Sinclair media (and similar) and FCC, FCC

[jeff]

I agree - there are too few voices heard on mass media. Alternate press, cable, and the Internet help, making it possible for other ideas to get spread, but it's an uphill battle for mass access. This country, for example, really doesn't have a Left, as would be recognised in Europe, or indeed, in the USA of the 1930s. (Not that I want a Left, in particular, but that's an example).

And your suggestion for improving this is?

[S. Hunter]

And your suggestion for improving this is?

Er... It can't be. The american public has lost all taste for liberty and does little more than follow media fads. We are slaves to the media, and in order to break that servile attitude we need a real alternative media source. Which will never happen.

Also, regulation free media would only work in a truly free market economy which we don't have. This is just part of some of the severe underlying problems in the way society is operating nowadays.

[jeff]

I wouldn't sell our country short. Given real alternatives they might show more enthusiasm.

Just how would a true market economy prevent those who already have the most money from completely monopolising the media? Your claim that this is the answer seems to be based on faith. Can you justify this without resorting to axiomatic "this is the right way" statements?

[Maeve_Mari]

Equal spin != Fairness! If it were REAL fairness, maybe I wouldn't mind so much, but if you just have two sides spinning, and allowing them each equal time to do so, then its no better than an unregulated media.

I believe that it is less than equal spin = fairness and more the concept of equal time and access to the airwave = fairness. If given the same amout of time and number of stations, Kerry could broadcast home videos of John Ashcroft singing and dancing, (with JA's permission) so long as the opportunity afforded to one candidate was also offered to the other.

Another consideration I heard is that Sinclair Broadcasting intention and offer provide this free and unequal air time, could be considered an illegal campaign donation. One that the Bush election campaign would be required to refuse.

Yes, his was a documentary. ( see definition for documentary )

Moore's film was a documentary in style only. It was produced by Disney Studios as a cinematic presentation for paying audiences in movie theaters. Just like any other movie made for general distribution. It was not prepared as an independent research report and did not consume public or government resources in it's production.

[S. Hunter]

Maeve_Mari: As I stated above, why only give equal time to the TWO major viewpoints? I would be happy if you even gave percentile coverage to each party, but I haven't heard the names Cobb, Badnarik, Petrouka, or Pason AT ALL on the networks. I only here Nader (<1% of the time), Bush, And Kerry. If we are really going to enforce equal time, it might as well be equal time for all viewpoints, not just the big 2.

[Maeve_Mari]

Maeve_Mari: As I stated above, why only give equal time to the TWO major viewpoints? I would be happy if you even gave percentile coverage to each party, but I haven't heard the names Cobb, Badnarik, Petrouka, or Pason AT ALL on the networks. I only here Nader (<1% of the time), Bush, And Kerry. If we are really going to enforce equal time, it might as well be equal time for all viewpoints, not just the big 2.

There is a process for deciding who gets to partake in the equal time of the public airwaves. Candidates with a legitimate percentage (5%, perhaps? I forget) of the electorial interested receive this equal time and access. And while it does still knock out many a vocal view, I can understand that there has to be some sort of cutoff, else every kook in town will be standing in line for his/her free and equal time.

One thing that there is available to anyone is: cable. I don't know what the numbers are for national cable households (I could look it up, if necessary), but cable television provides commercial access to anyone who wants it for anything they want it for at all. Sinclair or anyone else can broadcast the production on cable. Problem is, Sinclair is not a cable broadcaster, but a lieutenant of the public airwaves instead. That's the difference.