision to order such surveillance violates a 1978 law requiring approval by a secret U.S. foreign intelligence surveillance court.

Bush has claimed legal and constitutional authority to act.

Hagel and four other members of the Intelligence Committee have called for a joint probe with the Senate Judiciary Committee to determine the extent of the domestic surveillance and whether the president had legal authority to order it without court approval.

The administration has said the eavesdropping targeted communications between the United States and foreign countries involving suspects or their associates.

The system already is in place to provide “the balance that protects our national security as well as our civil rights,” Hagel said.

“We need wiretaps” in the war against terrorists, he said, “but there’s a right way and a wrong way to do that.”

Hagel said he was not aware of Bush’s domestic surveillance policy before it was revealed by The New York Times.

Asked about Vice President Dick Cheney’s warning that Bush’s critics could pay a heavy political price, Hagel said: “My oath is to the Constitution, not to a vice president, a president or a political party.”

Hagel said he’s determined to “do what I think is right for the people I represent and the country I serve.”........

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122102326.html
Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 22, 2005; Page A01

The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources..........

......On Monday, one of 10 FISA judges, federal Judge James Robertson, submitted his resignation -- in protest of the president's action, according to two sources familiar with his decision. He will maintain his position on the U.S. District Court here.

Other judges contacted yesterday said they do not plan to resign but are seeking more information about the president's initiative. Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who also sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, told fellow FISA court members by e-mail Monday that she is arranging for them to convene in Washington, preferably early next month, for a secret briefing on the program, several judges confirmed yesterday.

Two intelligence sources familiar with the plan said Kollar-Kotelly expects top-ranking officials from the National Security Agency and the Justice Department to outline the classified program to the members.

The judges could, depending on their level of satisfaction with the answers, demand that the Justice Department produce proof that previous wiretaps were not tainted, according to government officials knowledgeable about the FISA court. Warrants obtained through secret surveillance could be thrown into question. One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity, also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of the president's suggestion that he has the power to bypass the court..........

..........One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.

"For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the wiretap," said the official. "They couldn't dream one up."

So....what we have is the spectacle of our thuggish V.P. Cheney....so concerned about the potential for further damage to his administration, openly threatening republicans such as Sen. Chuck Hagel, with political retribution if they call the wire taps what they are....illegal.

Read the comments above, Ustwo, they are nearly exclusively from conservatives, starting with a board member of the Federalist Society, Bob Levy, columinist George Will, former Reagan Asst. Atty General Bruce Fein, and two influential republican senators, Judiciary Committee Chaiman Arlen Specter, and Chuck Hagel, the target of Cheney's threat.

The matter is so serious that one of ten FISA court judges commented about "disbanding the court", in reaction to the warrentless wiretaps.

If all of this leaves you unconvinced, Ustwo, I detailed <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1965230&postcount=222">here</a> the evidence that Bush lied to the American people in an April 20, 2004 speech on this subject in Buffalo, NY, and then nominee for the Attorney General office, Al Gonzales, lied under oath in a Jan. 6, 2005 Senate Judiciary Committee ConfirmationHearing.

Oooops.

I tried to be funny in a Politics thread.

My bad.

I'm also intreagued by the idea of the site for press to go as a haven. Maybe we can call it Truth Haven or Press Utopia or Fairness Doctrine Reanimators. The thing is, it would need a staff to check on the backgrounds of the press members who wanted to submit stories. Would we make the press anonymous, so as to protect their careers outside of the site? If so, we could lose a great deal of respect and attention. Or would we give them credit for what could be superb journalism? We'd also have to have a great team of fact checkers. It'd be nice to get news that's true, and can be substantiated. We might even have sources outside of the CIA! And of course Fox News would tie us to the al Qaeda, and suggest that we worship Satan and have high carb diets. I remember a long time ago when Einstein relesaed his theory of relitiviyy, a mass of german scientists came forward calling it crap and saying that it was all wrong and evil jewish propoganda. Einstein responded something to the effect: "I don't know why all these scientists want to try and discredit me by publishing papers and books and articles. All they need to discredit me is one fact." Even if Fox News or any news outlet for that matter wanted to go after this haven, they'd never have any real amunition. If all we said was truth, we are invicable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBen

Oooops.

