fayfreethinkers.com

DAR
From a Freepress email:

***
At a Washington press event today, Free Press and our partners at the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) will release a groundbreaking report on the extent to which corporate propaganda has infiltrated local TV newscasts across the country.

All told, we caught 77 local stations (including one in Arkansas) slipping corporate-sponsored "video news releases" — segments promoting commercial brands and products — into their regular news programming. These advertisements, flogging everything from vitamin supplements to porn-free search engines, were passed off to you, their viewers, as legitimate news reports.

This deception is illegal, and it's a serious breach of the trust between stations and their communities. Take action to stop fake news today:

Tell the FCC to Crack Down on Fake Local News

By disguising advertisements as news, stations violate both the spirit and the letter of their broadcasting licenses, which obligate them to be honest brokers in service of the public interest.

The evidence suggests a strong tie between media consolidation and the tendency to abuse the airwaves with deceptive, pre-packaged propaganda. More than 80 percent of the stations snared in the inquiry are owned by large conglomerates. A list of the worst offenders reads like a who's who of Big Media, including stations owned by Sinclair, Fox Television and Clear Channel.

Free Press and CMD delivered extensive evidence of this local TV abuse to the FCC. Our investigation — documenting less than 1 percent of fake news being offered to newsrooms — exposed only the tip of the iceberg; it's likely that fake news reports have been aired on hundreds more local newscasts.

Full Report Here
.
.

.
.

Your graphic tells it all (I did my bit & emailed the FCC to clamp down on that, for what it's worth - and it's worth a bucket of warm spit).

Now for the civil libertarian view:

Those of us who want freedom of the press are opposed to a situation where the government can yank the license of stations that show non-politically correct news. We prefer that station owners be free to show whatever they damn well please. The notion that a station should be shut down because you (or someone) doesn't like what they pass off as news is blatently contrary to freedom of the press.

Caveat emptor - they don't call it the boob tube for nothing! If someone is so stupid they can't tell an advertisement from a news story, that's their own personal problem. That's no excuse to violate someone's freedom of communication. BTW, the idea that someone shouldn't broadcast unless its in the community interest is also totally contrary to freedom of speech.

The State went wrong when it nationalized the airwaves in the Radio act of 1927. Basically, that was equivalent to nationalizing all the copiers and presses and newsprint. Obviously, there could be no true freedom of speech on the airwaves after that. Fortunately, technology advanced, and with cable TV the nationalized airwaves got some free competition. And today the newly utilizable frequencies are auctioned off, so the freedom resulting from private property is advancing to some extent. Someday the airwaves will be privately owned, so we'll have separation of communication and State, and consequently freedom of communication for this medium.

Here are some sources and notes:

The Spectrum Should Be Private Property: The Economics, History, and Future of Wireless Technology, B.K. Marcus
http://www.mises.org/story/1662

The Property Status of Airwaves, Ayn Rand
http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/aynrand.html

Spectrum Issues in the Courts, Congress, and Federal Agencies, David Carney
http://www.llrx.com/features/spectrum.htm

OVERCOMING AGORAPHOBIA: BUILDING THE COMMONS OF THE DIGITALLY NETWORKED ENVIRONMENT, Yochai Benkler
Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 11, Number 2 Winter 1998
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pd ... ech287.pdf



Regulating Broadcast Frequencies, Gregory Flanagan:
"After radio was invented, radio pioneers homesteaded frequencies which were subsequently recognized and backed by the courts which successfully settled disputes between frequency owners. Even though in the early part of the 20th century the courts were recognizing private ownership of frequencies, in 1912, an Act of Congress established the first "licenses" which where awarded to the first claimant -- just like a homesteader. (1) This worked fine, but the Radio Act of 1927 nationalized the airwaves allowing the Federal cartel to claim ownership of all communications frequencies and then presume to grant licenses to those so favored to serve the interests of the state. Congress wanted to stop the growth of private property ownership of the airwaves using the interstate commerce clause and with it claimed its authority to regulate content, i.e.; censorship."

Government recognized the airwaves as being "public" property and leased the frequencies just like it leases oil or grazing rights on other public properties. The original rules were primarily to prevent monopolies of media (as well as raise a little money). Unfortunately, over the course of the last several decades, bought and paid for politicians changed the way things worked to permit corporations to obtain those monopolies - MSM only supports the govenment when government does what it's told. It's been doing what it's been told by corporate ownership and that's why Hogeye thinks the government runs it.

To Hogeye's "caveat emptor" - a program labeled "news" in theory can be trusted to contain news - anything else should be labeled as to what it is. It's just like the fight some of us are making to try and get genetically modified foods labeled - we can make the decision as to what we eat physically or intellectually only if the components are labeled correctly.

Barbara wrote:The original rules were primarily to prevent monopolies of media.

You need to read some of the histories linked above. "Originally," radio was considered a military technology. Much like the policy toward strong crypto a few years ago, the government wanted to monopolize the technology in the name of national security. Nevertheless hobbyists (much like the computer hobbyists of the '70s) ran with it and were building radio transmitters and receivers out of kits and broadcasting. A system of property rights was being established by the courts based on the homesteading principle. But a few big favored corporations wanted all the action (rather than competition with all the little guys), and (as usual) colluded with the government to nationalize the airwaves and monopolize them. The 'Frankfurter' economically retarded analysis that scarcity justified nationalization rationalized the grab, along with said corporations purposely jamming the airwaves to "prove" a free market wouldn't work.

One of the strangest aspects of the official history is the complete economic illiteracy required to accept it. According to the official history, cited later by the Supreme Court, the reason the airwaves were declared public property and required central regulation "in the public interest" is that radio spectrum is a scarce resource.[14]
Even ignoring for now the artificial scarcity created by the government itself (by claiming the bulk of useable spectrum for the military, by refusing to expand the broadcast band, by suppressing FM and other more efficient technologies, by removing any economic incentive to efficient innovation, etc.), how is scarcity a justification for taking a resource out of the price system? ref

Barbara wrote:It's just like the fight some of us are making to try and get genetically modified foods labeled - we can make the decision as to what we eat physically or intellectually only if the components are labeled correctly.

Have you considered using non-aggressive means? Your end is fine, but voluntary accreditation is definitely more moral than government licensure. I prefer voluntary means, e.g. Consumers' Union and Underwriters Laboratory, rather than government force.

Voluntary would be lovely, but the major corporations have refused to do it. In fact, they are bribing, I mean giving campaign donations, to prevent labeling. I don't share your touching faith in the willingness of major corporations to do the "right thing".

Barbara wrote:Voluntary would be lovely, but the major corporations have refused to do it [accreditation].

Tell me, Barbara, which major electronic corporations refuse to use Underwriters Laboratories for retail products? I think you'd be hard put to find any electronic devices sold at Wal-Mart that don't have UL accreditation. So much for voluntary won't work.

Barbara wrote:I don't share your touching faith in the willingness of major corporations to do the "right thing".

You should know me better than that by now. I, too, have little faith in people/firms doing the right thing for no reason at all. I put more "trust" in incentives. If most people won't buy (or most retailers won't buy) electronic devices unless they are accredited, then it is in the interest of the firm to get their products accredited. Very specialized products not sold in quantity are sometimes not accredited, since its not worth the trouble and there is a buyer in mind.

Barbara, perhaps there is not enough buyer demand for GMO labeling. Perhaps the attempt to use government force (rather than the market) inhibits GMO accreditation startup firms - no one wants to invest in something that may at any time be made worthless by State decree. I suggest that you look at Fair Trade coffee as an accreditation model for GMO labeling, rather than calling for more govt violence.