And will KHUM now start a policy of only running political ads from candidates they support and from propositions and measures they support? I think they may be running afoul of the defunct fairness rules (which are probably going to be reinitiated by the government) The station could be jeopardizing their license and may very likely find themselves the subject of an FCC complaint.
Very stupid. Air the ad and let people condemn the proposition. You know most of us are smart enough to make our own decisions.
A little history coutesy of the Museum of Broadcast History:
In the '80s, Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly vowed to kill to the fairness doctrine.
By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.
However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.
****
So there you have it. And it would seem the only time fairness is a concern of the right is when someone is doing something that they think it unfair -- to their side.
Personally, I don't have any problem with KHUM's rejection, not the way Cleary explained it. He said he decided against running the Yes 8 ad because it is dishonest, as is the entire thrust of the Yes-8 campaign right now. When people were not sufficiently put off by the notion of same sex marriage, they invented this business about how rejection of 8 is going to make it law that kindergarteners must be taught about same sex marriage. California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell says flat out, that is not true.
As with many lies, there's a belief that repetition will make people accept it as truth. (Take the Obama is an Arab and/or a terrorist lie for example.) I think KHUM did the right thing in opting against spreading lies. If more broadcasters would choose truth over money, our political discourse might improve.
Their decision is. in its odd way, homophobic. Or, perhaps more accurately, heterophobic. Or religiousophobic - whatever it is, it operates out of fear and not out of trust in the people.
It's interesting in its way - this election may be the death of traditional media.
You've got the LA Times refusing to release a tape of a public functions, attended by hundreds of people, hardly a secret meeting, you've got CNN and MSNBC acting as the press corps for a candidate, and going as far as character assassination in their zeal... the death of journalism, and now the death of freedom in advertising.
It's like the country has been seized by a giant illness.
The very people who have been screaming about the war suddenly saying a draft might be a good idea, if Barack-y wants it, he can take all their money if he wants it, because he, the all knowing will dole it back f-a-i-r-l-y, it's suddenly ok to destroy Joe the Plumber, when we all know a million Joe the Plumbers, because he dared ask a question that was outside of his station, why, he isn't even LICENSED to ask that question....
Maybe this is what people want. Maybe they're tired of freedom and tired of making their own decsisons.
Let's take things at face value (per the Republicans): Obama is a Muslim, he's a Socialist, and he's friends with a PLO advocate.
First, there is the Muslim aspect. Who cares? I was in the Marines with African Americans, Latinos, Muslims, and non-citizens.
Please take a look at the mother of a Muslim--US ARMY--soldier, buried at Arlington, who died in Irag, fighting on behalf of that ****head we have in office.
Second, if "socialism" is the ideological polar opposite of the dillweed we have as president, then I'm proud to be a socialist.
Finally, let's address the PLO connection: McCain was part in sending $500,000 to a research center headed by, of all people, Rashid Khalidi. Look it up. Better yet, here it is:
In 1993, McCain became chairman of the International Republican Institute. He still chairs that respected organization.
That same year, Khalidi helped found the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, self-described as “an independent academic research and policy analysis institution” created to meet “the need for active Palestinian scholarship on issues related to Palestine.” (Its archived Web site is HERE.)
Khalidi was on the board of trustees through 1999.
According to tax returns, the McCain-chaired IRI funded the organization Khalidi founded and served on to the tune of $448,873 in 1998 (click HERE to see the tax return)* as first reported by Seth Couter Walls at HuffPo.
The IRI continued to give money to the CPRS after Khalidi left the group as well.
Have a good evening.
PS: If anyone would like links to McCain embracing ACORN, I'd be happy to supply them.
I believe it was the specific content of the ad, not simply it's position. Stations have turned down ads before when they've decided the ad was inappropriate. In the 1980s, many stations refused to run a Global Exchange ad about coffee deals with central American dictatorships in which a cup of coffee turned blood red and spilled over into the saucer and onto the table.
From the article:
”It really had to do with the content of the ad itself, and not the issue,” KHUM General Manager Patrick Cleary said of his decision not to run the advertisement. “I think they were saying that they were going to be teaching homosexuality in kindergarten. It was a fear-mongering ad, and we sent it back and asked them to re-submit a different one.”