I tried to be funny in a Politics thread.

My bad

:lol: I get the humor :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBen

Okay host, you asked for it...
/snip

This is kinda funny, but don't forget that Host is one of the best sources of links and information on TFP (in the world?). When he shut down Ustwo, I cheered on the inside. Host might be teased every once in a while, but his posts are in a league of their own when it comes to relevant information, not just volume.

Just something to keep in mind. Also, politics can get really, realkly serious from time to time. Even though it wasn't addressed to me, I appreciate the offer to take down the post if it was offensive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Ohh... I like Fairness Doctorine press!
The journalist should have the option of anonymity
But be verified by staff.
This way a journalist can escape their "on air" persona
The fact checkers could work for everyone
in a community atmosphere.
The truth is a weapon and a shield.

Ben, I read all of Host's entries because I find them quite valuable. If you see no value in Host's detailed posts, don't read them. It is really that simple.

Please don't lobby against something that you can so easily ignore.

Quote:

When he shut down Ustwo, I cheered on the inside.

"Me, too" posts reflect poor forum etiquette, so I *never* do that. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

I love the idea. Now here are the snags:

1) journalists generally aren't allowed to do reports outside of their job without permission from their news director / editor. You certainly are almost never allowed to use your company's gear for non-company business. So at the very least, you gotta go buy your own newsgathering stuff.

2) Gathering news is EXPENSIVE. I go through around $20 a day in gas alone. My camera costs a little over 50 thousand dollars - not counting the lens - that's $25,000 by itself. My tripod is a grand. My shotgun mic is $2,000 and my wireless lapel mic is $2,500. Various necessary accessories to all that gear totals around 3 grand. My scanners, at $500 a pop, cost $3500. Fortunately my station paid for most of that, because very few individuals could afford all that crap. Especially if they were buying it for a website that paid little to nothing. And I didn't even tally up the cost of long distance phone calls, video licensing, wire services, etc. Of course we'd need to add to that around a $5,000 computer to edit everything, and that's if I did it on the cheap. Oh, and then there's recording media, which is also much more expensive than the digital-8 or miniDV the amateurs shoot on.

The print guys could get away with a lower price tag, but a professional grade digital camera is gonna be around 5 grand, not counting the capture cards, batteries, flashes, and lenses (and professional quality lenses are INSANELY expensive), plus the gas, the wire services, etc etc etc.

The cheapest believe it or not would be audio-only. Grab a minidisc recorder and a decent mic and you'd be out the door for around 800-1000, again not counting gas, wire services, etc.

In short, reporting the news is not a cheap proposition. I think the website is a great idea but I'm not sure how people could afford to post to it unless they were insanely rich.

I googled the Fairness Doctrine and found numerous recent listings. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), and many others, are actively working to bring it back. From what I have been reading, the FD was far from perfect, but I believe reinstating it would go a long way to causing corporate owners to balance their product for the public good.

Here are some interesting links that I found:

Wikipedia

A snippet from this link:

Quote:

The two corollary rules, the personal attack rule and the political editorial rule, remained in practice even after the repeal of the fairness doctrine. The personal attack rule is pertinent whenever a person or small group is subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations must notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said, and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The political editorial rule applies when a station broadcasts editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulates that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to axe the fairness doctrine. The commission did not do so promptly, and in 2000 it ordered their repeal. The collapse of the fairness doctrine and its corollary rules had significant political effects. One longtime Pennsylvania political leader, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said "The fairness doctrine helped reinforce a politics of moderation and inclusiveness. The collapse of the fairness doctrine and its corollary rules blurred the distinctions between news, political advocacy, and political advertising, and helped lead to the polarizing cacophony of strident talking heads that we have today."

