Should if the Democrats win in 2006 the House/Senate, PULL ABC license?

[oc2002]

[CBGLuthier]

1. ABC does not have a license

There is nothing to pull at a network level.

If you are talking about pulling the licenses of the affiliate stations, that is another matter.

One I do not support.

[nebenaube]

4. there's corporate charters to pull for electioneering!

After all, corporate personage is a myth!

[KharmaTrain]

15. And It'd Cost A Fortune...

There hasn't been a successful challenge to a broadcast license in 30 plus years. Thanks to "Deregulation", many of these licenses won't be up for renewal for several years...and I doubt memories of this crap will last much longer than another week, yet another year or five.

Also, the expense is launching a challenge is expensive...and multiply the expense by each license you attempt to go after.

If people want to screw with ABC stations, I've suggested a way that could get them in trouble with the FCC and could even cost them pocket money. That would be for DU'ers or others to go to their local ABC affiliate and demand to see the "Public Inspection File". This is a file that is required to be maintained by the station about issues they are addressing to keep their license (a real joke) as well as all comments about their programming. If you've written a complaint to the station, it must be posted in that file, and you have the right to demand to see that file. If the station doesn't provide access, they're in a major violation of their license.

Most challenges and fines center around the "PI" file...and this file is used in determining if a licensee deserves to get a license renewal. Problems with that file can mean thousands of dollars in fines as well as possibly holding up renewal of the next license.

The best thing I suggest is to avoid all things Disney...and let them know it. I'd love to see a downturn in attendence at the Disney parks (I'm definitely going to do my part)...make them know you don't do business with the propaganda arm of the Repugnican Party.

Cheers...

[Lost4words]

20. I do support taking lic from media. Restore Fairness in Broadcasting!

Rocket Ronnie removed the legislation that kept the media honest that had been in place for many years.

The Airways belong to the people and ALL stations should serve their communities.

If a station was found to be violating their responsabilities they could loose everything.

So there was an incentive to keep your lic and or facilities. Those were the good old days.

Back then most TV and Radio stations were owned by members of the community not some fasiast corporate boot lickers for the junta.


Do you hear any anti war songs today? Not on Clear-Sewer or Infinity, they answer to a higher authority,.....booosch and their brain dead followers. Under guidence of Propaganda minister Rove.

Man during Viet Nam, on the stations I listened to,

"Gimmie an F!"

And its 1 2 3 what are we fighting for?

Dont ask me I dont give a damn

Next stop is Viet Nam

And its 5 6 7 open up those pearly gates

Dont as me I dont know why

woopie were all gonna die!

"Contry Joe and the Fish"

[slackmaster]

27. Yes, it was Reagan who killed truthfulness

There was a time when manufacturers of consumer products and OTC diet supplements couldn't get away with lying about what their stuff would do for you.

It seems so absurd now, with the Enzyte ads and all that.

[Lost4words]

50. thankyou Slackmaster, you know what Im talking about.

:hi:

[Timmy5835]

45. Excuse me..........

ABC/Disney DOES own several large market broadcast TV stations in the United States. Like KABC in Los Angeles, WABC in New York, WLS in Chicago, KGO in San Francisco WPVI in Philly and a few more medium market stations.

[CBGLuthier]

52. OK Fine

But you and I both know that is not what the OP meant.

Yes, like all the nets, they do own a few stations.

But that does not change the fact that you can not pull the license of a NETWORK, because NETWORKS do not have licenses.

[slackmaster]

84. That's multiple licenses

Licenses owned by stations that have the option to run the film or not to run it. Not a single license that can be pulled.

[originalpckelly]

2. There are things people should and shouldn't do...

and then there are things they can and can't do.

ABC can show PT911, but they shouldn't.

Think Neo-Nazis marching through Jewish neighborhoods, they shouldn't, but they can.

[slackmaster]

3. The question is meaningless

ABC is a network, not a broadcast station. It doesn't have "a license" that can be pulled.

And if it did I would say no. It has a First Amendment right to produce fiction, just as everyone else does.

[HereSince1628]

5. Well, it depends...can we get a dem Sec State's child to run FCC?

And manipulate the FCC license review process?

Do we even want to get into the game of patronage and corruption to make that sort of move possible?

[oc2002]

10. Network or not, ABC can be shut down one way or another.

The question is if it should be or not, not the technicality.

[RangerSmith]

6. Shutting a network down

because you don't like the programming I would think is akin to Facism.

[Lost4words]

22. No! protecting lying liars is FASCISM IMHO!

[seriousstan]

29. So you support "no free-speech for fascists"? And who decides

who is a fascist and when do THEY become fascists?

[Skidmore]

7. The Democrats would serve better by getting the

Fairness Doctrine reinstated.

[Benhurst]

21. ...

:thumbsup:

[davekriss]

71. I absolutely agree with this

And restore the Rule of Sevens (which used to be that no owner could own more than 7 radio stations, 7 television stations, and 7 newspapers, period -- today it has been watered down to no owner can own more than 45% "reach" into the market, i.e. cannot have the capability to spew forth their daily propagandist sludge beyond, ahem, about 145,000,000 Americans).

We once enforced laws against the formation of monopolies. The U.S. media today is controlled by 6 mega-corporations. Disney, GE, Viacom, News Corp, Advanced Publications, and Time Warner own better than 99% of the 29,000+ major media outlets (radio stations, television stations, and newspapers). That, along with the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (FCC regulation, never a law), is why before the war 90% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11, Iraq could assemble a nuclear weapon in 45 minutes, and Clinton was the antichrist himself, ravaging the young girls of our nation.

Ever wonder why in the year leading up to war there was so little debate on whether or not we should go to war? Instead we just got endless debate on how best to execute the war. The media is meant to manufacture good consumers, who wholly relinquish the power of We the People to the owners of the press and their fur-wearing-country-club-going-pink-skinned-let-them-eat-cake breathren.

[Sammy Pepys]

8. A little McCarthy-ite, don't you think?

Just sayin'

[oc2002]

13. So, there is nothing to protect the American people from any

..outragous propaganda?

heck, what if they had protrayed Clinton walking into a schoolyard with a tomy gun and mowing down children in the path to 9/11?

docudrama? right?

[slackmaster]

26. Bill Clinton with a Tommy gun mowing down kids would be black comedy

Hillary Clinton with a Tommy gun mowing down kids would be theater of the absurd.

Whichever one you choose would of course be required to have the obligatory cigar.

[Sammy Pepys]

64. What problem do you have with freedom of speech?

Look, I'm not advocating for this PT911 business, but this is a free country and ABC has the right to put out that kind of junk if they wish just we have every right to speak out against it. In fact, it's our responsibility to do so as part of that freedom.

[marmar]

9. No. Democrats controlling Congress would be punsihment enough for ABC.

I think they, and many other media companies, are a little paranoid that the ownership regulations might change with a change in Congress.

[originalpckelly]

11. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH EIGHT PEOPLE AROUND

HERE??? MY GOD!!! Hello, you know it is a called freedom of speech, not freedom of speech which you agree with.

[originalpckelly]

12. NINE? Seriously? What are you smoking?

You ought to be be very ashamed.

[Warpy]

16. Freedom of speech is not the issue here

Running partisan propaganda just before the election is the issue. Running what amounts to 5 hours of historical revisionism and outright LIBEL paraded as fact is the issue here. Lying to the public by falsely advertising it as a documentary is the issue. Violating FEC laws by not reporting it as a campaign contribution is the issue.

Had they identified it as fiction, had they identified it as "The Repug National Committee Aprroves this Ad" would have worked.

As it is, American Airlines is threatening to sue, Clinton, Albright and Berger have turned it over to their lawyers.

Some speech is NOT protected, and this falls into that category.