Rose, Joe the plumber was a republican shill from the git-go and you know it. CNN and MSNBC did their utmost to assassinate Obama's character and failed. If you think people such as hate spewing liar Rush Limbaugh types shouldn't be tarred and feathered then open your window and breathe some fresh air. You argue that people can see through the lies and hyperbole - I can see through yours - but, I'm still amazed by the number of people I meet who haven't got a clue. Hopefully Obama will get elected and people will become more media and politically savvy. Wholesale political propaganda on our airwaves needs to stop. It has helped to divide the people of this country. We get bombarded by hyperbole instead of having calm discussions about issues. We get fed lies and we have learned to distrust anyone who doesn't fly our political banner. Cable news media sticks a talking head in front of us playing mediator between RNC and DNC paid spinners. We should expect more for the price we pay.
Isn't it wonderful now to have Pat Cleary's skills in censorship brought to bear on KHSU, so-called public radio funded (in part) with our tax dollars.
Too bad their Community Advisory Group let that pathetic little HSU bureaucrat beat them into submission in advance of his installation.
It'd be nice if the public actually had a say in public radio, but such never was and, evidently, never will be.
It's enough to make you want to start your own pirate radio station -- but then Kevin Hoover will just snitch on you to the FCC again, so what's the use?
Judy has always refused to sell to tobacco companies. I've disagreed with her on that one but I respect her decision.
Has anyone heard the ad, or read the content? I'd like to know what the objectionable material was. It'd have to be really damned objectionable for me to support turning it away. I can imagine cases, but I've never actually come across one.
Another consideration: I'm not sure how it works with radio, but newspapers are legally responsible for the content of advertisement. If an ad is libelous, defamatory, etc., the paper can be sued. Doesn't sound like the case here, but it is a consideration.
I agree with Hank - it would have to be so damn objectionable that it would be a no brainer for this type of censorship. The idea that we would be censoring political speech no matter how much we hate it is more frightening than the hated speech. Free speech means having to stand by and accept someone who is screaming at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime fighting against. That is the bottom line folks. Many of us on the left have forgotten this in the name of being politically correct.
I don't like it that the KKK is allowed to hold a parade and spout their crap. I don't think they should even be allowed to meet and exist - BUT - in our country they have freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and the right to hold a parade.
Theory being - it is better to have stuff like that out in the daylight, and not have it festering in darkened garages, where it becomes dangerous.
There are many reasons to protect FREEDOM of Speech.
With KHUM deciding they are the arbiter of what can and can't go on the air, in a paid capacity - you have to ask, what next? Who decides? And why? Is that really what you want? And who should be the staunchest defender of freedom of speech?
Editorially, they could hold an all day 'No on 8' forum if they so chose.
No need to YELL, Rose. As Hank so succinctly explained, the Journal does in fact turn away advertising on the basis of content, for better or worse. It's not up to me, and I'm happy to say we have a solid wall between the editorial and advertising departments.
Is there such a thing as freedom of advertising, some rule, written or unwritten that says if you come up with the money, you have a right to have your ad run where you want it? Remember when CBS refused to run a MoveOn.org anti-Bush commercial during the Superbowl? Was that censorship? Sure, but CBS argued that they can pick or choose their advertisers and I don't recall the right wing civil libertarians jumping to the defense of MoveOn.
There's an old saying, something like this: if you want freedom of the press, you have to buy your own press. The same applies to radio and TV -- just ask Rupert Murdock who is out front about his use of his privately owned media outlets to press his political agenda. Is it fair? No. But it's the reality of the marketplace.
You complain about, "CNN and MSNBC acting as the press corps for a candidate, and going as far as character assassination in their zeal..." How do you feel about Fox News? They've been the media corps pumping out Karl Rove's talking points for years. Zealous character assassination? Fox has led the way -- why do you think yahoos are yelling "terrorist" at McCain rallies when Obama's name is mentioned?
That said, I agree with you up to a point. My wife has become a big Keith Oberman fan during the election season -- frankly, I find the guy tiring in his stridency, but he's just the flipside of O'Reilly, Hannity and the godfather of trash talk, Rush. I find all of it irritating, and I don't take any of them seriously, but apparently people watch them in great numbers. MSNBC has made a programming decision based on the notion that people prefer their news with a bias filter. It's all about money. You could say it's your good ol' free market capitalism in action.
