June 2, 2009: President Gore signs the Media Accountability Act

[LSK]

AP: In a Rose Garden Ceremony yesterday, President Al Gore signed the Media Accountability Act, legislation designed to bring back fairness and accuracy to the media as part of President Gore's "Changing the Marketplace of Ideas" initiative.

The Legislation, co-sponsored by Senators Al Franken and John Kerry would lay out stiff fines for "lies, personal attacks, and outright slander" coming from media pundits and journalists according to White House Spokesman Sam Seder. Fines ranging from $100,000 to $10,000,000 would go directly to the Public Financing of Elections Fund, created last month with passage of the Public Financing Act of 2009.

Vice President Barack Obama called the legislation "long overdue". Secretary of State Bill Clinton, traveling in the middle east with National Security Adviser Valery Plame Wilson, praised the bill, wishing it had passed some 20 years earlier.

Attorney General John Edwards said he was already making plans to create a Media Fairness task force in the Department of Justice.

Senator Franken said he was looking forward to listening to the Rush Limbaugh show and watching FOXNEWS later that evening. He was quick to point out that any media outlet claiming they were "fair and balanced" would pay double fines.

[Flatulo]

1. Censorship is bad.

Do you really want the government deciding for you what is factual? Be careful what you wish for.

Freedom flourishes best when people, even stupid ones, are free to express their ideas.

[Der Blaue Engel]

2. WTF?

Media accountability equals censorship?

[Flatulo]

3. The trouble with facts...

The OP has so many problems with it that I don't even really know where to start. What objective standards would be used to determine when a media outlet has acted irresponsibly?

First, how do we determine what a fact is? As an engineer, I perform experiments and deal with data, so to me a fact is something that is demonstrably true no matter how many times I try it - the outcome is always the same. I no longer have to test for gravity, because the experiment has been done so many times that everyone knows that it is there. It is simply indisputable.

In politics and public opinion, facts are pretty slippery.

For example, many people here believe that 9/11 was a LIHOP or a MIHOP event. To them the facts are clear. But I daresay that a great many Americans do not believe this to be true. I personally believe that the facts do not support such an allegation. There may be circumstantial evidence (Ashcroft refused to fly on public planes, Bush Knew, etc) but nothing rising to the standard of absolute certainty.

Who is right? There is no objective standard by which to ascertain the truth in this case - at least not right now. So should the media be required by law to report that 9/11 was an inside job just because a non-insignificant number of people believe it to be so?

SO now we come to enforcement. Who would enforce the OP's law? Presumably the government, since they are in the law enforcement business. But governments change, and so does the position they occupy on the political spectrum. So enforcement would be a function of who is in power. Hardly an objective standard.

On this board alone there is significant disagreement as to whether Venezuela's RCTV should have been closed. This discussion has been raging for days. And that's a good thing. Do you want beurecrats deciding how this story should be reported, or do you want to have access to a wide variety of opinions on the issue so that you can make up your own mind? I want to have access to opinion and news from both sides of the political spectrum, thanks very much. What the OP proposes is the subjectivization of the news.

Media accountability is easy on some things - if CNN reports that there has been a plane crash in Arizona, and it is demonstrably false, then this is easy to prove. But what if they announce that there are "massive protests" against whatever. What does "massive" mean? Subjectivity has been introduced into the reporting. Who woudl decide if they have crossed the line?

Now we move onto the "personal attacks" clause of the OP. Senator Franken would be the first to be charged and convicted for publishing a book titled "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar". I think that rises to the level of a personal attack, don't you? Do you think Senator Franken should be prosecuted for publishing such a book?

I will fight to the death for the right of every blathering idiot, from both the right and the left, to say whatever they want. Censorship is bad.

[1932]

7. I think the OP is a little crazy, however, telling lies is pretty bad too, and the balance

has shifted way over to a media that tells lies all the time to promote a mood that is making America a terrible global citizen and turning the American working and middle class into debt slaves.

It would be nice if SOMETHING happend that would tilt the balance to more honesty in the media.

[DFW]

4. Nice as long as we get to be the dictator, as Bush would put it.

The danger with this is that it pretty much says that what we want
is OK to print or broadcast. While it's soothing as long as we get
to hear what we want to hear, it would set a dangerous precedent if
another Bush Lite regime gets into power. Whereas a Gore/Obama
administration might use such a law to clean things up, a Thompson/
Giuliani administration would use it in a way that might make Putin
jealous.

Under Franco, Spain's law on freedom of the press said you could print
anything "no atente al Estado," or "not against the state." Fine, as long
as WE are the state, but Bush thinks he's the state now-- and he thinks
fair and truthful is what come out on Fox "News." He could use just such
a law to shut down Kos, Raw Story, DU, Salon, C&L, and Keith Olbermann.