Slaughter's Bill

Snippet:

Quote:

MEDIA GROUPS UNVEIL WEB SITE TO SUPPORT SLAUGHTER'S FAIRNESS DOCTRINE BILL

Sinclair Broadcasting Incident Underscores Need to Restore Fairness to America's Airwaves

Washington, DC - Leading media experts Tom Athans of Democracy Radio, David Brock of Media Matters for America and Andrew Jay Schwartzman of the Democracy Access Project have unveiled www.fairnessdoctrine.com to promote U.S. Rep. Louise M. Slaughter's (D-NY28) legislation to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Abolished during the Reagan Administration, the Federal Communications Commission's Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to equally cover all sides of important issues. The new web site offers comprehensive information on why the nation needs the Fairness Doctrine reinstated and a petition for supporters to demand that Congress restore balance to the airwaves.

I can't tell you how enthused I am that a movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine is further along than I knew. Thanks, Shakran! :thumbsup:

Edit: The FD.com link is a popup nightmare. I will look for a direct link. :hmm:

Here is a better link to Louise Slaughter's website pertaining to the FD.

Louise Slaughter

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

2) Gathering news is EXPENSIVE. I go through around $20 a day in gas alone. My camera costs a little over 50 thousand dollars - not counting the lens - that's $25,000 by itself. My tripod is a grand. My shotgun mic is $2,000 and my wireless lapel mic is $2,500. Various necessary accessories to all that gear totals around 3 grand. My scanners, at $500 a pop, cost $3500. Fortunately my station paid for most of that, because very few individuals could afford all that crap. Especially if they were buying it for a website that paid little to nothing. And I didn't even tally up the cost of long distance phone calls, video licensing, wire services, etc. Of course we'd need to add to that around a $5,000 computer to edit everything, and that's if I did it on the cheap. Oh, and then there's recording media, which is also much more expensive than the digital-8 or miniDV the amateurs shoot on.

Jeez. Well, I suppose we could charge (adn thus become a corporation). The thing is that Freee Speech TV seems to be staying afloat simply through donations. PBS has been on for years (since 1969 I believe). I would suggest working as a non profit (sorry, journalists) organization.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Excelent point. I'm not familiar with the inner workings of media such as television or radio. What about the annonymous idea? If one were properly protected (heh, now YOU get to be the source that WE get to go to jail over), then maybe more reporters and investigators would be willing to come forward.

Jeez. Well, I suppose we could charge (adn thus become a corporation). The thing is that Freee Speech TV seems to be staying afloat simply through donations. PBS has been on for years (since 1969 I believe). I would suggest working as a non profit (sorry, journalists) organization.

The PBS analogy sounds good
Any many of their associates do get paid.
Ad revenue from reputeable vendors like amazon,
donations, and print/CD/DVD sales
would help offset costs

I imagine the cost would not be that much
First of all it's not a tv station
Images and video are optimized for the web
So super high tech gear is not necessary
The studio gear could be shared as well
With all our digital technological advances
PC's can do the same work.
I have a $5,000 music recording studio(at least)
In my PC.....the software cost $300

I continue to think that returning to an even playing field is the best bet for responsible reporting, via the Fairness Doctrine.

The wonderful suggestions that Alpha Phi suggested can already be found on the internet. Joining forces seems to me to be a practical idea. These sites need to be supported financially to keep them going. I was sponsoring TruthOut until the recent medical bills.

Much work is needed to restore our Republic, and most of us here are of limited financial resources. For that reason, I encourage that we all expend our energy and resources on the most fruitful targets that will result in the changes we hope for.