Does all of this add up to "the death of journalism"? Let's hope not. I like my job.
Incidentally, if you want to hear both sides in the Prop 8 debate, you can point your browser to NorthCoastJournal.com tonight at 7:30 -- we'll be streaming the debate at CR live.
And - you are totally missing the point. In the United States the most PROTECTED SPEECH IS POLITICAL SPEECH. This is not the same as saying that a publication is making a choice not to sell ads to tobacco companies. That is a ridiculous comparison and one that so much misses the mark. To censor the most protected speech (political) based on its content is just plain WRONG.
And btw - I will not be voting for prop 8 AND I can still say that censoring the other side is bad, wrong etc. because it is. What next, how about banning candidate ads? What other propositions and measures are ok and which others aren't?
With KHUM deciding they are the arbiter of what can and can't go on the air, in a paid capacity - you have to ask, what next? Who decides? And why? Is that really what you want? And who should be the staunchest defender of freedom of speech?
Well, it's their station so they are precisely the arbiter of what can and can't go over their signal. Now if you want to revive the fairness doctrine, I'm all ears.
Well, it's their station so they are precisely the arbiter of what can and can't go over their signal
Yep. So, in theory KINS could deny your candidate, Clif Clendenen the right to run ads on their stations. And you'd be cool with them denying people the right to hear the ads.
Hank I am well aware that "The First Amendment doesn't mandate KHUM to run ads." You dodged the point completely. This is political speech and not a tobacco ad. There is a huge difference. HUGE.
And Bob is so NOT a journalist. I am sorry Hank, but writing the art and music stuff ain't journalism to me.
So, Rose, what exactly is your criteria for a journalist?
journalist noun a person who writes for newspapers or magazines or prepares news to be broadcast on radio or television.
journalism noun the activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television. • the product of such activity : an art critic whose essays and journalism are never dull.
Hold it there, Bob. I'm not the one saying you're not a journalist.
I'd agree with your definitions there that a journalist is someone who writes for a news organization. A news anchor may not be a journalist - a journalist has to investigate and report... how's that? I don't know how 1:25 defines it.
My argument is a journalist - such as yourself - should be standing against censorship.
But it's not an issue of "freedom of speech," strictly defined.
"Freedom of speech," to me, comes from the Bill of Rights: Congress shall make no law, etc. Freedom of speech is a restriction on government. The government can't tell me what to say or not to say.
I agree with you that media outlets should champion the principle of free speech. And I think that accepting advertising from whoever wants to buy it from you is an important way of doing that.
But in the real world there can be other, competing considerations. To take the extreme cases: A NAMBLA ad or a Nazi ad would be a political ad too. KHUM has the right to reject them, and it might be reasonable to do so, right?
I don't know what this pro-Prop 8 ad was. Like I said, it'd have to be pretty damn tasteless and offensive for me to argue against accepting it. But I'd definitely reserve that right.
As I understand it, we at kgoe have to run all political ads if we run any. So If we ran one time a no on 8 ad, we would have to allow the yes on 8 crowd to purchase as many ads as they want. I'm not sure of the legality of running ads with lies in them. I know that fox news won a lawsuit in Florida that said they could force their reporters to lie to the public. (see Outfoxed the movie). On kgoe I follow the yes on 8 ad with a station ID that includes "BEWARE OF BALLOT PROPOSITIONS THAT TAKE AWAY RIGHTS, RATHER THAN GRANT THEM" followed by the legal id. This is legal and it lets our listeners know that as a programmer, I don't agree with the message. I do hope KHUM is not in violation on this.
Most people don't understand that there are different rules governing broadcast media - I forget the details, but the period of time known as 'politicals' is one of the more expensive periods for local advertisers because stations have to give whatever the lowest rate they have is to the political ad buyers - so no special deals get cut during that time.
I don't know all the ins and outs like you do. I'd hate to see 'em get in trouble, they're good people, but they ought to let the people make their own decisions, based on free information provided by free stations committed to freedom of speech - that which THEY are lucky enough to exist under.
