Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If The Media Would Listen They Would Know Four Things the 99% Want

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
SHRED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 07:58 AM
Original message
If The Media Would Listen They Would Know Four Things the 99% Want
1) Reinstate Glass-Steagall
2) Reverse Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
3) Pass a law that you can not deliberately lie and call it news, similar to Canadas Canadas Radio Act
4) Campaign finance reform

SOURCE: http://www.politicususa.com/en/if-they-media-would-list...


---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SixthSense Donating Member (251 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. #3 is impossible to enforce
too many things are simply a matter of belief... the First Amendment would forbid it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. There is a difference between a lie and an opinion.
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 08:19 AM by RC
A lie is when you know the truth and say something otherwise. Lies can be proved and countered on facts.
An opinion is a belief. False beliefs can be corrected with reality. (Also see above sentence)

So, #3 can be enforced and it is in Canada and used to be here in the United States. If it couldn't be enforced Fox News would not be trying to change the Canadian law so they can setup shop in Canada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SixthSense Donating Member (251 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. There are some clear calls, yes, but...
There are many things that are on the border between truth and lie and the interpretation of what is and is not the truth (who decides?) is virtually guaranteed to become an official censorship regime where truth that is uncomfortable to the powers that be are "lies" for the purposes of exercising power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. "Belief" isn't news.
Non-factual news has no redeeming value, and since we own the airwaves over which it is disseminated, we have the authority to fix it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SixthSense Donating Member (251 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Good luck with trying to set a standard that works
If you ask me, there are very few facts coming out of any of the major news outlets of any stripe. I don't think a single TV station, radio station, or newspaper could last a week under a strict interpretation of the rules you want to set.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Wouldn't last a week? And that would be bad?
Any standard is better than no standard.

If they'd collapse under the burden of telling me the truth, then let 'em collapse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yoyossarian Donating Member (821 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. Well, that's just your opinion...
Obviously there are some things that are grey areas... but when people repeat bullshit like "Obama has never shown his birth certificate" months or years after he did... see the diff, Biff? Or are you still mullin' that one over?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. Welcome to DU. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ineeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
2. Spot on. I've always said Truth in advertising rules should be applied
to political ads. Here are the rules:

Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:

Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
Advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
Advertisements cannot be unfair.

Deceptive advertising:
According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:

Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
Is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.

A typical inquiry follows these steps:

The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer". The FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures - to determine what it conveys to consumers.

The FTC looks at both "express" and "implied" claims. Under the law, advertisers must have proof to back up express and implied claims that consumers take from an ad.

The FTC looks at what the ad does not say - that is, if the failure to include information leaves consumers with a misimpression about the product.

The FTC looks at whether the claim would be "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.

The FTC looks at whether the advertiser has sufficient evidence to support the claims in the ad. The law requires that advertisers have proof before the ad runs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
4. The 1st amendment would have to be repealed for #s 2 and 3....
Banking restrictions like those of Glass-Steagal are a good idea. And there is a lot that could be done with regard to campaign finance. For example, why not a federal law that bans corporate donations to political campaigns? As some states do.

But the notion of enforcing truth in journalism goes against American notions of free speech. Those of who look to Canada for an example should keep in mind that Canada doesn't have a 1st amendment. And has greater government interference in speech, for example, restricting certain kinds of hate speech.

Personally, I'm very fond of the 1st amendment.

:hippie:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Canadians: Unarmed Americans wearing ball gags...
But at least they have the consolation prize of medical coverage.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpibel Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. Citizens United
You say, "And there is a lot that could be done with regard to campaign finance. For example, why not a federal law that bans corporate donations to political campaigns? As some states do."

This indicates that you haven't the faintest idea what Citizens United is about. You should check it out.

Because the simple solution you suggest is precisely what Citizens United says you can't do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. I think you're wrong. Citizens United is NOT about campaign donations.
McCain-Feingold did a lot of things. One of the things it did was restrict what corporations and PACs could publish during certain times of a campaign. For example, endorsing a candidate.

Citizens United said that the court couldn't see how to distinguish that from a restriction on the press.

Now yes, endorsements and propaganda are quite helpful to a political campaign. But they're not the same thing as direct campaign donations. Citizens United did not overturn laws against corporate campaign donations. Tom DeLay's lawyers will argue otherwise. They want to keep their client out of jail. I expect that argument to fail.

BTW, the other thing Citizens United is not about is corporate personhood. The ruling did not say that corporations have the same rights as actual people. It said that "the press" that the 1st amendment directly protects includes corporations. Which is hard to argue -- newspapers were businesses in the framers' days.

:hippie:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
10. If the media wasn't used to push a narrative they'd have a reason to listen. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
13. our media has been corrupted ....it's now media for profit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
15. Just simply for our government to be responsive to our needs
Our government can react quickly to civil unrest in Egypt or Libya. Can quickly promise aid in Japan or Haiti. But huge financial meltdown that effects 99 % of Americans... here's some more abortion legislation and how about a tax cut. Seriously, people feel the government is completely out of touch with the needs of the nation.

Herman Cain jumps to the top of the Republican list simply because he talks about an economic plan. Americans don't even care if it's a good plan. The point is here is someone at least talking about the economy. It beats candidates and elected officials offering the same old crap or birth certificate theatre. People want a government that acts on actual domestic issues and see improvement in their lives. Where is the long range planning for the country domestically?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yoyossarian Donating Member (821 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
17. K&R!
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul 26th 2014, 06:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC