Unfair and unbalanced

Unfair and unbalanced

: A commenter points me to a story I missed (because it was on UPI): Thirty-eight Democratic and independent members of Congress want to meet with Rupert Murdoch to complain that FoxNews is nice to Republicans.

“The responsibility of the media is to report the news in an unbiased, impartial and objective manner,” the letter reads.

Who says? No, really, who says that is the “responsibility of media”?

That is an American assumption of recent vintage. Media got started with pamphleteers grinding axes, eh? Only in fairly recent history has “objectivity” been a prime directive of news — which is only a subset of media — and that is being cast aside these days as the audience — the people — gravitate toward news with attitude, whether that attitude is FoxNews’ or the Guardian’s. (By the way, if you broaden this past news to media, as these guys do, then what they say should also hold for Fahrenheit 9/11 and OutFoxed. They are media, too.)

Here are members of Congress acting as if there is a law that media — not just news — has a responsibility to be unbiased, impartial and objective. And they practically threaten Murdoch with the force of law:

The letter’s co-signers include Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., a member of the House Democratic Leadership, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., ranking member on the Joint Economic Committee.

A spokesman for Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said there were legislative avenues that the group could pursue as a secondary measure but declined to speculate on what those might be.

Is that a threat? Sure sounds like it.

This is why I object so strenuously to FCC regulation of speech and media, whether that is Howard Stern or FoxNews, whether that’s what you can hear on the radio or next see on cable or next read on the Internet. It’s none of government’s business to regulate what we say. That’s why we have a First Amendment, remember?

Rupert Murdoch starts a station that has a viewpoint and he puts it on cable, which — remember — is not under the control of the FCC.

If these guys don’t like that, then what about AirAmerica, which is on public airwaves, which are regulated by the government? If they think government should regulate what Murdoch can say on cable, don’t they realize that they set the precedent for government to regulate what AirAmerica says on broadcast… or what you and I say on the Internet.

Dangerous twits.

34 responses to “Unfair and unbalanced”

  1. Michael Zimmer Avatar
    Michael Zimmer

    They are invoking the now-defunct Fairness Doctrine.

  2. shark Avatar

    Well done Jeff. Too many people I won’t mention who were bemoaning the admin. “crushing” free speech were cackiling with joy over this. I imagine Stern himself would’ve, had he not been on one of his 5,000 “Best of’s” per year…

  3. James Stephenson Avatar
    James Stephenson

    Actually those Radio people felt that if Radio America failed, they would use legal means to get rid of Talk Radio. It being a thorn in their side and not controlled by the left.
    So maybe this is just the first shot in that little war.
    But comparing this to Stern please. Stern talks about Sex. Fox news just gives the news. And remember the guy who is really pushing the Stern thing is a Democrat from South Carolina.
    And should it surprise anyone that the side who is pushing PC speech and calls anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi is now looking to use the government to shut down an opposing voice.

  4. Andy Freeman Avatar
    Andy Freeman

    Yes, govt should only restrict political speech by not-media.
    I’ll worry about the FCC when the FEC is gone.

  5. Kim Avatar

    What of the bias at CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNBC? Are the author and cosigners of this letter aware any legislative avenues will create a two way Ave? I would be more impressed if they were calling for responsibility from “media” on the whole. This publicity stunt is an insult. People decide what channel to get their news from and we are quite capable of coming to our own conclusions without the thought police.

  6. slim Avatar

    Jeff,
    They ARE dangerous … but not for the reasons you suggest: You seem to think they are conveniently forgetting about Air America, or CBS, the New York Times, or Farenheit 9-11 when they talk about how media has a “responsiblity” to be objective.
    They haven’t forgotten. They know full well that these outlets which “tow” the Democratic line do so to their benefit and that outlets such as Fox hurt that cause.
    These people do not want a free press … they want a subservient press … and failing that, they WILL use all the power at their disposal, even laws, to prevent such dissent.