Rose, As is your MO, you obscure your hypocricy in your attempts to accuse others of being hypocritical.
These are YOUR statements
5:26 "They don't have the right to tell an advertiser what to put in their ads." "Censorship from media, which is supposed to represent FREE SPEECH. Bob, is wrong."
5:52 "death of freedom in advertising."
You're advocating that the owner of the "broadcast property" should be compeled to air material even though they do not want to. The only entity that can compel the owner is the Government. So you're advocating that the Government restrict the owner's choice and confiscate the property(air time) of the owner and give it to an advertiser that was not the choice of the owner.
Actually, Not, I am an advocate of free will and doing the right thing.
It is in not doing the right thing that you bring down the regulators and you wreck it for everyone, because the government rarely gets it right.
I'm saying that someone who operates a station, by their very existence, should be the strongest and staunchest advocate for free speech, The guardians of the gates as you will.
Rose, please keep blogging on a daily basis. The local media outlets don't offer the consistant bullshit that is available here daily. (The E-R opinion page coming in a close second)
Reading your bullshit is much more enjoyable than anything else available locally. Please keep up the good work!
Rose,I agree that you are a must read. Please keep it up. You do have a bit of bullshit but hey,we know you believe in freedom of speach to much to edit even the dunb ass (not a native.)
Well, I certainly appreciate this blog because it inspires discussion. Although sometimes threads are a bit hijacked by the delusional extreme leftists (as opposed to the reasoned and enlightened moderates) it is a definite must read. I dislike prop 8, won't vote for it and think the censorship of KHUM is just plain wrong.
Could this have been a promotional ploy for KHUM? I believe it has woked well.
Who "tipped off" the Times-Standard for a front page story? Couldn't the refusal of advertising dollars, regardless of the content, have been done in silence?
I know a local broadcast company who refuses to run commercials based upon content, (i.e., no strip clubs, no psychic readings ads...) but doesn't use it as a means to promote themselves.
And will KHUM now start a policy of only running political ads from candidates they support and from propositions and measures they support? I think they may be running afoul of the defunct fairness rules (which are probably going to be reinitiated by the government) The station could be jeopardizing their license and may very likely find themselves the subject of an FCC complaint.
ReplyDeleteVery stupid. Air the ad and let people condemn the proposition. You know most of us are smart enough to make our own decisions.
A little history coutesy of the Museum of Broadcast History:
ReplyDeleteIn the '80s, Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly vowed to kill to the fairness doctrine.
By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.
However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.
****
So there you have it. And it would seem the only time fairness is a concern of the right is when someone is doing something that they think it unfair -- to their side.
Personally, I don't have any problem with KHUM's rejection, not the way Cleary explained it. He said he decided against running the Yes 8 ad because it is dishonest, as is the entire thrust of the Yes-8 campaign right now. When people were not sufficiently put off by the notion of same sex marriage, they invented this business about how rejection of 8 is going to make it law that kindergarteners must be taught about same sex marriage. California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell says flat out, that is not true.
As with many lies, there's a belief that repetition will make people accept it as truth. (Take the Obama is an Arab and/or a terrorist lie for example.) I think KHUM did the right thing in opting against spreading lies. If more broadcasters would choose truth over money, our political discourse might improve.
I think you are confusing advertising and editorial content, Bob.
ReplyDeleteThey can address the 'lies' as they see fit, they can even be more like Cobb/Nichols than Hoover/Sims in opinion oriented shows.
They don't have the right to tell an advertiser what to put in their ads.
And, as noted above, people are smart enough to weed out the propaganda on their own.
It isn't that long ago the No on 8 ads would be the odd man out, and they should certainly have the same rights as the Yes ads.
Censorship from media, which is supposed to represent FREE SPEECH. Bob, is wrong.
Their decision is. in its odd way, homophobic. Or, perhaps more accurately, heterophobic. Or religiousophobic - whatever it is, it operates out of fear and not out of trust in the people.
ReplyDeleteAt least they're not biggots, which is nice. At least they support the Equal Protection clause, which is nice....
ReplyDeleteThat they didn't give equal air time is bad, admittedly.
So what you're saying is, a private business should be forced to sell advertising time to anyone who comes up with the money?