[slackmaster]

23. If it's libelous then let the injured parties sue

The movie wasn't run on my cable company. I haven't seen it.

My understanding is that the producers never claimed it was a documentary.

[exlrrp]

30. Well, the problem is....

I agree with your evaluation of what theyre doing entirely-- but you need to take it though the whole process.
What you and I think about it is our subjective judgement--unfortunately, all this has to be proven in court and I promise you--it would go nowhere fast, just tie up recources that could be used more constructively somewhere else. This would cause a huge fight that would detract from the really important issues to be faced--fixing Bush's fuckups, which is going to take all our nations time and resources.
Go ahead and push this if you need to but its just a pleasant fantasy

[KingFlorez]

19. We're not talking about freedom of speech

We're talking about a deliberate attempt to mislead people.

[The2ndWheel]

31. I want to write a response to this

but I don't know what to write.

[slackmaster]

33. To establish it as a deliberate attempt to mislead...

...I believe you would have to prove that the producer presented the piece as documentary, rather than historical drama.

[oc2002]

32. ABC truthiness for the win then?

There are laws that broadcasters have to follow, is that censorship? Is it okay to fictionalize events to favor a party or group and sell it as a documentary? Is it facist to make a corporation follow the laws? And if they disobey the laws should they not be held accountable?

There is a big problem in the media, ABC is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Lost4words]

36. Freedom of Speech and freedom to BROADCAST LIES is different.

You still CANNOT shout FIRE in a crowded theater. That in a Nutshell is the difference.

Broadcasting MUST be held to a higher level of integrity.

For they reach thousands if not millions in one stroke.

The result of shouting an untruth such as fire in a crowded theater could cause the audience to react or act in a manner that becomes hazardous to all by reacting/responding to false information.

Causing grave results. Thats why its illegal.

Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater when their is a fire is a public service. and that information could result in both the saving of lives as well as the loss of life from the ensuing panic.

But its the TRUTH, get it! And we can make the correct decision given the facts.

Broadcasters have a responsibility to their audience (the USA public)and that responsibility is to inform with accurate info.

Was Broadcasting so bad prior to Reagan? Prior to Rocket Ronnie gutting Fairness in Broadcasting laws in favor of ownership. Not for me, not for my fellow countrymen, maybe it wasn't the sweetest for the station ownership but I dont remember any going out of biz.

I remember many loosing their lic for improprities, double billing, payola and other reasons.

My gripe is primarily with news programs and the 24 hour news stations. Thats where I want truth. Not INFOtainment, or canned news blurbs provided by the WH and broadcasters paid to push a government position.

[slackmaster]

39. There is no law against broadcasting lies per se

You still CANNOT shout FIRE in a crowded theater.

Sure you can, if the circumstances and context are appropriate. I've personally seen and heard comedian George Carlin do it just to point out the absurdity of the blanket statement that one can't do it.

Someone has to be able to prove that the lie was intentional and caused injury, then a civil case can be made.

The result of shouting an untruth such as fire in a crowded theater could cause the audience to react or act in a manner that becomes hazardous to all by reacting/responding to false information.

Causing grave results. Thats why its illegal.

What "grave results" do you think may arise from which untruths you perceived in the film? (I haven't seen it, so please be specific.)

[Lost4words]

47. so if nobody gets physically hurt lies are OK?

Sure you can, if the circumstances and context are appropriate. I've personally seen and heard comedian George Carlin do it just to point out the absurdity of the blanket statement that one can't do it.

Well I guess George Carlin in this case sets the legal president here. That must be the truth and you must be correct in your argument.
I therefor shall excuse myself and defer to your extensive legal knowledge.

8643

[slackmaster]

63. Where did I say someone had to be physically hurt?

:shrug:

Well I guess George Carlin in this case sets the legal president here. That must be the truth and you must be correct in your argument.
I therefor shall excuse myself and defer to your extensive legal knowledge.

