Government controlled media

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Mar 22 2005, 10:10 AM
When corporations control their media, they are merely exercising their property rights.

When the government is telling the media what to print and what not to print (that includes all kinds of regulations), they are aggressing against them and their property rights. Ultimately there is no freedom of speech without freedom to own and use private property.

This is not about being fundamentally honest or fundamentally liars. This is about the right to use your property as you seem fit (as long as you are not aggressing against someone else’s property).

Lastly, virtually every government in history which had control (direct or indirect) over the media abused it in order to increase their power. It’s what they do. For us, it’s just another reason to watch out, regardless whether the media say their aim is to offer “balanced news reporting” or not.

Fair enough, I don't recall debating the point of whether or not the media has a right to their 'property', by which I assume you mean right to publish/report whatever they want. What I don't get is why Corporations are allowed full media access to the population and the government isn't. How are Corporations a better source of information? How are they less biased than the government? Isn't the fact that they're completely ratings driven a factor in their (constant) inability to tell (what anyone might consider) the unbiased truth?

I still don't see how government 'controlled' media like CBC is somehow violating the rights of other news outlets 'property' rights, or why Corporations are accorded so much more freedom in spreading information than governments.

Lastly, virtually every government in history which had control (direct or indirect) over the media abused it in order to increase their power. It’s what they do. For us, it’s just another reason to watch out, regardless whether the media say their aim is to offer “balanced news reporting” or not.

As opposed to what? Every corporation in history has used the media to what? Decrease their own power? Of course not. So how is it innocent and benign coming from a corporation which answers only to its shareholders, than the government, which is ultimately (every 4-5 years) responsible to the citizens of the nation?

[MarchHare]

As for the CBC... I think any control by the government of the press is bad. How can it be called a free press when it is government sponsored.

"Government funded" doesn't equate to "government controlled". The CBC has the same freedom of the press as outlined in the charter as any private media company does.

If you really believe that the CBC is just the Prime Minister's official propaganda mouthpiece, how do you explain all the coverage they give to things that reflect poorly on the government, like the Sponsorship scandal? And does the CBC shift its bias back and forth between left-wing and right-wing depending on which party is in power?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Fair enough, I don't recall debating the point of whether or not the media has a right to their 'property', by which I assume you mean right to publish/report whatever they want.

CaramonLS said this: “So I think the state has a responsablity to everyone to hold the media to higher standards.” Does that not mean the state is going to tell the press what not to print and if they refuse they will be held accountable/charged/etc? That is clearly violation of property rights, i.e. it’s an aggression. So it has been debated.

What I don't get is why Corporations are allowed full media access to the population and the government isn't. How are Corporations a better source of information? How are they less biased than the government? Isn't the fact that they're completely ratings driven a factor in their (constant) inability to tell (what anyone might consider) the unbiased truth?

See, I never said that bias is a problem. In fact, everyone with an opinion is biased. If certain media believes something, why should you force them to print things they don’t believe in, just to make them “balanced” or “unbiased”?

I still don't see how government 'controlled' media like CBC is somehow violating the rights of other news outlets 'property' rights, or why Corporations are accorded so much more freedom in spreading information than governments.

Government controlled media is violating rights of people who don’t want to watch/read it, yet they forced to fund it via their taxes. Also, it’s unfair competition to private news outlets, which are forced to fund state news media (essentially their competitors) via their taxes.

As opposed to what? Every corporation in history has used the media to what? Decrease their own power? Of course not. So how is it innocent and benign coming from a corporation which answers only to its shareholders, than the government, which is ultimately (every 4-5 years) responsible to the citizens of the nation?

Well, this depends on whether you think democratically elected government holds legitimate power. I know I dont.

[Agamemnon]

CaramonLS said this: “So I think the state has a responsablity to everyone to hold the media to higher standards.” Does that not mean the state is going to tell the press what not to print and if they refuse they will be held accountable/charged/etc? That is clearly violation of property rights, i.e. it’s an aggression. So it has been debated.

Well, I suppose you'll have to take that up with Caramon, as I said, I don't recall debating about it. I think the press should be able to say whatever they want. I just believe that the corporations that own the press should be more tightly regulated to ensure their integrity, like, say, mandating that they must publish their sources or something.