My focus is on the 2006 elections. Very little is possible without a shift in congress and the senate. What few bucks I have are going to making a change in that venue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

He can't shut me down, when I don't read them anymore. After a few dives into the twisted and often totally irrelevant links which makes up a host posting I gave up as have most of us on the right, though kudos to lebell for trying most recently. You can cheer on the inside all you like but there is no fight to cheer on. I will not debate someone who through either hubris or delusion thinks we have government agents posting on this forum or that Bush is involved in human sacrifice. If host is your champion you have already lost.

Seeking ad revenue to support a worthwhile site is why I directed people AWAY from this site:

www.fairnessdoctrine.com

If that doesn't piss you off, long before you get to the content, you have more patience than I.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Why respond to his posts if you don't even read them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

All I get is a search page, place holder......
I haven't seen any content

Popups and flashing banners are not reputable revenue
A column down the side is unobtrusive
Context advertising to amazon ..you get a cut of book sales
And mix in home site ads for DVD documentaries

Alpha, I need to focus my resources on immediate, potential solutions toward what I hope to achieve in the near (2006) future.

It wasn't my intent to be critical in any way about how others might choose to expend their resources.

My apologies, if I offended you or anyone else. :(

re: the high tech gear. yeah, you kinda do, unless you want your videocast to look like all the other home videos you see on the net ;) And it's not just the imaging, it's the weight and balance of a pro cam - one reason home movies always look like they're shot in an earthquake is because those tiny cameras are hard as hell to shoot steady with.

And I'm not saying buy the 75k cam - you could probably get away with a $12k one. But the point is that news gathering is very expensive and you have to take that into consideration. Look at it this way. Something happens in, say, madagascar that needs to be covered. How is this website gonna pay to send a journalist out there unless it generates money.

PBS is a good example of a media outlet that gets a lot of its funding from the government. Now, that's not a bad thing at all, but the likelihood that this website could follow the PBS funding model is rather slim.

I completely (obviously) agree that we should return to the fairness doctrine. But I don't think it's gonna happen. The corporations that own media outlets don't want it because then they'd have to go out and get differing opinions, and that costs money. And since the corporations have a huge influence on what the FCC does, the FCC doesn't want it either.

Just as an example of something simple, but effective:
fairnessdoctrine.bravehost.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ustwo....speaking of <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1970113&postcount=318">"Foil of Ren-yolds"</a>, here is some of what is lauded in your "world" as "professional" political "commentary"...... Not only do I, and others with a lick of sense, have to put up with you posting the 'line" of shrill propagandists like John Hinderaker, we are overwhelmed by the press who you label as "liberal", legitimizing Hinderaker's venomous bull shit (His is one of three names displayed on Power Line's web page) as in this example; Time awarded this right wing POS that passes itself as a "main stream" conservative "blog", as Time's 2004 'Blog of the year"!

Quote:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012664.php
JOHN [Hinderaker]adds:...........Meanwhile, <h3>the Post's reporters are part of a lavishly funded and monolithic media effort to misreport the Iraq war for the purpose of bringing down the Bush administration...............</h3>

And.....Ustwo.....I'm the one who you connect with "Foil"? How dare you?
Here is some "truth" for you and John Hinderaker:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
http://www.aijac.org.au/updates/Feb-03/070203.html
Editorial: The Case for Action
The Washington Post, Wednesday, February 5, 2003; Page A22

.........Yet we believe that it would be a mistake for the United States and its allies, confronted with continued intransigence, to shrink again from decisive action in Iraq. Unless unexpected change takes place in Baghdad, the United States should lead a force to remove Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and locate and destroy its chemical and biological weapons and its nuclear program. The Iraqi regime poses a threat not just to the United States but to global order. The removal of Saddam Hussein would advance the task of containing the spread of weapons of mass destruction to rogue states. It also would free millions of Iraqis from deprivation and oppression and make possible a broader movement to reshape the Arab Middle East, where political and economic backwardness have done much to spawn extremists such as al Qaeda. In contrast, a continued failure to act would send dictators and terrorists a devastating message about the impotence of the United States and the United Nations. It would encourage extremists in their rush for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons..............