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting in its way - this election may be the death of traditional media.
ReplyDeleteYou've got the LA Times refusing to release a tape of a public functions, attended by hundreds of people, hardly a secret meeting, you've got CNN and MSNBC acting as the press corps for a candidate, and going as far as character assassination in their zeal... the death of journalism, and now the death of freedom in advertising.
It's like the country has been seized by a giant illness.
The very people who have been screaming about the war suddenly saying a draft might be a good idea, if Barack-y wants it, he can take all their money if he wants it, because he, the all knowing will dole it back f-a-i-r-l-y, it's suddenly ok to destroy Joe the Plumber, when we all know a million Joe the Plumbers, because he dared ask a question that was outside of his station, why, he isn't even LICENSED to ask that question....
Maybe this is what people want. Maybe they're tired of freedom and tired of making their own decsisons.
I don't know. It's troubling.
BOB! YOU WORK FOR THE JOURNAL! YOU ANSWER IT. SHOULD THE JOURNAL REFUSE TO SELL AD SPACE?
ReplyDeleteJESUS. I WOULD THINK A JOURNALIST WOULD GET IT.
Let's take things at face value (per the Republicans): Obama is a Muslim, he's a Socialist, and he's friends with a PLO advocate.
ReplyDeleteFirst, there is the Muslim aspect. Who cares? I was in the Marines with African Americans, Latinos, Muslims, and non-citizens.
Please take a look at the mother of a Muslim--US ARMY--soldier, buried at Arlington, who died in Irag, fighting on behalf of that ****head we have in office.
http://news.spreadit.org/karim-rashid-sultan-khancolin-powell-meet-the-press/
Second, if "socialism" is the ideological polar opposite of the dillweed we have as president, then I'm proud to be a socialist.
Finally, let's address the PLO connection: McCain was part in sending $500,000 to a research center headed by, of all people, Rashid Khalidi. Look it up. Better yet, here it is:
In 1993, McCain became chairman of the International Republican Institute. He still chairs that respected organization.
That same year, Khalidi helped found the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, self-described as “an independent academic research and policy analysis institution” created to meet “the need for active Palestinian scholarship on issues related to Palestine.” (Its archived Web site is HERE.)
Khalidi was on the board of trustees through 1999.
According to tax returns, the McCain-chaired IRI funded the organization Khalidi founded and served on to the tune of $448,873 in 1998 (click HERE to see the tax return)* as first reported by Seth Couter Walls at HuffPo.
The IRI continued to give money to the CPRS after Khalidi left the group as well.
Have a good evening.
PS: If anyone would like links to McCain embracing ACORN, I'd be happy to supply them.
rose, are you voting for or against prop. 8?
ReplyDeleteI'm voting 'present.'
ReplyDeleteI believe it was the specific content of the ad, not simply it's position. Stations have turned down ads before when they've decided the ad was inappropriate. In the 1980s, many stations refused to run a Global Exchange ad about coffee deals with central American dictatorships in which a cup of coffee turned blood red and spilled over into the saucer and onto the table.
ReplyDeleteFrom the article:
”It really had to do with the content of the ad itself, and not the issue,” KHUM General Manager Patrick Cleary said of his decision not to run the advertisement. “I think they were saying that they were going to be teaching homosexuality in kindergarten. It was a fear-mongering ad, and we sent it back and asked them to re-submit a different one.”
Rose, Joe the plumber was a republican shill from the git-go and you know it. CNN and MSNBC did their utmost to assassinate Obama's character and failed. If you think people such as hate spewing liar Rush Limbaugh types shouldn't be tarred and feathered then open your window and breathe some fresh air. You argue that people can see through the lies and hyperbole - I can see through yours - but, I'm still amazed by the number of people I meet who haven't got a clue. Hopefully Obama will get elected and people will become more media and politically savvy. Wholesale political propaganda on our airwaves needs to stop. It has helped to divide the people of this country. We get bombarded by hyperbole instead of having calm discussions about issues. We get fed lies and we have learned to distrust anyone who doesn't fly our political banner. Cable news media sticks a talking head in front of us playing mediator between RNC and DNC paid spinners. We should expect more for the price we pay.
