I went on a Fox News rant a while back. Here’s more fuel.
-
Sympoze- History, English Job Markets Off 15-20% More on the grim job market.
- 20 Reasons Why 2009 Will Be The Year of the EbookI don't know if 2009 will be the year, but it does seem like a major shift is on the horizon...
- Atoms Arranged MeaningwiseMore on David Foster Wallace and analytic philosophy
- Email Makes Lying More Likely?Interesting article discussing a recent study. The results suggest that people are more likely to lie to people over email than face-to-face communication.
- More on the "Uselessness" of the APAA lot of buzz in the philosophy blogosphere regarding the APA - Here is a recent installment. The discussion is worth the read.
- Men's Winter Fashion - Men's Style Advice - EsquireClick through to the fifth photo [HT: Leiter] - I'm totally adding a fashion tag for this one.
- Seven Suggestions for Future APA MeetingsFunny post from The Philosophy Smoker. Also good suggestions.
- Women Profs Spend More Time on Teaching, Less on ResearchIt'd be interesting to see whether this holds true of philosophy profs. Also, averages are one thing, but another interesting stat would be, what's the M/F ratio of, say, the top 20% of researchers. And of the bottom 20%.
- 60 Philosophy works in 60 DaysA speculative fiction author is reading a classic work in philosophy each day for 60 days, and blogging about the experience.
- Logic for Philosophers - SiderSider has a draft of his logic book up on his website (all 367 pages).
- History, English Job Markets Off 15-20%
7 Comments
When they’ve got opinion people on they present both sides, so that’s sort of irrelevant anyway. If the administration gives them some of their ideas of what might be arguments on one side, is that really a problem? As for news, the only way this would be problematic is if the anchors are presenting administration talking points as part of the news, and it’s clear to anyone who’s actually watched Fox News for any length of time that they don’t do that. The people on Fox that anyone complains about consistently are O’Reilly, Hannity, and other opinion people, but they’re just more rightward versions of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Don Imus, and so on. I’m sure Chris Matthews has at times been handed statements about what Democratic politicians believe, and his denial of that is ludicrous. Politicians release position statements to the media all the time. If the Bush Administration releases them more often to one network that they happen to like because it’s more favorable to them by actually presenting their position and reasoning as part of the information and actually reporting on things that are favorable to the administration, then why is that a surprise? So I say no big deal. There’s nothing unethical here, and there’s nothing unproblematic in any way.
Hi Jeremy,
As much as I dislike Fox News, I should note that I’m starting to be a bit concerned about the illegality charge. It would have been nice if they had actually done something like - show a memo from the White House to Fox News - and then show an anchor actually reading it. The person they breaking this story purports to have been involved with this activity - doesn’t it seem like he would be in a position to do something like that?
It didn’t sound from Olbermann’s description of it that it was really anchors doing this on the news anyway. He listed Hannity and O’Reilly, who are opinion guys. He did list Hume, but he does double duty. He gives the news for an hour a day during the week, but he also joins in on opinion panels when someone else (usually Chris Wallace, who isn’t conservative by any means) is running the panel as the non-opinion person.
That seems right to me too. So let’s suppose all of the ‘talking points’ were fed to opinion guys - What law is it that is alleged to have been violated? Rachel Maddow says that what they’re doing is illegal - but I’d like to actually read the law that she thinks has been violated.
Found it.
It might be the following.
It’s an anti-propaganda rider that standardly gets included in any bill. It’s been around since about 1951.
“Unless otherwise authorized by existing law, none of the funds provided in this Act or any other Act, may be used by an executive branch agency to produce any prepackaged news story intended for broadcast or distribution in the United States unless the story includes a clear notification within the text or audio of the prepackaged news story that the prepackaged news story was prepared or funded by that executive branch agency.”
(source: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/opfinal.htm)
One thing is worth noting if this is the rider - you couldn’t make a judgement about illegality unless you knew what funds were being used and that such a rider ranged over them.
The 1951 law wouldn’t necessarily apply to cable broadcasters, who, by definition, aren’t using the airwaves the same way that NBC, CBS, and ABC would have been. Also, although I’m not denying the existence of the rider, I would be very surprised if there haven’t been court cases between then and now - specifically legal decisions involving the Fairness Doctrine - that affected this particular ride.
You’d also have to show that it’s being used verbatim in a news story. Since the names named were not news anchors (with the exception of Hume, who is also an opinion guy), I find that very unlikely. My suspicion is that the opinion people are sometimes using them as ideas for their talking points, perhaps occasionally using some of their wording, but that seems far short of what the 1951 law covers, even if it were broadcast on the airwaves. (But keep in mind that satellite signals are broadcast through the air. I don’t know if that counts.)