>>> Well, some believe that. Others believe that the purpose is to inform
>>> the public.
>>
>> This seems to be the fundamental divide, yes. If you think about it,
>> these two beliefs are fundamentally opposed. Either the media serves the
>> public, or it serves itself. Which is it?
> Third option? It serves the corporate world, i.e., the money

Since this is to the benefit of the media and not the people, that would 
be "it serves itself". ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:13:29 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> That's what I'm saying. As far as I can tell, there's no actual *law*
>>> against printing outright lies in a newspaper. It's just considered
>>> poor journalistic practise by some.
>>
>> Depends on the lie.  Some lies certainly would be illegal if they were
>> libelous (for example).
> 
> Right. So if I say that vitamine C overdoses cause cancer, that's fine,
> but if I say that Dr Smith has proved that vitamine C overdoses cause
> cancer, that's libel. (?)

If you *say* it (and it's provably untrue), it's slander, not libel.  I 
used libel as an example, not as the end-all be-all of possible outcomes.

Slander = spoken
Libel = written

There are lots of laws that cover what is and isn't legal.  But it also 
takes someone to decide to go to court over something that someone says 
in order to get it tried.  As a civil matter, most often, which means in 
order to sue you have to have standing (ie, you have to have been defamed 
in some demonstrable way), and the cost of litigation often precludes 
people from doing so.

> In short, you can lie all you want, so long as you don't lie about
> people or commercial entities, or if you do, you make sure that whatever
> ficticious claims you make can't be rigoriously refuted.

No, as I said, that's one example.  ASA there in the UK has standards for 
advertising (similar to the consumer protection agency here in the US, 
AIUI).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 06:39:28 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 6/1/2011 5:34 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:16:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, the most stupidly dangerous thing about this isn't if its
>>> pandering to the right, because that is what is making money, its the
>>> fact that half the idiots that seem to be possible candidates for the
>>> next election, or keep trying to run, now "work" for Fox. You can't
>>> tell me that is good for impartiality, or accuracy...
>>
>> I suspect the FEC may need to get involved if someone like Palin or
>> Huckabee decides to run (Huck has decided not to, though), because
>> there are laws about equal time that FNC would run seriously afoul of
>> (IMHO) for giving someone like Palin a platform that wasn't available
>> to the opposition.  Fred Thompson had to quit Law&  Order when he
>> decided to run for office because of those very same laws.
>>
>> Jim
> Yes, but they only have to quit. Not that it wouldn't be a damn screwed
> up scandal if they claimed to quit, but actually got caught still
> getting a pay check, but.. some of these people are either way too
> clever for their our own good, or just stupid enough, to do that.

Tuesday night's episode of The Colbert Report actually talked about this 
a bit, it was quite good - check it out online. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:01:15 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> Isn't the whole point of news producers to basically produce whatever
>>> people want to read, because it's more profitable that way?
>>
>> Well, some believe that.  Others believe that the purpose is to inform
>> the public.
> 
> This seems to be the fundamental divide, yes. If you think about it,
> these two beliefs are fundamentally opposed. Either the media serves the
> public, or it serves itself. Which is it?

Both can be served, they're not fundamentally opposed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 02.06.2011 20:13, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>>> That's what I'm saying. As far as I can tell, there's no actual *law*
>>> against printing outright lies in a newspaper. It's just considered poor
>>> journalistic practise by some.
>>
>> Depends on the lie. Some lies certainly would be illegal if they were
>> libelous (for example).
>
> Right. So if I say that vitamine C overdoses cause cancer, that's fine,
> but if I say that Dr Smith has proved that vitamine C overdoses cause
> cancer, that's libel. (?)
>
> In short, you can lie all you want, so long as you don't lie about
> people or commercial entities, or if you do, you make sure that whatever
> ficticious claims you make can't be rigoriously refuted.

I guess claiming that "Taking 500 mg of Citalopram a day is good for 
your mental health" would make you liable to lawsuits in virtually any 
country, /especially/ if you're a journalist. And even if it's just a typo.

Post a reply to this message

>> This seems to be the fundamental divide, yes. If you think about it,
>> these two beliefs are fundamentally opposed. Either the media serves the
>> public, or it serves itself. Which is it?
>
> Both can be served, they're not fundamentally opposed.

It is possible to perform actions which serve both. The question is, 
given the choice between an action that benefits the public and an 
action which benefits the company, which are they going to choose?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:42:26 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> This seems to be the fundamental divide, yes. If you think about it,
>>> these two beliefs are fundamentally opposed. Either the media serves
>>> the public, or it serves itself. Which is it?
>>
>> Both can be served, they're not fundamentally opposed.
> 
> It is possible to perform actions which serve both. The question is,
> given the choice between an action that benefits the public and an
> action which benefits the company, which are they going to choose?

Depends on the company or organisation, there's no one right answer.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 18:11:12 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:42:26 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> 
>>>> This seems to be the fundamental divide, yes. If you think about it,
>>>> these two beliefs are fundamentally opposed. Either the media serves
>>>> the public, or it serves itself. Which is it?
>>>
>>> Both can be served, they're not fundamentally opposed.
>> 
>> It is possible to perform actions which serve both. The question is,
>> given the choice between an action that benefits the public and an
>> action which benefits the company, which are they going to choose?
> 
> Depends on the company or organisation, there's no one right answer.

And as I said, the two aren't mutually exclusive.  Win-win is entirely 
possible (and achieved by many organisations).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5/28/2011 5:21, Warp wrote:
>    You know that a news channel is really bad when even foreigners are aware
> of how bad and biased it is.

Also when your president actually starts saying stuff like "Come on, guys, 
your lies are really hurting people."  Or when they're not allowed to 
broadcast in neighboring countries because said countries have laws against 
intentionally incorrect news broadcasts.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 5/31/2011 5:58, Invisible wrote:
> As far as I can tell, this point of view has no basis in reality.

It used to, in the USA.  Broadcasters got spectrum in return for having news 
shows that would inform the public, basically.

Eventually, this changed, when they realized they could sell advertising in 
the news shows.  But for many decades, the news reporters really were trying 
to not be entertainment but rather public service.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message