ReplyDeleteDreadful Anonymous
I'm actually about a thousand percent more tolerant than you, dreadfulanonymous, funny as that might seem.
ReplyDeleteI listen to both sides, I ask alot of questions. And I reach my own conclusions.
And I sincerely doubt you pay anything.
Isn't it wonderful now to have Pat Cleary's skills in censorship brought to bear on KHSU, so-called public radio funded (in part) with our tax dollars.
ReplyDeleteToo bad their Community Advisory Group let that pathetic little HSU bureaucrat beat them into submission in advance of his installation.
It'd be nice if the public actually had a say in public radio, but such never was and, evidently, never will be.
It's enough to make you want to start your own pirate radio station -- but then Kevin Hoover will just snitch on you to the FCC again, so what's the use?
SHOULD THE JOURNAL REFUSE TO SELL AD SPACE?
ReplyDeleteSorry, I'm a little late to this one.
Judy has always refused to sell to tobacco companies. I've disagreed with her on that one but I respect her decision.
Has anyone heard the ad, or read the content? I'd like to know what the objectionable material was. It'd have to be really damned objectionable for me to support turning it away. I can imagine cases, but I've never actually come across one.
Another consideration: I'm not sure how it works with radio, but newspapers are legally responsible for the content of advertisement. If an ad is libelous, defamatory, etc., the paper can be sued. Doesn't sound like the case here, but it is a consideration.
I agree with Hank - it would have to be so damn objectionable that it would be a no brainer for this type of censorship. The idea that we would be censoring political speech no matter how much we hate it is more frightening than the hated speech. Free speech means having to stand by and accept someone who is screaming at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime fighting against. That is the bottom line folks. Many of us on the left have forgotten this in the name of being politically correct.
ReplyDeleteMan, that is the real tragedy here.
I don't like it that the KKK is allowed to hold a parade and spout their crap. I don't think they should even be allowed to meet and exist - BUT - in our country they have freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and the right to hold a parade.
ReplyDeleteTheory being - it is better to have stuff like that out in the daylight, and not have it festering in darkened garages, where it becomes dangerous.
There are many reasons to protect FREEDOM of Speech.
With KHUM deciding they are the arbiter of what can and can't go on the air, in a paid capacity - you have to ask, what next? Who decides? And why? Is that really what you want? And who should be the staunchest defender of freedom of speech?
Editorially, they could hold an all day 'No on 8' forum if they so chose.
No need to YELL, Rose. As Hank so succinctly explained, the Journal does in fact turn away advertising on the basis of content, for better or worse. It's not up to me, and I'm happy to say we have a solid wall between the editorial and advertising departments.
ReplyDeleteIs there such a thing as freedom of advertising, some rule, written or unwritten that says if you come up with the money, you have a right to have your ad run where you want it? Remember when CBS refused to run a MoveOn.org anti-Bush commercial during the Superbowl? Was that censorship? Sure, but CBS argued that they can pick or choose their advertisers and I don't recall the right wing civil libertarians jumping to the defense of MoveOn.
There's an old saying, something like this: if you want freedom of the press, you have to buy your own press. The same applies to radio and TV -- just ask Rupert Murdock who is out front about his use of his privately owned media outlets to press his political agenda. Is it fair? No. But it's the reality of the marketplace.
You complain about, "CNN and MSNBC acting as the press corps for a candidate, and going as far as character assassination in their zeal..." How do you feel about Fox News? They've been the media corps pumping out Karl Rove's talking points for years. Zealous character assassination? Fox has led the way -- why do you think yahoos are yelling "terrorist" at McCain rallies when Obama's name is mentioned?
That said, I agree with you up to a point. My wife has become a big Keith Oberman fan during the election season -- frankly, I find the guy tiring in his stridency, but he's just the flipside of O'Reilly, Hannity and the godfather of trash talk, Rush. I find all of it irritating, and I don't take any of them seriously, but apparently people watch them in great numbers. MSNBC has made a programming decision based on the notion that people prefer their news with a bias filter. It's all about money. You could say it's your good ol' free market capitalism in action.
Does all of this add up to "the death of journalism"? Let's hope not. I like my job.