See, I never said that bias is a problem. In fact, everyone with an opinion is biased. If certain media believes something, why should you force them to print things they don’t believe in, just to make them “balanced” or “unbiased”?

So, then why is the governmen't 'bias' such a big problem for you? Why do corporations get to say whatever they want, but CBC is going too far? I also don't recall how/where the government 'force them to print things they don't believe in', where is that happening right now? The Canadian government is forcing news outlets to present certain issues? Not that I've heard.

Government controlled media is violating rights of people who don’t want to watch/read it, yet they forced to fund it via their taxes. Also, it’s unfair competition to private news outlets, which are forced to fund state news media (essentially their competitors) via their taxes.

This sounds like you have a problem with taxation in general (which I know you do). The police have never directly assisted me in any way, so I am 'forced to fund state' police 'via my taxes'. And yet, I see the reason and need for it, so I don't complain. Also, I don't see how CBC is 'unfair competition to private news outlets', as these news outlets seem to be competing just fine. If CBC was crushing its competitors using billions of government dollars, thats one thing, but as far as I'm concerned their mandate is strict and specific, and largely about maintaining Canadian content and programming, something I don't mind.

Well, this depends on whether you think democratically elected government holds legitimate power. I know I dont.

Right, you believe that corporations should be completely unregulated and unresponsible, and that governments shouldn't exist. I can't argue with this fantasy, its completely in the realm of the theoretical and philosophical, no where near reality.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Mar 22 2005, 04:43 PM

CaramonLS said this: “So I think the state has a responsablity to everyone to hold the media to higher standards.” Does that not mean the state is going to tell the press what not to print and if they refuse they will be held accountable/charged/etc? That is clearly violation of property rights, i.e. it’s an aggression. So it has been debated.

First off, don't try to spin my words. What I said was that the government needs to make the media more accountable for bad reporting. That does NOT make it so they TELL people to print stories, bribe pundits and crap like that.

I think Lanny said it best:

Bonus Question: So if there is a liberal bias in the media, and the conservatives are afraid of the liberal media, why would Ronald Reagan (the most conservative of Presidents) strike down the fair play doctrine that media outlets had to live by (giving equal time to Republican and Democratic representation on issues)? Why would he kill the only thing that allowed for the conservative voice to have a fair chance in the "liberal dominated" media?

That kind of legislation.

[badnarik]

from about 2 minutes of research i found that reagan and his anti-regulatory extremists wanted to take away an unnecessary government regulation, which i'm pretty sure is what real conservatives are supposed to do

also found this:

"There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50

Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled "

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by CaramonLS+Mar 22 2005, 09:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaramonLS @ Mar 22 2005, 09:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame Of Liberty@Mar 22 2005, 04:43 PM

CaramonLS said this: “So I think the state has a responsablity to everyone to hold the media to higher standards.” Does that not mean the state is going to tell the press what not to print and if they refuse they will be held accountable/charged/etc? That is clearly violation of property rights, i.e. it’s an aggression. So it has been debated.

First off, don't try to spin my words. What I said was that the government needs to make the media more accountable for bad reporting. That does NOT make it so they TELL people to print stories, bribe pundits and crap like that.

I think Lanny said it best:

Bonus Question: So if there is a liberal bias in the media, and the conservatives are afraid of the liberal media, why would Ronald Reagan (the most conservative of Presidents) strike down the fair play doctrine that media outlets had to live by (giving equal time to Republican and Democratic representation on issues)? Why would he kill the only thing that allowed for the conservative voice to have a fair chance in the "liberal dominated" media?

That kind of legislation. [/b][/quote]
Who is spinning what? Legislation that holds media accountable for what they print means that the government is telling them what to print, because if they don’t comply, they will be charged. If there is legislation mandating that the press must publish their sources, that is telling them what to print. If there is legislation mandating that the press must publish opinions of both sides, that is telling them what to print.

Fair play doctrine was a liberal masquerade that needed to be struck down. Republicans (or anyone else) do not have any right for a fair chance in any media they do not own. And in the case of public media, the problem is not that they are not giving a fair chance to both sides. The problem is that they exist.