DJ:
'By far the best way to "hold them accountable" is to not listen to
them or else organize a boycott of their advertisers.'
Not when their advertisers blanket 100% of the media. Their
advertisers control much more of the content than you realise. Most
of them are globalist cartels, whose subsidiaries fund both the think-
tanks feeding them the news and the news outlets themselves.
'Where is the tort? Who was harmed here? If you can identify
someone, let them sue under current defamation laws. We don't need
more.'
Right--we don't need more, but we need them enforced. The FCC used
to serve as the body governing such actions and it should be able to
do it again.
'OK, so you don't agree with the Washington Times. Don't you think
in an open marketplace of ideas, such deceit is rather quickly
uncovered, and people lose confidence in that news source? Just look
at what has happened to the New York Times!'
In an open marketplace that would be true; but the 'conservative'
media outlets have both the resources and the influence to silence
open debate. The Washington Times, New York Post, and Weekly
Standard, for example, do not even turn profits. But their owners
subsidise them and keep them open as propaganda conduits to sabotage
their competitors like the New York Times. Again, this might not
require new laws but possibly enforcing existing ones like the anti-
trust laws would work.
'4. Perhaps you are right. However, like numbers 1,2,3, I don't
see how new laws are needed to address this.'
The 4th Point might be the only one which might require new laws,
but even here there are laws already against tampering with the legal
process and intimidating judges and juries in this way. Rather than
new laws, probably expansions of existing ones would solve this
particular issue. For example, the Rape Shield Laws, which prohibit
news sources from identifying a victim could be expanded to prohibit
them from naming the accused until the trial is concluded. They could
expand that to all other criminal cases as well.
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "ERIC" <lincolnproducts@>
wrote:
>
> Yes, here's some ways it could be done:
>
> 1. Most of these guys are not journalists, they're simply
> celebrities hired to spout a party. They can be held to
journalistic
> standards of ethics. For example, Cummingham himself recently
said
> that Palin's church was 'firebombed' and went into a lengthy
tirade
> about how black churches are given unequal media attention. In
fact,
> it was firebombed, Palin's own jackboots in the Alaska State
Patrol,
> ruled it suspicious but cause unknown. Falsely reported stories
like
> this should be retracted, with equal space given to the
retraction.
>
> 2. Often these guys substitute their opinions for facts:
example
> some people have actually claimed that Obama is planning to
conscript
> black street gangs into private armies. They should be required
to
> back up outrageous statements like these with sources or else be
> subject to sanctions for libel.
>
> 3. Transparency: Often these people will supply dubious sources
> which they portray as realistic: for example, they will interview
a
> corresondent from the Washington Times---without telling us that
the
> paper is run by the Moonies. Or, they'll have some 'distinguished
> fellow' from some think-tank---without informing anyone who funds
> these think-tanks and what interest they might have in a
particular
> issue. FNC frequently brings on 'Fox News Analysts' without
telling
> us anything about their backgrounds (e.g. some 'business analysts
> also work as Wall Street lobbyists).
>
> 4. One that definately needs reformed is the media's continual
> interference in the legal system. People are routinely accused of
> something and the media tries them and finds them guilty before
facts
> are even in. Oftentimes, on a local level, prosecutors will feed
> biased information about a case to the press to contaminate the
jury
> pool. I've seen cases where O'Reilly, among others, have posted
> pictures of judges and given out contact information during
ongoing
> trials to pressure them into certain verdicts. This kind of thing
has
> to be curtailed.
>
>
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Can you give an example of how you would strengthen such laws,
and
> > some evidence that existing laws are not sufficient?
> >
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "ERIC" <lincolnproducts@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I wouldn't support going back to the 'Fairness Doctrine'
which
> is
> > > outmoded anyway. The way media balance could be enforced is
by
> > > strengthening most the laws already existing: against libel,
> > slander
> > > and restrictions on foreign ownership and such. They could
also
> > > probably extend the truth in advertising laws so that's there
> more
> > > transparency about who's supporting these people and why.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen"
<derekj72@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eric:
> > > >
> > > > It's the listening audience that these men attract which is
> really
> > > > pulling the strings, by buying the products that
advertisers
> hawk
> > > > during the commercial breaks.
> > > >
> > > > If there were a shortage of RF spectrum that the government
was
> > > > preventing opposing viewpoints from having access to, you
may
> > have a
> > > > point. But this is not happening. There is no conservative
> > > > "monopoly" on talk radio. How could it ever be enforced?
> > > >
> > > > Exhibit A: "Air America" tried and spectacularly failed.
> > > >
> > > > -Derek
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "ERIC"
<lincolnproducts@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In libertarianrepublicans@yahoogroups.com, "ERIC"
> > > > > <lincolnproducts@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Faced with growing Congressional pressure for media
> > > accountability,
> > > > > right-wing media bigot Billy Cummingham, a self-
styled 'Great
> > > > > American', called Sunday for a convocation of what he
called
> > > > > (seriously)'the Kings and Queens of talk radio'. Whatever
> else
> > > can be
> > > > > faulted to Cunningham, lack of self-esteem can't be one
of
> > them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cunningham hopes to recruit such luminaries as Rush
> Limbaugh,
> > > Sean
> > > > > Hannity, Mark Levine, and various other blowhards to
discuss
> > > > > potential
> > > > > attacks on 'free speech'. That might make for an
interesting
> > > > > spectacle:
> > > > > watching a dozen or so egomaniacs fighting over top
billing,
> > > photo-
> > > > > ops,
> > > > > and jockeying for title of American Saviour. But
Cunningham's
> > > idea is
> > > > > a
> > > > > bit misplaced.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be much more interesting to have a summit of
these
> > > guys'
> > > > > bosses: Roger Ailes, R.M. Scaife, Reverend Moon, Rupert
> > Murdoch,
> > > Pat
> > > > > Robertson, Conrad Black---just to name a few. It would do
the
> > > > > American
> > > > > people a lot of good to see just who's pulling the
strings
> and
> > > who's
> > > > > really carrying on 'free speech' in the monopoly media
market.