[capitalis​tsforever] JOURNALISM AT CROSSROADS

Index on Censorship points out the activities of the privacy invaders have provoked a crisis which threatens to compromise and damage the journalism that is done in the public interest. After a succession of scandals, the worst of them associated with Rupert Murdoch's News of the World, the demand for tighter legal constraints on the news media has reached a level not seen for many years. This is probably not another "last chance saloon" episode, with empty warnings and hollow condemnations, as was seen in the early 1990s, because the centre of gravity in the debate has shifted. http://venitism.blogspot.com/
Because our brains retain stories better than any other form of information, we develop shortcuts to handle all the information we need to in the modern world. The most important shortcut is the narrative.
 The narrative is the quick story that has developed over a long period of time for any organization, company or important public figure. It's the way we store and organize the information. The narrative elicits and disseminates knowledge, encourages collaboration, generates new ideas, and ignites change. All TV parrots use narratives to promote their nonsense. http://venitism.blogspot.com/
Brian Cathcart notes that many politicians, the law and the media itself who were previously vital to the defense of press freedom are in despair. They watch in particular the phone hacking scandal, in which the News of the World has been forced to admit illegally accessing people's voicemails on an astonishing scale, and they feel that the press is out of control and unwilling to take responsibility for its failures. There is a strong chance that the next year or so will bring important change.
The Fairness Doctrine, aka Censorship Doctrine, was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission(FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced. The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates. In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.
Index notes the greater the threat of effective press regulation, the more the privacy invaders can be counted upon to press their claim to be journalists, and so part of the free-speech tradition. They are like drowning men in the water, clinging on for dear life to those who have lifejackets. But journalists, for their part, may be approaching a moment of choice. Do they acknowledge the difference, the better to protect their own interests, or do they risk being dragged down into the depths by the sinking privacy invaders?
And it is not just a moment of choice for journalists. Cathcart asserts the reading public also needs a clearer understanding. We need to recognize privacy invasion for what it is, to accept that a luridly packaged, sensational, self-promoting and at the same time self-righteous product is actually bad for our collective health. And we need to grasp better the distinction between that and what is genuinely done in the public interest.
The equal-time rule specifies that radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. This means, for example that if a station gives one free minute to a candidate on the prime time, it must do the same for another candidate. However, there are four exceptions: if the air-time was in a documentary, bona fide news interview, scheduled newscast or an on-the-spot news event the equal-time rule is not valid. Since 1983, political debates not hosted by the media station are considered news events, thus may include only major-party candidates without having to offer air time to minor-party or independent candidates.
Statists want to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine, and they now have even more weapons with which they can silence citizens. And now they are seeking to expand their censorship to the internet, and beyond! Communications commissars can use different regulations, like localism and media diversity, to achieve the exact same Fairness Doctrinesque results, silencing the talk radio hosts we love and count on every day.
Commissars believe the government has a role in deciding what your local interests are, in your town on your local talk radio station, and want to not renew their licenses based on what they think you need to hear. Kleptocrats also seek to impose media diversity regulations, to force some station owners out and allow their hand-picked cronies in.
Commissars declare that given the new political climate, kleptocrats have a tremendous opportunity going forward to reinvigorate media, to ensure that the public airwaves truly deliver the kind of news and information that kleptocrats need to sustain democratic dialogue and to reflect the great diversity of West. http://venitism.blogspot.com/