FCC Chair on Misinformation

[TheBigA]

Acting FCC Chairman Jessica Rosenworcel wrote a letter to Congress on the state of misinformation in broadcast media. In it, she restated her opposition to the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine. But she added that something needed to be done about rampant misinformation in media:

FCC’s Jessica Rosenworcel Hits Fairness Doctrine, But Says Dialogue Needed On Misinformation.

More than three decades after the Fairness Doctrine was abolished, the threat the rule will rise from the dead is never far from media conversations in Washington. Opposition to the

www.insideradio.com

 

[gr8oldies]

"But the Fairness Doctrine would force Trump supporters to hear other views and see the light!". No it wouldn't.

 

[Mikey Radio]

But she added that something needed to be done about rampant misinformation in media:

I think everyone agrees on this point. Beyond that very basic point, however, the stickler is that everyone has their own opinion about which side is lying, and who is actually speaking the "truth", depending on where one gets their news, which political party or ideology or candidate they're most closely associated with, etc.

According to this columnist, it's quite obviously the left and their lies and disinformation are destroying the nation:

A society infected with lies cannot long endure * WorldNetDaily * by Laura Hollis

Laura Hollis: 'We should be able to count on our journalists to do serious investigative work'

www.wnd.com

 

[gr8oldies]

I think everyone agrees on this point. Beyond that very basic point, however, the stickler is that everyone has their own opinion about which side is lying, and who is actually speaking the "truth", depending on where one gets their news, which political party or ideology or candidate they're most closely associated with, etc.

According to this columnist, it's quite obviously the left and their lies and disinformation are destroying the nation:

A society infected with lies cannot long endure * WorldNetDaily * by Laura Hollis

Laura Hollis: 'We should be able to count on our journalists to do serious investigative work'

www.wnd.com

Shorter: Our Lord and Savior, God's Chosen President and World's Most Perfect Man, Donald Trump is as pure as the driven snow, has never done anything wrong and any and all criticism is a lie. Meanwhile, uppity black people still have a problem with racism when it has all been solved. Mmmm kay

 

[TheBigA]

According to this columnist, it's quite obviously the left and their lies and disinformation are destroying the nation:

You think it's just a problem in politics? Every day I see people with no knowledge or facts challenging people with knowledge & facts on this very discussion board. You can show them ratings, and they'll attack the ratings company. You can show them laws, and they'll attack the government. No one's listening. Everybody has their truth, and that's all there is. Try passing laws when the people writing those laws are more focused on ideology than public service.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

I can't think of any other Western democracy that allows broadcasters to air the kind of vile disinformation and hatred that characterizes our U.S. airwaves on a daily basis, despite robust freedom of expression laws in those other countries.

They have effective ways of regulating it. America doesn't. The consequences have been festering for years. We saw the first tangible results on January 6. If a line doesn't get drawn soon it's not going to end well for democracy.

 

[davideduardo]

I can't think of any other Western democracy that allows broadcasters to air the kind of vile disinformation and hatred that characterizes our U.S. airwaves on a daily basis, despite robust freedom of expression laws in those other countries.

I can think of a dozen or so with vastly less restrictive rules, regulations and controls... all in this hemisphere.

They have effective ways of regulating it. America doesn't. The consequences have been festering for years. We saw the first tangible results on January 6. If a line doesn't get drawn soon it's not going to end well for democracy.

The nations where expression, even when not contaminated with exaggeration and hyperbole, is regulated are places like Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and, soon, Perú.

 

[TheBigA]

They have effective ways of regulating it. America doesn't.

Because no other country has a first amendment. Just as other countries have gun laws, because they don't have a 2nd amendment. When your country is founded on the words "Congress shall make no law..." it pretty much stops any regulation in that area.

 

[davideduardo]

Because no other country has a first amendment.

But many, many, have an equivalent, either written into their constitution or incorporated in the equivalent of the amendments in the US.

Here is one evaluation of freedom of expression:

Countries With Freedom Of Speech 2021

 

[TheBigA]

Here is one evaluation of freedom of expression:]

Having freedom of expression is not the same thing as telling the government is shall make no law.

 

[davideduardo]

Having freedom of speech is not the same thing as telling the government is shall make no law.

However, the constitutions and their ancillary parts in the nations on that list that I have worked in all have fundamental free expression guarantees that can not be changed without amending the constitution in a process as similarly difficult as it is in the US.

The reason most of those nations enjoy very comparable freedoms of speech is that the principals are embedded in their own constitution.

 

[TheBigA]

The reason most of those nations enjoy very comparable freedoms of speech is that the principals are embedded in their own constitution.

