Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

The Fraud of the Fairness Doctrine

January 24, 2007

Besides the fact that the Fairness Doctrine is all but unenforceable, there are many other flaws with the concept of dictating political fairness to a free media.

First off, the Fairness Doctrine only refers to the obvious and would require an Alan Colmes for every Sean Hannity. But what about less obvious political partisanship? For example, how would the biased agenda setting of a network like CBS be addressed? In this way, the Fairness Doctrine would be superficial at best, allowing more classic forms of political bias to slip under the government radar undetected. Unless the government plans on require hiring practices based on political party affiliation in the news rooms of every television and radio network, this is doomed to failure.

Secondly, how would an individual’s personal politics be determined? There are Conservatives who lean liberal on certain issues and liberals who happen to skew more conservative on some issues.

Those who say that the Fairness Doctrine will bring about a return of “media democracy” are selling you a bill of goods, as a matter of fact, the effects of the fairness doctrine would be quite the opposite. A return to the Fairness Doctrine would take control of program content from the listener, and put it in the hands of a government regulatory commission. Under private ownership, the public determines what the public interest is. That relationship between the public and content can not exist with overburdensom regulations. It’s enough that the FCC combs the airwaves for indecency do we really need them combing for ideology?

Let’s face it, the government can’t even control the blaitant bias of the publically financed PBS and NPR.

For more on The Fairness Doctrine, American Thinker’s Selwyn Duke makes a good case against it:

Of course, many may wonder why I’d take issue with fairness.  Shouldn’t we give the “other side” its day in court, one may ask?  
 

The problem is that this regulation would be applied to talk radio but not arenas dominated by liberal thought, a perfect example of which is the ever-present mainstream media (which presents the “other side”).  This is because talk show hosts trade in red meat commentary, whereas the mainstream press is more subtle in its opinion-making. 
 

Fine then, say the critics, that’s as it should be.  We don’t have to worry about “responsible journalists”; it’s those acid-tongued firebrands who pollute discourse with their pyro-polemics who bedevil us.  And on the surface this sounds convincing, which is why I tell you of the talker and the shill.
 

The dirty little secret behind the Fairness Doctrine is that it punishes the honest.  Think about it: Radio hosts are the talkers; they wear their banners openly as they proclaim who and what they are.  Sure, they may be brash and hyperbolic, loud and oft-sardonic, but there is no pretense, little guile, and you know what they want you to believe.  You know what they’re sellin’ and if you’re buyin’.

Advertisements

Food Network Using Subliminal Advertising?

January 23, 2007

This kind of thing can usually be chalked up to some kind of control room error but make up your own mind. This is from last weekend’s episode of Iron Chef America:

 

Olbermann Calls Foxs’ 24 “Propaganda”

January 17, 2007

OlbermannKeith Olbermann attacked Foxs’ 24 as a “a program length commercial for one political party.” A somewhat realistic portrayal of a massive terror attack on on the US is automatically propaganda? What if Fox had made a movie which showed 19 hijackers flying 4 planes into targets all over the northeast before 9/11? Would that have been dismissed as propaganda and fear mongering Keith?

If Keith Olbermann is the sickness… Hugh Hewitt is the cure. This from todays opinion piece on ABC news:

 Given that there are easily, oh, 10 million people in the world who would stand up and cheer at the real version of Monday night’s fictionalized attack, and at least a few tens of thousands trying hard to do a deed of at least proportionate scale given the weaponry available, it is silly to argue that “it” couldn’t possibly happen. Of course it could happen. Eventually another nuke will go off, and it is not likely to be the obvious action of a state actor. So what is the “too far” in the question supposed to mean? It can only be that “24” is engaged in fear-mongering, and that is as stupid a charge as can be made.

Would the BBC have been going “too far” if in 1937 it had broadcast a radio drama depicting life in a Hitler-authorized death camp where hundreds of thousands of Jews were being executed in gas chambers, one of a string of such camps springing up across Europe?

Would a Paris newspaper have been going “too far” if it had run a short story in 1913 supposing trench warfare that would claim millions of casualties?

 Had PBS run a drama proposing a Communist massacre of millions of Cambodians in 1973 or a Rawandan genocide of more than a half million Tutsis twenty years later, would those prophecies have been going “too far?”

update-3.jpg I can’t believe I missed this point. Newsbusters has some quotes:

Olbermann recounted how 24 “featured a mall attack, a would-be suicide bomber on a subway, and a successful suicide bombing on a passenger bus. Not in places where these things have already happened, but in a country called the United States of America. In case you missed the point, the show finished up with a nuclear weapon detonating in a major American city, literally conjuring up the administration’s imagery for the war in Iraq, the good old mushroom cloud.”

Am I reading this properly? Did Olby just claim that there havn’t been any successful suicide bombings in The United States of America? That mall attacks havn’t been thwarted? That subway attacks havn’t been planned? I think it’s becoming more and more clear every day that ole’ Olby lives in fantasy land.

Oops! British Newscaster Makes An Arse of Herself

January 16, 2007

EmmaMeet Anglia News’ Emma Baker. She’s having a bad day. This from metro.co.uk:

At one point, Miss Baker, 26, said to an unseen male colleague: ‘Have you phoned your wife this morning or have you phoned Jan?’

Then, to an unseen female colleague, she said: ‘Good morning, Mrs Shameless.’ Viewer Sally Fox, 45, from Milton Keynes, said: ‘It was much more interesting than the usual local news.

It was like a soap opera.

‘When she put her hand up her shirt it seemed she was fiddling with her bra. I saw her tummy.

‘Then, when she said about the guy phoning his wife, it seemed she was suggesting someone was having an affair. I was thinking: “Whatever is going on?”.

This all went on for about three-and-a-half minutes. She was preening herself and pouting like Madonna, sticking out her boobs.

‘Then somebody obviously told her this was going out live and her face went ashen.

Who says British comedy sucks? Apparently the “or have you phoned Jen” comment to her off air colleague was an allusion to an affair he’s having. 

I’ll have the video of this just as soon as it becomes available.