  7. Andy Avatar

    The Honorable Congressmen are showing their fear of an independent (read uncontrolled) press. They have grown comfortable and complacent with a captive, hand fed, docile media that barks, snaps and snarls when told. The years of being controlled paid off when the Clinton years rolled thru and the media neither barked nor snarled but simply wagged and chased softballs.
    “Legislative solutions” they are 38 out of 435 members of the House. They can introduce but cannot get anything passed. It would be interesting (Okay, fun) to see the courts fill with lawsuits enforcing the legislation against the DEMOCRAT supporting media.
    Maybe they FAILED TO NOTICE that the NEWS Corp COO was at Kerry’s Left Hand at the Businessmen-Honor-Kerry Thingie in IA. News may own FOX but their number two sure seems to LOVE KERRY… No similar C-Level Executives from the media outlets (incl. FOX) have appeared at the Bush rallies.
    Stern is about STERN and his ability to have a career if he cannot be a potty-mouth. It is not about any enduring issue other than Howard Stern.

  8. Karl Lembke Avatar

    Imagine a law requiring the news media to be “balanced” and “objective”. The most fundamental and contentious question is, “balanced” and “objective” by whose standards?
    Yes, imagine such a law being enacted.
    Now imagine it being enforced by someone who hates your guts.
    Maybe we should imagine any politician supporting such a law rehearsing a speech for his new office: “Do you want fries with that?”

  9. Michael Zimmer Avatar
    Michael Zimmer

    Karl: Such a policy long existed at the FCC: the Fairness Doctrine

  10. Cog Avatar

    Who can I complain to about publicly funded NPR, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Seatle Post Intellegencer, and even the Washington Post?
    I guess their bias is acceptable where Fox News bias is not.

  11. Robert McClelland Avatar

    Who says? No, really, who says that is the “responsibility of media”?
    Team Bush and the right whingers have been howling for over two years that the media is being unfair to them. Turnabout is fair play so stop your crying. Though I do agree that it shouldn’t go beyond just complaining about Fox being biased.

  12. Andy Avatar

    FAIRNESS DOCTRINE was about equal airtime. It was not about fair or balanced anything. Only equal access to airways.
    Presumption being that equality of opportunity would allow contestants to present their views best.
    Seems we have a hard time distringuishing between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, again.

  13. notthisgirl Avatar
    notthisgirl

    And should it surprise anyone that the side who is pushing PC speech and calls anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi is now looking to use the government to shut down an opposing voice.
    Related to this, but sightly OT, have you heard/seen what the Anti-war,Bush,Right,etc. protestor-crowd does to counter-protestors when they arrive on the scene? It ain’t pretty.
    Apparently, free speech rights go out the window with this set of folks. These are the real facists.

  14. Richard Bennett Avatar

    It’s interesing that the named figures in the news article about this letter to Fox News don’t mention it on their web sites. I’d like to get a list of the 38 enemies of free speech, but apparently they’re too embarassed to go public with the letter and the list of signatories.

  15. Nia Avatar

    Wow, that was surprising. Even though my preferences are more on the Guardian than on the Fox worldview, I think it is disgraceful that politicians in a supposedly democratic country tell a _private_ media network how they should do their job.
    Of course things are a lot different in a country like mine (Spain), with a public (ie State-funded) TV channel that offers news, “public” media certainly has a duty to offer not objective information (come ON, we all know there’s no such thing as objective information) but at least plural info, from a few different points of view. But that’s galaxies apart from telling Fox they “should be objective”

  16. onecent Avatar

    Andy, you didn’t read Michael Zimmer’s link above:
    “The Fairness Doctrine from 1949 until 1987, when it was discontinued by the Federal Communications Commission, required broadcasters, as a condition of getting their licenses from the FCC, to cover controversial issues in their community, and to do so by offering some balancing views. It did not require equal time for opposing views. It merely prevented a station from day after day presenting a single view without airing opposing views.”