Ustwo, please provide us with the date that the Washington Post stopped it's hawkish backing of Bush's campaign of lies, and resumed it's actual role of "reporting", as it immersed itself in the anti-Bush "Op", described in Hinderaker's paranoid rant?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/war.html
Post Now the Nation’s Most Hawkish Newspaper
Feb. 6, 2003
[T]he Washington Post issued a clarion call for war against Iraq in a February 5 editorial, thus becoming the nation’s most hawkish major daily newspaper.

While most major newspapers have published editorials demanding more proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or have suggested that United Nations inspectors be given more time, the Post has enthusiastically adopted the Bush administration’s call to arms.

Under the headline “A Case for Action,” the Post editorial said: “Unless unexpected change takes place in Baghdad, the United States should lead a force to remove Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship and locate and destroy its chemical and biological weapons and its nuclear program. The Iraqi regime poses a threat not just to the United States but to global order.”

The Post’s 1,300-word editorial took up three-fourths of the paper’s opinion column. It ran the same day that Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the US case for war before the United Nations. Both the editorial and Powell were eloquent, persuasive, and so similar as to have come from the same pen.

“No doubt the Post has been beating the drum quite actively,” says Rem Rieder, editor of the American Journalism Review..............

Observe, at this link, John Hinderaker's open invitation to appear on CNN to spew his disinformation:
http://www.google.com/search?hs=MAs&...om&btnG=Search

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/press_relea...009851,00.html
Web Exclusive | Press Releases
TIME NAMES ‘POWER LINE’ 2004 BLOG OF THE YEAR
‘… In 2004 blogs unexpectedly vaulted into the pantheon of major media, alongside TV, radio and yes, magazine and it was Power Line, more than any other blog, that got them there,’ TIME’s Lev Grossman reports

Posted Sunday, Dec. 19, 2004

New York – “Power Line” (www.powerlineblog.com) has been named Blog of the Year by TIME magazine, in this week’s Person of the Year issue. George W. Bush was named 2004 Person of the Year.

“Before this year, blogs were a curiosity, a cult phenomenon, a faintly embarrassing hobby on the order of ham radio and stamp collecting. But in 2004 blogs unexpectedly vaulted into the pantheon of major media, alongside TV, radio and, yes, magazines, and it was Power Line, more than any other blog, that got them there,” writes TIME’s Lev Grossman.

Power Line is the brainchild of two Minneapolis based lawyers John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson and Washington, D.C. based lawyer Paul Mirengoff. “My view,” Johnson says, “is that the mainstream media has acted as a means to obscure, as a kind of filter, a lens that makes it impossible to understand what’s going on in reality. We try to provide something that brings people closer to reality,” he tells TIME.

Power Line’s biggest challenge to the Main Stream media came in the form of its September 9th post titled, “The 61st Minute”, which questioned the validity of the now infamous 60 Minutes documents relating to President Bush’s service in the National Guard. “The 61st Minute” came from Power Line’s readers, not its ostensible writers. The Power Liners are quick, even eager, to point this out. “What this story shows, more than anything, is the power of the medium,” Hinderaker says. “The world is full of smart people who have information about every imaginable topic, and until the Internet came along, there wasn’t any practical way to put it together,” he tells TIME. TIME reports that Power Line roughly doubled its readership, to the point where it scored half a million hits on Election Day. “The msm (main stream media) will never look as high and mighty again, nor will blogs ever look as low and lowly," writes Grossman.

Ustwo, the truly paranoid are not the citizens who question and confront the Bush administrations usurping and consolidation of power at the expense of our liberties and our right to know.

The paranoids are in control of the apparatus of the state, they label us as subversive. and they monitor us illegally. They manipulate the media and hacks like John Hinderaker to spread their propaganda, and you are a link in their foodchain. You lap up their misinformation and repeat it here. Please stop!

