Comments on: Can’t argue with moving images…

By: Tim

Tim — Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:18:39 +0000

Keeping media and government apart Maybe fodder for another Cline contemplative composition?

By: cj

cj — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:01:44 +0000

I think the issue is the use of “public” airwaves — i.e., ostensibly, the airwaves are owned by the public, regulated by the FCC, and that broadcasters hold their license, in part, to “serve the public good.”

That’s why I called for the public to demand an FCC investigation of CBS — using their “news organ” on a public (utility) airwave to broadcast what appeared to be propaganda (Memogate and Draftgate) designed to influence a presidential election. I think the same holds true for Sinclair Broadcasting.

I think it as worthy of FCC investigation as the Wardrobe Malfunction. And I think it would ‘serve the public’ to spark a discussion of propaganda, and the management of a public utility.

By: acline

acline — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:19:21 +0000

Bryan… I believe those quotes need to be there for Michael Moore’s work, too. The quotes merely indicate the “documentary” is not the correct noun and is used ironically.

Tom… re: bringing the web into it

This is happening. I think transparency is exactly one of the benefits of this new medium.

By: bryan

bryan — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:10:55 +0000

I particularly like the use of the Reuters-esque scare quotes around “documentary.” I suppose that’s the same as “documentary” filmmaker michael moore.

But how is this different from Dan Rather’s rather obvious hatchet job on President Bush?

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:29:08 +0000

Dr. Cline,

I wonder how much it really matters to the public today, or especially tomorrow, that a broadcaster (or broadcast TV producer) decides to air content that is also readily available on the web; as many political ads and documentaries already are. Today, the issue simply seems to be quantitative audience and left over qualms of the defunct Fairness Doctrine.

Is there a distinction anymore between broadcast, cable, satellite, fiber … which are all transport for a myriad of content? Public shmublic. Everything goes through the spectrum somewhere. Bundled content is transmitted. Only broadcasters are scrutinized.

In fact, if we consider progress being net savvy, linking, and a greater transparency of the process/reasoning, then why wouldn’t other media attempt to incorporate and replicate web content as well?

By: acline

acline — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:24:02 +0000

Tim… Overt bias on the public airwaves concerns me–whether it’s Sinclair or PBS. Overt bias as practised by private companies using private resources concerns me not at all, largely because I think it is uninteresting and nowhere near as important to understanding journalistic behavior as the structural biases.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:49:39 +0000

If they allow him to stop the documentary and comment as it plays, I'd say this would be fair. But as it is, the relentless temporal nature of television ensures that it's not possible to counter assumptions, premises, and assertions before they become accepted as part of a larger argument. This has been the complaint, nearly word for word, against gotcha! news magazines like 60 Minutes and many other formats that label themselves news or investigative journalism on TV. I have the impression that most bias crusaders are conservative ideologues rooting out liberal bias. So I suppose this bias is A-OK. No, but it is interesting to watch liberal ideologues suddenly become sensitive to political bias in broadcast media with the recent rise of conservative radio and TV. I would also point out for anyone to dispute that political ideology has been a long debated (nearly 70 years) topic with many self-proclaimed victims.

By: Resident Harriden

Resident Harriden — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:18:04 +0000

Just when I thought my opinion on this was too weird, lo and behold, some lefty blogger sums it up nicely for me. A Mr. Vaidhyanathan, guest-blogging for Eric Alterman, says Sinclair should go for it, that we need less government control, not more, and what we really need on our airwaves is a more “serious, bold politically engaged set of political voices” because “(r)ight now we have boring, spineless media.” This is exactly right —- for too long the battle cry has been “but that’s how it’s always been done”. No time like the present to shake up the stasis in the press/media. Thanks Mr. V! http://www.msnbc.com/Default.aspx?id=3449870&p1=0