Incidentally, if you want to hear both sides in the Prop 8 debate, you can point your browser to NorthCoastJournal.com tonight at 7:30 -- we'll be streaming the debate at CR live.
Bob, you are not a journalist.
ReplyDeleteAnd - you are totally missing the point. In the United States the most PROTECTED SPEECH IS POLITICAL SPEECH. This is not the same as saying that a publication is making a choice not to sell ads to tobacco companies. That is a ridiculous comparison and one that so much misses the mark. To censor the most protected speech (political) based on its content is just plain WRONG.
And btw - I will not be voting for prop 8 AND I can still say that censoring the other side is bad, wrong etc. because it is. What next, how about banning candidate ads? What other propositions and measures are ok and which others aren't?
Alot of good refusing to run the Betray Us MoveOn ad did us, huh, Bob? All it did was elevate the smear to broader attention.
ReplyDeleteMaybe that'll be the effect here. Maybe it will have the opposite effect.
The First Amendment doesn't mandate KHUM to run ads. Just the opposite.
ReplyDeleteAnd Bob is so a journalist.
With KHUM deciding they are the arbiter of what can and can't go on the air, in a paid capacity - you have to ask, what next? Who decides? And why? Is that really what you want? And who should be the staunchest defender of freedom of speech?
ReplyDeleteWell, it's their station so they are precisely the arbiter of what can and can't go over their signal. Now if you want to revive the fairness doctrine, I'm all ears.
Well, it's their station so they are precisely the arbiter of what can and can't go over their signal
ReplyDeleteYep. So, in theory KINS could deny your candidate, Clif Clendenen the right to run ads on their stations. And you'd be cool with them denying people the right to hear the ads.
Gotcha.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2cf0KXLl-E&eurl=http://redwoodreality.blogspot.com/2008/10/joe-puddles-where-are-you.html
ReplyDeleteHank I am well aware that "The First Amendment doesn't mandate KHUM to run ads." You dodged the point completely. This is political speech and not a tobacco ad. There is a huge difference. HUGE.
ReplyDeleteAnd Bob is so NOT a journalist. I am sorry Hank, but writing the art and music stuff ain't journalism to me.
So, Rose, what exactly is your criteria for a journalist?
ReplyDeletejournalist
noun
a person who writes for newspapers or magazines or prepares news to be broadcast on radio or television.
journalism
noun
the activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television.
• the product of such activity : an art critic whose essays and journalism are never dull.
Hold it there, Bob. I'm not the one saying you're not a journalist.
ReplyDeleteI'd agree with your definitions there that a journalist is someone who writes for a news organization. A news anchor may not be a journalist - a journalist has to investigate and report... how's that? I don't know how 1:25 defines it.
My argument is a journalist - such as yourself - should be standing against censorship.
This is political speech and not a tobacco ad.
ReplyDeleteBut it's not an issue of "freedom of speech," strictly defined.
"Freedom of speech," to me, comes from the Bill of Rights: Congress shall make no law, etc. Freedom of speech is a restriction on government. The government can't tell me what to say or not to say.
I agree with you that media outlets should champion the principle of free speech. And I think that accepting advertising from whoever wants to buy it from you is an important way of doing that.
But in the real world there can be other, competing considerations. To take the extreme cases: A NAMBLA ad or a Nazi ad would be a political ad too. KHUM has the right to reject them, and it might be reasonable to do so, right?
I don't know what this pro-Prop 8 ad was. Like I said, it'd have to be pretty damn tasteless and offensive for me to argue against accepting it. But I'd definitely reserve that right.
Rose, you're always championing the absolute rights of propety owners justified by their being the best possible "wise use" stewards.
ReplyDeleteBut here a broadcast property owner has decided to exercise that right and you're calling for Government mandated restrictions and confiscation.
Bald-faced denial of your blatant hypocricy and bias is your only consistent quality.
...calling for Government mandated restrictions and confiscation....
ReplyDeleteWhat? Where? As usual. Not, you are completely mistaken.
As I understand it, we at kgoe have to run all political ads if we run any. So If we ran one time a no on 8 ad, we would have to allow the yes on 8 crowd to purchase as many ads as they want.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure of the legality of running ads with lies in them. I know that fox news won a lawsuit in Florida that said they could force their reporters to lie to the public. (see Outfoxed the movie).