You might try looking up the definitions of libel and slander rather than excoriating me for being a stickler for concise language.

http://dictionary.law.com

[davekriss]

72. What "grave results"? More soldiers sent to their graves

You speak of "in the right context" in your post, slackmaster, yet you appear to refuse to factor the context of presenting a "docudrama" that paints a false picture of the events surrounding 9-11 in a manner that clearly benefits the Republican junta just 7 weeks before the midterm elections.

I posit if the Republicans retain the Senate and House we will witness more illegal and immoral imperial adventures by the Bush Regime. Those would be pretty "grave" results.

[slackmaster]

81. Sorry, but your personal opinion won't get very far in court

To make a case for libel or slander, you have to be able to show actual damages in an objective manner.

[davekriss]

82. This is a case of...

...there oughtta' be a law! There should be other curtailments to the First Admendment too. For example, I would love to see broadcasters constrained by yet another FCC regulation, one requiring that the broadcaster provide free time for all political candidates that can muster an agreed number of signatures on petition. Political candidates would be restricted to use of this free time and no more. This would go a great step toward eliminating the anti-democratic effect of money on our political system. This, too, is a restriction on unfettered "free speech".

Many posters on this thread respond in effect that the First Admendment is sancrosanct, we cannot regulate speech at all, not of individuals and not of corporations. I don't agree. I repeat the AJ Liebling quote, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one". That is, if we cede our democratic power to the already powerful. On this point (and others not made here), we have two votes in America: The dollar vote, and the democratic vote. Those of us with more dollars get to vote more than those with less. Little gets on the agenda of the democratic vote unless it first passes the dollar vote -- money thus frames the agenda. This hierarchical cooptation of power is anti-democratic; increasingly so as the technical means to influence the democratic vote improves.

The "dollar vote" over the last 25 years has resulted in a steady dismantling of regulation designed to preserve the public trust, a trust which has increasingly been trumped by private interest. I can cite regulation after regulation if you'd like (when time permits). Germane here is the resulting consolidation of corporate media into the hands of a very few large corporations and elimination of regulations like the Fairness Doctrine.

When the Board of Directors of a media conglomerate chooses its Chairman of the Board, they no doubt choose someone who they believe will make money for them. But, without getting into the philosophy and psychology of the "Other" (hey, read some Julia Kristeva), they are heavily biased toward electing someone that shares their interests and values, someone that will preserve what they believe in.

When the Chairman selects his CEO, he chooses someone not too distant from his own values; when the CEO chooses his executives, he does the same; when the executives choose their editors, they do the same, and on down the line. The result is an organization with a bias: A bias toward supporting the interests, values, and vision of its owners. When the media is predominantly owned by 6 mega-corporations, it is their interests that frame the permissible agenda, and thus we get what we see today.

Think of it: Is an editor likely to run a story that will hurt the interests of the organization's owners? Absolutely not. (I don't claim that this system-conserving bias is absolute -- there's always the Watergate example, and there is much room for wiggle -- but in general this is true.)

Prior to the Reagan-inspired march to deregulation and subsequent media consolidation, a great many balance sheets were competing for every media dollar; each had to find its own voice in the wilderness and each hoped their voice would thrive (and so the organization would survive). The result of this regulatory-forced competition? Well, slap my side silly! A Darwinian march to an economically stable strategy: A "liberal" media!!!! Not a FOX, just the sane voice of a Walter Cronkite! (I put "liberal" in quotes, note, because the truth is we had a system-supportive centrist media prior to deregulation instead of the ideologically inspired mess we have today.)

Now take away the regulatory safeguarding of the public trust. Take away the Rule of Sevens, the Fairness Doctrine, the enforcement of anti-trust laws, and what happens? Mergers, consolidations -- less competition -- and an increased monopolization of the agenda to the needs and interests of a few.