  17. Michael Zimmer Avatar
    Michael Zimmer

    This thread, along with the Media Control Freaks posting below, prompts me to present the following thought experiment:
    Consider a major cable provider has 80% market share in a state that is considered a pivotal state for the presidential election. The board of directors of this company favor the Orange party (names have been changed to protect the innocent) and want to help the Oranges win the election. Of the two major cable news networks, one clearly favors the Orange party. So the owners of this cable network drop the other channel from their cable service. This cable company is also very well capitalized and can afford to purchase the major local broadcast stations as well as the state’s leading newspapers. Editorial content is thus shaped to support the Orange party. Of their orange candidate, they TV & papers only report positive news, nothing negative. Reporting on the opponent, however, focuses solely on the negative. [You can imagine how this might continue…]
    So, acknolwedging all the stated concerns about government censorship and manipulation of free markets, couldn’t it also be argued that there is a compelling state interest to ensure that citizens are properly informed so they can intelligently vote in an election? Would some level of government regulation of news media be justified in such a case?

  18. David Crisp Avatar

    Jeff, you are right on all of this, but it would be a cleaner takedown if Fox didn’t claim to be “fair and balanced.” Fox has a self-imposed responsibility to be “unbiased, impartial and objective.” If it wants to air news with an attitude, that’s fine with me, but it should change its slogan.

  19. Michael Zimmer Avatar
    Michael Zimmer

    Good point, David Crisp. Isn’t someone trying to bring a case of false/misleading advertising against FoxNews on just that issue?

  20. Andrew | BB Avatar

    Only in fairly recent history has “objectivity” been a prime directive of news
    Good you answered your own question – and I like it this way. Why?
    As blogs, prove to me at least, you have to have some place where you can get the facts, and not worry about all that is hidden. I don’t go to blogs for NEWS – except some first person accounts, like those in Iraq. The only interesting thing to me of the DNC convention blogger coverage were the photos. All new angles you would never see anywhere else.
    Nope, today’s media isn’t perfect. Not saying that. But I don’t want my news to have “personality” I want it to get it right.

  21. Dann Avatar

    Michael Z,
    What you fail to include in your mental exercise is the free market. It would be impossible for one single entity to purchase/control all of the media outlets in any region for any substantial length of time.
    The first problem would be whether or not some of those outlets were available for purchase. For example, I find it hard to believe that any amount of money could pry the NYTimes away from the current ownership. The same is true for CNN.
    The second problem would be competition. Americans aren’t so unthinking that they would fail to miss such an obvious power play. Someone would move in and fill the anti-orange void. Given that our media was founded in such partisanship, I find it hard to believe that we couldn’t return to those days if an attempt at a monopoly was made.
    The third problem is news leakage. People will always have access to magazines and newspapers from other parts of the country. Also, people near the border with other states will be exposed to other radio/TV broadcasts. And of course, the Internet makes it exceedingly difficult for partisan reporting to go unchallenged.
    Regards,

  22. Andrew | BB Avatar

    I should add that I agree with your conclusion.

  23. Andrew | BB Avatar

    Michael Z,
    What you fail to include in your mental exercise is the free market. It would be impossible for one single entity to purchase/control all of the media outlets in any region for any substantial length of time.

    ????????????????????????
    That was satire, correct? It could very easily happen and they keep trying.

  24. Chuck Olsen Avatar

    1) I certainly wish people would apply this argument to Fahrenheit 9/11: Who says documentary film is supposed to be unbiased and objective? Its a huge misperception.
    2) I think I”m with you in spirit. But as others have pointed out, it’s sticky because Fox news claims to be “Fair and Balanced” when they’re overtly in favor of the political party controlling all three branches of government. They try to skew the public’s interpretation of events in favor of the Republican Party. This is a PROBLEM! Supression of speech is not the answer. Getting the truth out there, and getting them to change their slogan and perhaps their practices, is the answer.
    3) It’s misleading to compare Air America to Fox News. Notice it’s not “Air America News.” Air America shows are opinion-spouting talk radio – the original blogs. Air America does have short news breaks, which should be subjected to the same scrutiny of any other news outlet. Forget our academic discussions of objectivity for one second and think of regular folks watching the news. A “Fair and Balanced” news network obviously creates the *expectation* of objectivity.

