This may sound like a stupid question - Can we impeach the current media?

[KitchenWitch]

If we could do that, then more people would know the truth.

[still_one]

1. The way you do that is by not subscribing or being part of the propaganda machine

and supporting news outlets that report the news

[NYVet]

2. Yep

Just stop watching it.

Go to the internet for your news from independant news.

[EFerrari]

3. They've pretty much done it to themselves.

Unless they come up with a new business model, they'll be the Noise Machine that falls in the woods and no one will hear it.

[billyoc]

4. Monopolies can be broken up, but it's very difficult. n/t

[mmonk]

5. We should be able to.

They are a part of the administration apparently.

[station agent]

6. How about this, let's build an alternative media

Enough already. Murdoch was right in the big picture. He's wrong about the idea that the media was leftist, but he was unsatisfied about the way in which the media did its business so he made his own media. No matter how ridiculous the Right has been over the last six years, every thought they've had has been given a fair hearing. The left can make no such claim.

I think John Edwards, after this campaign is over, should get into media. if not him, someone, anyone. And lets get a real mouthpiece for the left. It doesn't even have to be unfair, just let's get our views out there for real.

[KurtNYC]

7. illegal campaign contributions? undeclared contributions of airtime?

Fox give Giuliani far more time than other candidates. CNN donated heavily to the Bush campaign by airing Swift Boat lies for days on end. Did they declare these contributions? Hmmmm.

[AndyTiedye]

8. I Got Bumper Stickers

[onenote]

13. first amendment anyone?

[KurtNYC]

14. okay...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

but that has no bearing on:
Federal law now regulates political advertising in federal elections in three different ways: first, it determines who may fund certain forms of advertising (source requirements); second, it sets forth what advertisers must disclose about their funding to the FEC (disclosure requirements); and third, it states what they must say about themselves in their ads (sponsorship requirements). These regulations may apply to any person or any group that runs political advertisements.

http://www.campaignfinanceguide.org/guide-45.html

[onenote]

15. actually, the first amendment has a very big bearing on federal election law

In fact, in order to avoid first amendment issues, the law you cite contains a "press exception". That exception generally exempts press coverage from regulation. It excludes from the definitions of contribution, expenditure, and electioneering communication any communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate. In addition, the FEC takes a broad view of what falls within the exemption, stating that:


"Although the statute and regulations do not define commentary, the Commission is of the view that commentary cannot be limited to the broadcaster. In the opinion of the Commission, commentary was intended to allow the third persons access to the media to discuss issues. The statute and regulations do not define the issues permitted to be discussed or the format in which they are to be presented under the commentary exemption nor do they set a time limit as to the length of the commentary."

[Perry Logan]

9. I think we could prosecute them for inciting the people to violence in the build-up to the Iraq War.

[PoiBoy]

10. Here's an interesting proposition...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x297412

<snip>
The television networks and leading newspapers are the prime source of news and information for tens of millions of people in the US. However, these public resources are in the hands of giant firms, controlled by fabulously wealthy individuals who will stop at nothing to defend their profits and property. The corpses of thousands, or, if necessary, millions of Iraqis, , Syrians, Iranians and others are a small price to pay, as far as the media billionaires are concerned, for achieving American military and economic domination of the globe.

This makes the US media an accessory before and after the fact to crimes carried out in Iraq and future crimes against other peoples in the region and around the world. Sitting far from the ravaged Iraqi cities, in well-appointed boardrooms, the media moguls may believe they will never face such charges. There are, however, historical parallels and precedents to the contrary.
<end>

So... what do you think?

[PATRICK]

11. Things that can and must be done

Congress breaks up news ownership monopolies for the same reason that all monopolies are bad. Clinotn let this slide and reverse so that the easy remedy is way off the party radar. Like the FCC, monoploy regulations have slipped even further into obliivion. While inherently biased and perilous, corporate ownership of the news could be vitalized by competition and mandate to actually do the news, by coprorations not as renegade or in collusion with political interests.

As with the Fairness Doctrine, there is no magic bullet to really do the trick unless you come out and define news as too important to leave to corporate interests. The BBC is another model where the government sets up a revenue sytem to make the media news independent, like the Post Office I suppose. The government with its interests still regulates funding and charter so few things are even by nature fully independent. Alternate rivals as non profits should be enabled. Diversity of outlets and networks in any system is important to stop unrivalled central control of the news.

In the end the people, civic necessity and the facts must be enabled to be the decisive factors in choosing and prospering real news. No one can force or guarantee the outcome but we have learned a host of things that inhibit a healthy information flow and the need for more times when the citizens must get together in awareness and discussion. Part of that should be learning the nature of the message, the messenger and the discussion of opinions as process. The national blindness to the absurd slant of business originated news and the non-news and bad news choices that de facto have divided us without giving healthy news choices at all. The current national picture overall is crippling to civic responsibility and the simplest truths.

[Up2Late]

12. No, but you can just turn them off, cancel your subscriptions and boycott their advertisers...

...Impeachment is just a word for the bringing of formal charges against someone in the government or courts, if you want to get the attention of the so-called MSM, you have to hit them where it hurts them most with low ratings, which translates to less money.

[madokie]

16. thats what I say too