The trouble with "as long as I am the dictator" is what happens if "they"
are the dictator. Better not to go there.

As for the President Gore and Senator Franken parts, now those I could live with!

[Flatulo]

6. DING! I do not trust ANY government to decide for me what I should see and hear. n/t

[1932]

8. But do you trust Rupert Murdoch more? If it was either/or, I'd take the government in a democracy

because, at least, there are elections every couple of years.

Honestly, however, there are serious problems with the way Americans get their information, and the media is a huge part of that.

I'll give you two examples: (1) my local news all last year couldn't have worked harder to get people to think 2006 was a great time to buy a house. They quoted David Lareah like he was a prophet. WTF? All that chearleading which, I am certain, contributed to price inflation, amounts to a huge transfer of middle class wealth to banks and to Wall St. Intentional? I don't know how you can deny it. If there were independent producers out there trying to get a more sane version of the economic reality in the US across to the public, none of my conglomerate-owned or affiliated stations were giving them a chance to say it. I saw Suzy Ormond (who is, not exactly poster girl for reduced consumption, which is why she gets so much TV coverage in the first place) tell young viewers during a local news interview that they shouldn't go into heavy debt in their 20s. The local hosts BERATED her and said the most ridiculous things lauding heavy debt at a young age (not unlike the credit card inserts I get: "Go on a vacation -- you earned it!" Uh, how have I earned a vacation if the only way I can pay for it is if I put it on my credit card???)

(2) Iraq.

[Flatulo]

10. I don't trust anyone who is telling me what to think/buy/do...

Everyone has an an agenda, whether it be corporations trying to separate you from your money or governments spewing propaganda.

I think we do have a problem with monopolistic control of mainstream news outlets, but that can be corrected by the enforcement of anti-trust laws, not censorship.

[1932]

11. So, you'd like to rely on government to enfoce laws that prevent a few corps from controlling all

media?

Sounds like what happend in Venezuela, but by way of giving an over-the-air broadcast license to a station that will air independently-produced news/features.

[Flatulo]

13. Hmmm, tricky question. I am not a lawyer, so I can't say for sure

that the current media conglomerates are violating anti-trust laws. If they are, then the current laws should be enforced.

If they are not, then I think the marketplace is the best decider of which outlets thrive and which ones fail.

What I am not in favor of is the government regulating the content of news outlets based on very subjective standards of what is 'fair' and what is not, as I interperet the OP to suggest.

[1932]

14. FCC regs are being implemented in a way that undermines democracy

And if you trust the marketplace, that means you trust people like Murdoch.

I think that's a mistake.

How do you think the government is regulating content, BTW? Do you think PSA requirements, nudity limitations, Educationa/Informational requirements in the US regulate content in a way that jeopardizes democracy?

[Flatulo]

15. Murdoch is not the marketplace....

I trust people to decide what they want to watch or not watch. There is plenty of televised content that is not owned by Murdoch.

> How do you think the government is regulating content, BTW? Do you think PSA requirements, nudity
> limitations, Educationa/Informational requirements in the US regulate content in a way that jeopardizes
> democracy

No, I don't think any of these things being regulated jeopardizes democracy.

What I do oppose is the regular calls I see on DU (not necessarily made by you) to shut down FNC. You may think Sean Hannity is an idiot, but he has a right to his views. You can vote with your wallet and just not watch him. Under the scenario devised in the OP, an extremely subjective decision could be made by a beaurocrat to silence him. That would be a terrible wrong, in my opinion.

In the marketplace of ideas, everyone should be able to sell their product.

[1932]

16. If he buys Down Jones, he will be the picture in the dictionary next to word "marketplace"

Just this past weekend I was listening to CounterSpin (FAIR's weekly radio show) and they interviewed a Rutgers professor who just wrote a book about the media coverage of the UPS strike 10 years ago. Her argument was that, although in the second week of the strike, the media coverage shifted to be less anti-union, that was caused by a huge mobilization of labor-rights groups that is very rare. She said that if that level of effort is required just to have a rough balance in the media, then there is something deeply wrong with the media today. She said that a democratic media is incredibly difficult in the for-profit world in which the media exists. Yet a democratic media is very important for democracy to work.

[dennis4868]

5. and in other news....

former president George Bush and vice president Dick Cheney will have their sentencing hearings today that could land them behind bars for the next 75 years for stealing from the treasury and murder.

[NYCGirl]

9. That would be a very, very bad thing. NT

[stklurker]

12. Media Accountability Act

"Media Accountability Act"

Accountable to who? and who gets to define "fairness and accuracy"? dangerous stuff..