I came across a site with much info
http://www.corporations.org/media/

Quote:

In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth

It goes on to give links to
dozens of media reform advocacy sites

Will that's a great example site
It does go to show the possibilities

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

I came across a site with much info
http://www.corporations.org/media/

It goes on to give links to
dozens of media reform advocacy sites

Will that's a great example site
It does go to show the possibilities

The consolidation and control of the media is even more distressing below the surface, alpha phi. Two Time-Warner media outlets, "Time" and CNN, sponsor, promote, and provide "air time" to John Hinderaker and his "Powerline Blog", as I documented in my last post here.

In addition to lending credibility to Hinderaker and his "message", the support from Time/CNN expands an audience for Hinderaker and Powerline that conveys a message that the newspaper of record in this nation's capitol is involved in an intentional "plot" to de-throne Bush. The Washington Post is discredited as a "news" source, and Bush is further empowered to pursue his extra-constitutional agenda and aggressive foreign policy because he is portrayed as a "victim" of a hostile and unreliable press.

Those who read Hideraker seriously because he's often on CNN and because he author's Time's "Blog of 2004", are thus pre-empted from seriously considering WaPo reporting that had the potential to check missteps of the Executive and Legislative branches. We end up observing comments from our political opposites that portray "Time" and CNN as "too liberal", as they are reduced to obtaining their "information" and POV from foxnews and the likes of Hinderaker and powerline, through no small influence of Time and CNN.

These poor, propagandized, bastards do not even realize who steered them away from the major sources of news that the rest of us sift through in our effort to hold our government officials accountable. We end up not even similarly defining the "issues" with those who watch foxnews and read Powerline.......

It is surreal to me and not what I could ever have anticipated.....
And I'm the one labeled as being paranoid ?????

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Did you bother reading this thread? For the most part, personal agendas of the journalists don't factor in. In fact, we go to extreme lengths to NOT let our personal opinions get into the story - you all know how I feel about Bush and the republicans in general, but that doesn't stop me from holding the democrats' feet to the fire if they screw something up as well.

The problem lies not with the majority of the journalists, but with the media owners.

I forgot to add the media owners, they are also a big factor. But I thought "media owners" sounded clumsy. I assumed that editors pretty much represented the views of the owners, so I ommited mentioning them specifically.

But also, I think that you are giving journalists too much credit. I think that you would pursue a story about Republican wrongdoing over one about Democratic wrongdoing. I don't even know if it's intentional, but it's hard not to try harder on something you care more about.

Quote:

Ahh. Then you also see no problem with the crumbling of democracy and the rise of a police state. Because that's what happens if the government gets power over what the media covers.

I don't see the media as the independant check on gov't power that you do. I see it as more a separate intrest, with their own adgenda. Now, I don't think they should be totally a voice for gov't, but I think that the gov't should feel free to make just as much use out of the media as possible, without necessarily directly controlling them.

Quote:

I object to the term "impose." We're not imposing anything. In case you've forgotten, ours is supposed to be a government which represents the people. How can the people know if the government is properly representing them if there is no group that tells the people what the government is up to.

That's the problem-the media often puts their own spin on what the gov't is doing. That's why wrongdoing gets covered so much more than when something good happens. Again, I see the media as an independant interest, not the voice of the people. They have their own agendas.

Quote:

This is all well and good for you to say now, when your candidate is in power. Will you be of the same opinion when a democrat is back in office and the media is reporting on what he does wrong? I'll be interested to see if you think the democratic president should "check media power" and "keep it in line."

Actually, I will. I favor strong government. So if a democratic administration also works to increase gov't power, I would support them. I try to not get to caught up in (D) or (R).