Furthermore: What is the value proposition of a corporate media company? What product do they take to market? It's not news, not the 30 minute show that comes on at 6 pm. It's you and me. The purpose of news, freed from its mandated function to inform in the name of the public trust, is to contribute to the corporation's bottom line with the same ruthlessness as required of the other 23.5 hours of entertainment programming. It does so by packaging audiences and selling them to advertisers. News, in the absence of its regulatory mandate to inform, becomes entertainment. Thus was birthed the phemomena of Fox News!

Now, instead of news, we get (what for some) is an entertaining mouthpiece for conservative Rupport Murdoch; and UPI is owned by the moonies!! That's news for ya!! FOX:

The fetishism of the commodity — the domination of society by “intangible as well as tangible things” — attains its ultimate fulfillment in the spectacle, where the real world is replaced by a selection of images which are projected above it, yet which at the same time succeed in making themselves regarded as the epitome of reality.
-- Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle

[slackmaster]

83. Just curious, have you seen Oliver Stone's "Thirteen Days"?

If so, what did you think about its speculative portrayals about what went on inside the Nixon White House?

[davekriss]

85. No I haven't, but let me guess...

...you offer that up as an equivalent "docudrama" of similar circumstances? To the best of my knowledge it wasn't shown 7 weeks in advance of an election involving Nixon's party and shown on a broadcast network with 45% market reach capability (the ability to reach 145 million Americans).

Quid quo pro, if ABC was forced to show next Sunday and Monday Loose Change and 911: Path to Truth, I could live with that. You are apologizing for blatant electioneering-propagandizing on the part of the major media, a $40 million show with no commercials -- when will the Left have similar access?

[rinsd]

91. Loose Change is a pile of crap. Even Path to 9-11 was more factual

And that is saying a whole lot.

[davekriss]

92. So was The Path to 9-11

That was my point. If the Right is afforded the right to air their polemics and propaganda, we should insist Left has that same right. Fair and balanced, dontcha' know?

[Lost4words]

43. Freedom of speech is always limited, I cannot say to you what I want.

There are rules in place at DU and moderators, and thats done for the good of all, to improve the experience for all and to maintain a level of civility in this forum.

You are, IMO, hanging on to a very week limb. Freedom of Speech has always had limits and boundaries it simply is not a blanket right for anybody.

Particularly corporate broadcasters who can influence so many at one time.

You are free to lie to me, but if I do something based on your lie that causes injury or harm, I am still free to sue the crap out of you.

I'll bet you think your vote counts dont you?

[davekriss]

73. Further, 8643,

corporations shouldn't be considered "persons" with the same rights as you and I. They are aggregations of economic power and as such should be regulated in ways that temper the tendency of power to accumulate around the already powerful. Otherwise you get...exactly what we have today, the birthing of transnational feudalism where We the People surf to serfdom despite 500 channels showing us American Gladiator and 499 other mind-numbing examples of free speech.

[Warpy]

14. OTHER

Tie ABC/Disney up with investigations and lawsuits, cost them even more than the $40 million contribution to the RNC, which is what that propaganda actually was, investigate and publish the money trail, hit them with massive fines, cost their stockholders dividends for several years to the point that there's a stockholder revolt and management is ousted.

Enforcing antitrust laws across the mdeia is also recommended.

In other words, theres's better way than depriving the country of one of three major broadcast networks. Some people actually like the crap they put on.

[oc2002]

34. that is just another way of holding them accountable, just not as direct.

I would favor all of the above and more.

[nosillies]

17. Lately I've been feeling like I've missed something

Now I know -- someone forgot to send me the memo that said progressives support censorship.
:sarcasm:

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, no matter which side of the aisle you're on.

[davekriss]

74. This progressive strongly favors

the Fairness Doctrine, the Rule of Sevens, enforcement of anti-trust laws, democratically determined laws and regulations that brake the tendency in capitalism for advantage to roll toward the already advantaged.

[meganmonkey]

18. I am truly flabbergasted

Yeah, let's play meet the new boss...same as....well, y'all know how it goes.

:scared:

[Lost4words]

53. The OLD boss wasnt like the new boss,

The founding fathers of our country didnt want the old boss ever again and did all they could to prevent what has occurred in the USA. they just didnt count on the idiot box.