Regardless, our government is prohibited from abridging freedom of the press. That means no regulations over what they say.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And Rosenworcel is aware of the limitations in the FCC and the Congress:

Rosenworcel says the political reality means any effort to update the policy would require action from Congress. And how expansive any policy could go would also be constrained by the First Amendment, she said.

 

[Mikey Radio]

Regardless, our government is prohibited from abridging freedom of the press. That means no regulations over what they say.

That's where many have an issue with Fox News as it seems they want to have it both ways, depending on the situation they find themselves in. They call themselves "Fox News Channel" which would indicate they're a news agency and thus, freedom of the press and would apply. However, when their hosts get into hot water or say something completely off the rails, then that same network claims those particular shows are meant as "entertainment" or "commentary". However, they do not air a disclaimer before those shows that states as much. Worse, if someone commits a crime or does something bad because of what they saw or were told by one of that network's staff, they quickly make the claim that no one in their right mind and with a reasonable level of common sense would actually buy into what they were saying, and it was meant as hyperbole or as an exaggeration.

 

[davideduardo]

Regardless, our government is prohibited from abridging freedom of the press. That means no regulations over what they say.

That was not the point of the original post which sustained that "nowhere else" could people say the things that are said on the radio in the US.

And Rosenworcel is aware of the limitations in the FCC and the Congress:

As is, fundamentally, every broadcaster, journalist and government functionary.

 

[TheBigA]

That was not the point of the original post which sustained that "nowhere else" could people say the things that are said on the radio in the US.

But there are ways of controlling speech without government involvement, which is what we see at social media sites. At least for the time being. That's what's missing now at a lot of these news channels.

 

[davideduardo]

That's where many have an issue with Fox News as it seems they want to have it both ways, depending on the situation they find themselves in. They call themselves "Fox News Channel" which would indicate they're a news agency and thus, freedom of the press and would apply. However, when their hosts get into hot water or say something completely off the rails, then that same network claims those particular shows are meant as "entertainment" or "commentary". However, they do not air a disclaimer before those shows that states as much. Worse, if someone commits a crime or does something bad because of what they saw or were told by one of that network's staff, they quickly make the claim that no one in their right mind and with a reasonable level of common sense would actually buy into what they were saying, and it was meant as hyperbole or as an exaggeration.

"Freedom of the Press" applies to editorial opinion, too. That existed at the time the Constitution was written and the authors realized that they could not muffle the need for expression of all perspectives.

It also applies to saying that you thought a guy pitched a crummy game last night or to a comic strip that covers social and political issues.

 

[davideduardo]

But there are ways of controlling speech without government involvement, which is what we see at social media sites. At least for the time being. That's what's missing now at a lot of these news channels.

But the control at the social media sites is the simple exercise of the right of a property owner to control access to that property. "Shirts and Shoes Required".

There is no law against hyperbole, even in Cuba.

 

[TheBigA]

There is no law against hyperbole, even in Cuba.

Once again, the US Constitution forbids any law. So that's where standards are set by the journalists themselves over what is proper behavior, proper ethics, and proper presentation. That's likely the only way this can be handled here.

 

[b-turner]

You can say what you want about what the media can say today. As a collector of old newspapers, you would be amazed at the stuff that was said in the earlier days of the USA. To judge it's toxicity I'd say it was about a 9 then and about a 4 now. It was especially bad when it came to candidates running for office. When working a radio station, I had a number of weekend programmers from various nations. One programmer showed me newspapers with fictional stories (not just based on a few facts but no facts in my opinion) that were presented as news stories and sadly believed, as my client said, by the masses. Part of his aim for his show was to dispel the myths his community had heard all their life. If I quoted anything I read there, the comments would have me banned (I'm not kidding). I remember that so clearly because I was amazed people believed this stuff and I even questioned if these publications were similar to the supermarket tabloid.

 

[boombox4]

I can't think of any other Western democracy that allows broadcasters to air the kind of vile disinformation and hatred that characterizes our U.S. airwaves on a daily basis, despite robust freedom of expression laws in those other countries.

They have effective ways of regulating it. America doesn't. The consequences have been festering for years. We saw the first tangible results on January 6. If a line doesn't get drawn soon it's not going to end well for democracy.

US Civil War (there was plenty of misinformation in the press back then -- some historians claim the distrust generated by northern and southern newspapers helped lead us to war when possibly more peaceable means could have been used to solve the slavery problem, as happened in other countries where it was outlawed), Spanish American War (boosted by the press), the Vietnam era -- all preceded Jan. 6th.

And don't forget the curious nature of most news media owned by around six major corporations -- progressive writer Michael Parenti was maybe onto something.

Where there is a free press, there is misinformation. And there is plenty of that to go around.