  25. Ptolemy Avatar

    Chuck, the major media have always operated under the concept of objectivity. It was the reputation the major networks and papers had. Many of us no doubt saw problems and leanings but there was no serious questioning of news focus. When FOX used Fair and Balanced I believe it was mainly to differentiate themselves from the pack. They do present views I’ve never seen on CNN. They do ask Dems questions that NO ONE in the main press seem willing to do. The balance part may just mean balancing the enormous control of the Left over media with their focus on the Right. The Left would not be so furious if they did not have something to hide. There is no need for a network to be so threatening unless you are convinced you can’t defend yourself in a fair public fight.

  26. Tom the Redhunter Avatar

    Are these people nuts? Apparently these Democrats are unfamiliar with fact that conservatives have called CNN the Commie News Network for years. Not to mention the Washington Post, NY Times, on and on. Oh but only when the shoe’s on the other foot does it matter.
    So Fox has “fair and balanced” as their advertising motto. So what? It’s just advertising, like saying your car is the most comfortable.

  27. pianoman Avatar
    pianoman

    Hmm, I didn’t see it today, but I fully expect Jeff to deploy “The Daily Murdoch” articles on a more-or-less daily basis. After all, he went to Defcon 1 when ClearChannel dropped Stern from six markets — a decision that had a vague connection to Congress. Surely this decision by 39 actual Congressmen will inspire the same level of outrage.
    Right?
    (insert sounds of crickets chirping)

  28. HH Avatar

    If they do this you’d better believe that there will be calls to shut down Moore or Air America or what have you and the lefties cheering this on (some of whom include Brock and his blogger underlings) will howl.

  29. HH Avatar

    MSNBC says “America’s watching.” Total bullshit of course. CNN says “most trusted” but has had quite a few major screwups in the past several years. Should they have their slogans changed?

  30. David Crisp Avatar

    “Fair and balanced” is — or ought to be — more than an advertising slogan. It’s a statement of principle. You can’t say you’re fair and balanced, then defend yourself from charges that you aren’t fair and balanced by saying that you are under no obligation to be fair and balanced.
    Not that Fox has done that.

  31. Ptolemy Avatar

    In worrying about the slogan, these groups are still assuming that Americans are too stupid to see the bias. The same American that knows main media is left-biased will easily spot right-bias as well. The fact that more Americans like right-bias than the other should do nothing but tell the Left that they have a long way to go before they can convince the rest of us to see things their way.

  32. Eric Blair Avatar
    Eric Blair

    Aw, shucks. Pianoman said what I was going to say.
    The least JJ could do is publish the names.

  33. Nahanni Avatar

    Actually out of all the MSM Fox IS the most fair and balanced news source according to the study recently done by Yale University. This was also echoed in the recent Pew study, too. (MSM=CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN/WaPo/NYT/LAT/USA Today et al.)
    The only reason that many perceive it being “conservative” is because the other networks are way off the scale on the liberal side.
    What galls the leftists and others is that they desperatly want “the average citizen” to believe what the MSM and their ilk disseminate. Unfortunately for them “the average citizen” is not as gullible as they think they are. They know the differnce between a hawk and a handsaw*. Which explains why Fox News is gaining viewers/listeners and the MSM is rapidly losing theirs. They have tried all sorts of things such as insults, innuendo etc. to try to “silence” Fox and it has not worked. Now, George Soros and his “friends” are trying to silence Fox with this sham in Congress. It will backfire on them.
    Personally this whole situation makes me both laugh and be concerned at the same time. It makes me laugh because if one criticizes any Hollywood loony that gets loose, opens his/her mouth and pontificates at us the howls of McCarthyism are deafening if anyone dares call them an idiot. The actions being taken by these congresspeople IS MCCARTHYISM. In fact it is worse. Much worse.
    *with apologies to The Bard.

  34. Nahanni Avatar

    I did forget to add in my post that Fox does have a bias. In the Yale study they were a bit LEFT of center. They did it on a scale of 0-100 with 100 being very leftist/liberal, 50 being in the middle and 0 for conservative.
    CBS was the farthest left with a ranking of 74 out of 100, followed by ABC with 72. The rest of the MSM was not too far behind. Think Fox came in at 54.