[William769]

24. Since when did we start using Republican tactics?

[ProfessorGAC]

25. No. Shouldn't Even Need To Ask

It's a ridiculous notion. The first ammendment is in place to tell the gov't what they cannot do in regards to privately funded speech. Your speech, my speech, ABC's speech, and the producers' and director's speech of that piece of drivel aired the last two nights.
It's all protected. The gov't cannot tell them what to say, nor should they be allowed to do so.

I think the fact the WE right here at DU have the right to inform readers of this website that the miniseries was grossly fabricated and that ABC is complicit is the reason why we can't have gov't censoring speech. And any attempt of the gov't to pull a license, no matter the egregiousness of the propaganda, is no different than the gov't coming here and deleting posts with opinions they don't like.
The Professor

[davekriss]

76. ABC is not exactly "private" in the way you and I are "private"

It is a corporation, an aggregation of economic power, one that hugely profits off the public common known as the airwaves in exchange for a modicum of regulation. It would serve us well to stop granting corporations the same rights as persons, they are not persons -- they are capable of public damage far beyond what any of us can do as individuals. It is not anti-progressive to call for regulation of the behemoths that otherwise freely roll over us as individuals.

If regulating the speech of a broadcaster with major market reach is anti-progressive, then can you tell me how it is any more progressive to regulate their financial reporting via the SEC?

[exlrrp]

28. Nice thought but not going to happen

nor should it. corporations have the right to freedom of speech too, unfortunately but there it is.
When we win lets concentrate on righting the wrongs of the Bush administration, not petty vengeance.

[davekriss]

35. To those who say ABC should have the right to...

...broadcast whatever they want. I disagree. We the People granted them the priviledge of broadcasting over the public commons (we own the airwaves) and can set any limitations or requirements we want. They make huge profits off this public largesse, it is only fair they meet our democratically determined conditions. These conditions might be no covert propoganda 6 months before an election, or the equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine and Rule of Sevens. With regard to the Fairness Doctrine, the creators of such documentaries as Loose Change and 911: Path to Truth (may not have the latter title right, but the recent documentary centered around the 4 New Jersey wives' pursuit of truth). Otherwise we have "freedom" for the corporate boardroom and "serfdom" for the rest of us.

Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there
government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and
life and property are his who can take them.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Annapolis Citizens, 1809

[slackmaster]

40. I haven't seen anyone say that

they should be able to broadcast whatever they want.

Nice straw man.

[davekriss]

48. slackmaster, not straw man, but poll choice

the second choice says ABC should eb able to broadcast whatever they want. That's what I refer to. I disagree with that sentiment.

On edit: As of this post, 19 people have chosen, and thereby said, ABC has the right to broadcast whatever they want.

[slackmaster]

62. My response to the poll was that the question was meaningless

And for the record no, they don't have the right to broadcast whatever they want.

[exlrrp]

42. where you go astray

"To those who say ABC should have the right to broadcast whatever they want..." Its not at all about whether they should have the right or not to broadcast whatever they want. They aalready DO have the right to broadcast virtually whatever they want, given to them in the constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court)Like it or not, thats the fact and what youre proposing is to censor them for political reasons. I dislike them and what they do as much as you do but the Constitution definitely protects them here. An assault on their rights and censorship is an attack against our rights too. When you say they can't run this movie youre also saying Moore's 911 movie can't be aired on the media
Count me out! Thats what Bushco does and I don't want to be a part of it or the side I support to be part of it.

[davekriss]

77. Note that the media

refused to run F911 over the airwaves in 2004, claiming that it would be unfair right before the election. Are we witnessing fair play now?

On your point, yes, the SCOTUS granted personhood to corporations over a hundred years ago (in a controversial case where the clerk wrote a brief summary opinion that reached beyond what the justices ruled, yet the clerk's opinion prevailed). That doesn't mean I shouldn't advocate for reversal, for new democratically agreed brakes on the already advantaged, which is what I do on this thread.