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

The history of American Journalism goes hand in hand
with the founding of this country
The freedom of the press is the FIRST amendment
The press was instrumental in denouncing
the abusive rule of King George,
And encouraging the colonists to revolt
As early as 1795 Reporters were allowed in both the
House of Representatives and the Senate.
Because our founding fathers knew how
important an informed electorate is.
The goverment can and does publish
whatever they want.
The goverment Has No Right or Authority
to "check" or limit the press

You proved my point. The media worked to undermine the gov't. They had an agenda, and worked to see it through. And as for the "abuses of King George", I have always thought it was a bit overblown. To be honest, I've always seen the revolution as fundamentally little more than a bunch of rich white landowners mad because they had to pay some taxes. All the liberty stuff was added mainly to fool the masses and gain popular support, not because they really believed or desired it (as evidenced by the treatment of women, blacks, indians, non-landowners, etc.). I take anything the founding fathers said with a grain of salt. If I remember correctly, soon after the constitution was ratified, I think John Adams tried to have a political cartoonist arrested for some cartoon (I could have the name wrong).

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

But also, I think that you are giving journalists too much credit. I think that you would pursue a story about Republican wrongdoing over one about Democratic wrongdoing. I don't even know if it's intentional, but it's hard not to try harder on something you care more about.

Funny you should say that. We just finished our obligatory "2005 in review" special. In reviewing my work for submission, I exposed 3 examples of Republican (local guys, not national) wrongdoing, and 5 examples of Democratic (also local guys) wrongdoing. Sorry but your post is a gross mischaracterization.

Quote:

I'm curious - do you feel there is a NEED for an independent check on government power?

Quote:

Our JOB is to expose government wrongdoing, no matter who's doing the wrong. Our job is also to cover government. We do report on what the government does. We don't only report on the illegal stuff they do. Do you actually watch or read the news, or do you get your ideas from pundits and then assume that people with a vested interest in one point of view are always correct?

Quote:

Actually, I will. I favor strong government. So if a democratic administration also works to increase gov't power, I would support them. I try to not get to caught up in (D) or (R).

Great. You're quite different from most of the people howling media bias right now. But I think you need to realize that you can have any kind of government you want - strong or weak - and still have checks on what they do. A strong government is one thing, a government that deceives its public in order to ramrod whatever they want into policy is quite another.

Whats unbelievable is that journalists essentially tell us that they and they alone are the sole possessors of objectivity and fairness. The cops: bias. Judicial system: bias Corporate America: bias. The govt: bias. And on and on

But somehow, the media is far more superior than the rest us? Please

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

NCB, I read a number of journalists on a daily basis and I agree that some believe themselves to be as you described. I find them rare, however, or maybe it is a factor of self-selection of who I read.

Do you have specific journalists in mind?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

About the only group of journalists I can think of who are biased while claiming to be unbiased are working for Fox News (fair and balanced? c'mon.)

I've never claimed to not have a bias. I claim to work very hard not to allow that bias to show through in my stories, and I feel I'm pretty successful at that.

I think anyone, from any profession, who claims they don't have an opinion or a bias is full of it.

Shakran, most of the journalists that I am familiar with are the inky-fingers kind. (I still love my daily paper :) ).

I don't think it would be much of a threadjack to discuss individual journalists and their perceived leanings and/or balance, whether it be print or broadcast media. Shall we take a go at that idea?

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

About the only group of journalists I can think of who are biased while claiming to be unbiased are working for Fox News (fair and balanced? c'mon.)

Really, the only biased group would be Fox?

:lol:

Do you watch other news besides fox?

I'm confused...probably since I stopped following this thread when it just started on the second page of responses. Host comes back at Ustwo with a rant aimed against the Washington Post for "it's hawkish backing of Bush's campaign of lies", and then calls for him to provide a date when the Post actual returned to its job of "reporting".

The Post article host referred to was an E-D-I-T-O-R-I-A-L piece. I have never, ever, considered anything that I read in an editorial section to be "news", and I certainly hope that no one here does too! I actually have a longstanding desire to see US newspapers drop their editorials altogether.