On kgoe I follow the yes on 8 ad with a station ID that includes "BEWARE OF BALLOT PROPOSITIONS THAT TAKE AWAY RIGHTS, RATHER THAN GRANT THEM" followed by the legal id. This is legal and it lets our listeners know that as a programmer, I don't agree with the message. I do hope KHUM is not in violation on this.
Fair enought, Tom.
ReplyDeleteMost people don't understand that there are different rules governing broadcast media - I forget the details, but the period of time known as 'politicals' is one of the more expensive periods for local advertisers because stations have to give whatever the lowest rate they have is to the political ad buyers - so no special deals get cut during that time.
I don't know all the ins and outs like you do. I'd hate to see 'em get in trouble, they're good people, but they ought to let the people make their own decisions, based on free information provided by free stations committed to freedom of speech - that which THEY are lucky enough to exist under.
Rose, As is your MO, you obscure your hypocricy in your attempts to accuse others of being hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteThese are YOUR statements
5:26 "They don't have the right to tell an advertiser what to put in their ads." "Censorship from media, which is supposed to represent FREE SPEECH. Bob, is wrong."
5:52 "death of freedom in advertising."
You're advocating that the owner of the "broadcast property" should be compeled to air material even though they do not want to. The only entity that can compel the owner is the Government. So you're advocating that the Government restrict the owner's choice and confiscate the property(air time) of the owner and give it to an advertiser that was not the choice of the owner.
Actually, Not, I am an advocate of free will and doing the right thing.
ReplyDeleteIt is in not doing the right thing that you bring down the regulators and you wreck it for everyone, because the government rarely gets it right.
I'm saying that someone who operates a station, by their very existence, should be the strongest and staunchest advocate for free speech, The guardians of the gates as you will.
It is a shame that you can't see that.
Rose, please keep blogging on a daily basis. The local media outlets don't offer the consistant bullshit that is available here daily. (The E-R opinion page coming in a close second)
ReplyDeleteReading your bullshit is much more enjoyable than anything else available locally. Please keep up the good work!
Rose,I agree that you are a must read. Please keep it up. You do have a bit of bullshit but hey,we know you believe in freedom of speach to much to edit even the dunb ass (not a native.)
ReplyDeleteI think 9:34 needs alittle help in the editing department
ReplyDeleteWell, I certainly appreciate this blog because it inspires discussion. Although sometimes threads are a bit hijacked by the delusional extreme leftists (as opposed to the reasoned and enlightened moderates) it is a definite must read. I dislike prop 8, won't vote for it and think the censorship of KHUM is just plain wrong.
ReplyDeleteAgain, thanks
This issue in particular warrants discussion - both sides have valid points.
ReplyDelete"delusional" is in the eye of the beholder...
ReplyDeleteCould this have been a promotional ploy for KHUM? I believe it has woked well.
ReplyDeleteWho "tipped off" the Times-Standard for a front page story? Couldn't the refusal of advertising dollars, regardless of the content, have been done in silence?
I know a local broadcast company who refuses to run commercials based upon content, (i.e., no strip clubs, no psychic readings ads...) but doesn't use it as a means to promote themselves.
I call it grandstanding on the part of KHUM.
By the way, Vote No on Prop. 8!
Well Bob, sometimes it's in the hole of the behinder.
ReplyDeleteHey! And along comes the governor of Alaska to reverse-illustrate my point for me.
ReplyDeleteBob Doran is a journalist?
ReplyDeleteBut what about his naked advocacy of Obama all over Rose's blog?
Hasn't the Journal attacked other local media when they became connected with one candidate or another?
There's the rules from Sims land: We do whatever the hell we want, and everyone else can shut the hell up if they back McCain or Nader or whoever.
Hasn't the Journal attacked other local media when they became connected with one candidate or another?
ReplyDeleteYou're gonna have to give me a cite, there, Bucky.
Yeah, Sims and the 'alternative press' of Humboldt, brought to you by those 'outsiders' from the Democratic Party.
ReplyDeleteThe Journal openly pimps for Obama and they're supposed to be the alternative press? Not likely.
ReplyDelete