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one" (AJ Liebling), a truism in this modern age of near-monopoly media. You can stick to a narrow understanding of the rights intended in the Constitution, meanwhile you will continue to witness the rise of a fascist-authoritarian state all around you. Someday you might even get to speak freely to an audience of zero in Guantanamo. Meanwhile I'll speak to change -- progressive change, one that seeks to use democratic institutions to counter the power of economic institutions.

[TexasProgresive]

37. No and you left no other option

The real answer is to reestablish the fairness doctrine and to enact anti-trust action against all media giants. And to reestablish that the airwaves are a public trust. The use of frequencies needs to be retied to a sense of public service.

[rpannier]

38. No

ABC and its affiliates have the right to show what they want...they have their rights to free speech as well.
When we narrow the range of free speech, we all become threatened. I don't like what Nazis and other rabid fanatics have to say, but their right to free speech is mine too.
It's why I belong to the ACLU.

[cigsandcoffee]

41. Of course not.

Any attempt to do anything like that would backfire in dramatic order, and make Democrats look like censorship nazis.

[Nye Bevan]

44. Amazing, and somewhat chilling

that 51% have voted yes.

Having lived in the US many years I have come to appreciate that the First Amendment is one of the very best things about this country.

Pull the license of ABC because they run a movie that criticizes Bill Clinton? Please.

Are any of the yes votes not worried about the precedent this would set? Do you want the repukes to be able to shut down Air America if they are too hard on the chimp?

[Armstead]

46. I voted No -- But the Dems should initate real media reform

It would be silly to pull ABC's license over an idiot show. We shouldn't be supporting censorship. That's what the right-wing does.

HOWEVER, this oiught to be a wake up call to the whole damn country aboiut the inevitable results of "deregulatin" that has allowed big Corportions like Disney and Clear Channel and Time Warner to totally monopolize the media.

We have to get back to having more diverse ownership of the media. Trust Busting is necessary.

Censorship - no. Media Reform -- Absolutely necessary.

[Nye Bevan]

51. I don't really feel that the media is monopolized any more

When I was a kid I had 2 TV channels to get my news from.

Now I get it from DU, Buzzflash, the NYT and the Guardian online, with commentary and insight from Digby, Kevin Drum, Kos and (of course) other DUers.

Nobody has a monopoly and there is no need to run around trying to close down news outlets.

[Armstead]

56. Look below the surface

That belief is dangerous. Complacency about what is occurring behind the scenes is how the Corporate Elite have taklen control so thoroughly over the last 30 years.

1) What matters in public opinion is the Mass Media. That's stil true. Blogs and the rest of it is merely a niche supplement to that. It might make people who already believe a certain way feel better and more connected to kindred spirits. But the Mas Media still shapes public perceptions and drives the agenda.

And the "blogosphere" still relies on the Mass Media too.

2) MORE IMPORTANT, when you look at who owns what in the entirer media landscape -- it's scary as hell. Over the last 30 years broadcasting, publishing, retailing, content distribution etc. have been gobbled up by the handful of corporations who own the big media. More cable channels maybe -- but they are owned by the same handful of Corporzte Giants that own networks, movie studios, book and magazine and newspaper publishers, cable systems, etc.

[Atman]

49. I think they "know" that they have nothing to worry about.

This is an entirely GOP production, there is simply no hiding it or refuting. Combined with the commercial-free aspect of it, I cannot see how it can be considered anything but a campaign ad for BushCo. ABC has been reassured that the GOP has the mid-terms under control, and that they will have no trouble if they run the movie. I cannot see how they'd risk their license, or at least some fines and the bad PR, otherwise. In a real world, one with a fairness doctrine and investigative journalism, this would be serious, serious stuff. If they thought it would hurt ABC, every other network would be capitalizing on it, like sharks circling blood. But they're not. Everyone is silent on the issue, no one cares what is going on except, apparently, the crazy liberal blogosphere.