Seriously, why do I care what the editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal, the NY Times, the Washington Post, or even my local paper has to say on politics, life, the economy? What qualifies them to give me their opinion, and who asked them for it? I find it incredibly arrogant. Just give me the news, and let me think for myself.

Take a read through this article "Editorials make newspapers into citizens" (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...10/ai_n8821620)

Quote:

Without an editorial page, you don't have a newspaper.

"BOREDOM WITH established truths is a great enemy of free men," political scientist Bernard Crick wrote in the early 1960s in an essay titled "In Defence of Politics."

So, he said, sometimes the most useful thing a scholar of politics can do is "try to make some old platitudes pregnant."

As it is in politics, so is it in journalism. We have no new defenses for editorial writing, just the same old few that students have studied and practitioners have appreciated as long as America has had a free press.

Most of the defenses are hopelessly high-minded and idealistic. But they are real and valid - "established truths." The question is whether these "old platitudes" once again can be made pregnant, full of meaning.

I suspect that what's really needed is a defense less of editorial writing than of editorial publishing. In our present age, characterized by the tyranny of the bottom line, editorial pages stand out even within editorial departments as cost centers rather than profit centers. And that leads to the question: Why do it if it doesn't make a profit?

To the people who founded most American newspapers, that question would seem absurd, as it ought to seem to us today. Without an editorial page, you have no newspaper. You may have a sale paper, an advertiser, maybe even with some "news" copy sprinkled in. But there is no newspaper.

The newspaper is a business, to be sure, and so it must pursue profits. But it is a business with a difference. That difference accounts for the enshrinement in the First Amendment of the freedom of the press.

The newspaper exists not just to make a profit, or even to collect and disseminate the information that its readers need to discharge their responsibilities as citizens. No, the newspaper exists to be a citizen of the community, fostering the sort of reasoned thought and civil discourse on the issues of the day that are every citizen's right and obligation.

Editorial writing -- passionate, disciplined discourse - is essential to the discharge of that right and duty.

Like many other editorial boards, we at The Chicago Tribune have adopted the practice of inviting guests to sit in on our deliberations (I use the word intentionally) and to listen and contribute to the discussions. Invariably, they express sentiments afterwards saying in effect, "It's good to know that people are there who are thinking in that way about the issues."

We who get to do this kind of work all the time often don't appreciate what a rare privilege it is. Very few of our fellow citizens get to sit on a daily basis with intelligent, well-informed people and debate the great (and small) public issues of the day - much less to write about them and have their arguments and conclusions read by thousands of people. We serve an important purpose just by exemplifying for the community what active citizenship is about.

None of this gets to the ability of a newspaper, through its editorial page, to move public officials, captains of industry, and others to act for what we consider the public good. We don't, I fear, move them often enough and vigorously enough. But it is one of the purposes of editorial writing, and one no newspaper worth the name would forswear.

Don Wycliff is editorial page editor of the Chicago Tribune. This article originally appeared in the Fall 1996 issue.

The last bolded quote, where Wycliff states that their editorials are designed to move people to act in WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE THE PUBLIC GOOD just kills me. Who gave this guy, this paper, this segment of our society, this awesome responsibility as the arbitrators of what is and is not in the public good?

Let's face it - the editorial is a means by which any media outlet can demostrate it's own bias (albeit the bias held by either the editorial staff, the owners, or both) safely.

But, since it is after 6AM, and I haven't slept but 3 hours since Dec. 31st started, I'll borrow a line from Dennis Miller: "Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong".

The problem are not the editorials, those are obviously biased but you KNOW they are before you start reading.

The problem is bias in the hard news. When you prevent and warp the information the public gets to form is basic opinion on the issues, the bias undermines the democratic process. This can be anything from the tone of the article, to what stories get reported. It is also the most difficult to prove, and requires things like the UCLA study to show you just how far its gone.