[hogwyld]

54. Don't we all know that speech

we agree with is the only ones that should be allowed?:sarcasm:

[Jed Dilligan]

55. Oh yeah,

that will be much more productive than working on impeachment. And almost as easy to accomplish!

[Beelzebud]

57. UMM Hell no. That would be censorship. I like my 1st amendment.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. No, the problem is media concentration.

If media were owned by 100 people instead of six, they would be less able to lie with impunity.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

59. If revisionist history projects were...

...a legitimate basis for jerking broadcasting licenses, the airwaves would be pretty quiet.

[Fierce]

60. Boy, nothing like playing to the stereotype, is there?

Here are some more poll ideas for you:

If the Democrats win in 2006, should they take away citizens' guns?
If the Democrats win in 2006, should they teach homosexual acts to kindergartners?
If the Democrats win in 2006, should they force women to have abortions, and then eat the fetuses?

Bad grammar is not a Democratic stereotype, however.

[ContraBass Black]

67. "Raise the taxes!" You forgot "Raise the taxes!"

Come on, now.

[WI_DEM]

61. of course not--such a move would back fire big time on Democrats

[ContraBass Black]

65. No, they should be investigated by the appropriate authorities for

Evidence of illegality, and prosecuted is such is found.

Nothing else.

[DireStrike]

66. I don't know the legality of it

Free Speech is for people, not giant media conglomerates. It seems awfully harsh to pull their license, but then again their crime is incredibly massive... they should be punished in some way, but not utterly obliterated.

The last two options are also probably true. Dems wouldn't do it, and Diebold might fix this one again.

[madmusic]

68. Can't believe how many voted "yes"

Support the Fairness Doctrine, sure, but not bullying censorship.

[BlooInBloo]

69. Brought to you by FWFOFOS...

.... Fair Weather Friends Of Freedom Of Speech...


Are Disney/ABC a bunch of rightwing propagandists? Of course they are. Would it be a wonderful thing for private citizens to protest/boycott/etc. them? Without a doubt.

Should the federal government prevent them from speaking? That's just asinine and un-American.

It's easy to be pro freedom of speech when the speaker is saying something you like. But it's more meaningful to be pro freedom of speech when the speaker is saying something you *don't* like. That's what shows you really mean it, rather than simply slavishly mouthing the words.

[rinsd]

70. Bingo, the "threats" & "actions" should be from us not legislators.

[CollegeDUer]

75. Anyone saying "Yes" is going to give DU a Stalinist name

Just saying...

[aikoaiko]

78. I can't believe so many would bail on the spirit of the first amendment

over a freakin movie. We are no better than then :-(

[minnesota_liberal]

79. It's an issue for the FCC and FEC

I don't see this as an issue for Congress, unless it's to restructure one or both to make it more likely that they'll actually enforce regulations.

[T Town Jake]

80. Yes! Why, just the other day Spiro Agnew was saying...

...oh, wait....

Free speech is still free speech even if that speech is augmented by horseshit lies like the ones that flowed from that movie. And there is not any sort of genuine liberal or "progressive" who can with a straight face claim otherwise. Those in this thread who have tried have allied themselves with Spiro Agnew and HIS views of what constitutes "free speech" - and are accordingly neither liberal nor progressive in any legitimate sense of those words.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

86. No, Jeez n/t

[dpbrown]

87. I can't believe this is tied

Pubic broadcasters have to support the public trust or give up their licenses.

[BootinUp]

88. Other:

Hold extensive hearings on politics in the media and expose the right wing tactics the lies, then establish appropriate regulations to prevent this from happening again.

[madinmaryland]

89. ENFORCE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!!

That was eliminated in the Reagan era.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

90. no because they would have to pull it for

all the AFFILIATES...ABC holds a license to broadcast in NY out of their primary office. However, the license to broadcast anywhere else is held on a station by station basis. And besides...it was just a movie...

sP