People v. (Fox) News Corp.

[GeoffP]

I'd sign the petition, save that it's old and only has 118 signatures so far (no need to put my name on a future drone list), and also since it doesn't list all the other news organisations. A free and unfettered press... is the first thing that corporations take over when they have enough money. The problem is a root one, and always has been. Unfortunately, changing the nature of the ownership of news organisations is not going to solve that problem.

 

[joepistole]

Beyond that, I'm out

I thought you said you were “out”. But you have said similar before and not been “out”. You don’t do what you say you will do.

Reagan had almost nothing to do with the '90s, beyond providing a mythical "legacy" of true conservatism for campaign rhetoric. That was Gingrich's scene, politically. Fox News was founded in 1996.

As repeatedly explained to you, were it not for Reagan’s appointments to the FCC, there would be no Fox News. Fox News, nor any of the aspect of the Republican entertainment network could exists if “fair and balanced” was the law of the land as it was in the era of “The Fairness Doctrine”. Reagan’s appointees destroyed The Fairness Doctrine, thus paving the way for Fox News and the Republican entertainment complex. And Gingrich had absolutely nothing to do with Reagan’s appointees or the creation of Fox News.

Additionally, also as explained to you numerous times, what happened in the 90’s has absolutely nothing to do with the equivalent roles Gingrich and Sharpton now play in their respective parties. You are regurgitating another distraction – more chaff.[/QUOTE]

 

[pjdude1219]

I'd sign the petition, save that it's old and only has 118 signatures so far (no need to put my name on a future drone list), and also since it doesn't list all the other news organisations. A free and unfettered press... is the first thing that corporations take over when they have enough money. The problem is a root one, and always has been. Unfortunately, changing the nature of the ownership of news organisations is not going to solve that problem.

well its this. link the falling quality of the news to when the news started needed to make a profit and i'm willing to bet you'd find a rather strong correlation.

 

[GeoffP]

PJ, please don't make me have to start agreeing with you. Not on a Sunday.

 

[joepistole]

well its this. link the falling quality of the news to when the news started needed to make a profit and i'm willing to bet you'd find a rather strong correlation.

When has the "free press" not been a for profit operation? Except for a few state and privately funded news services like NPR and The Christian Science Monitor, the "free press" has always been a for profit operation. And just being a noncommercial enterprise doesn't render any organization immune from biased or sloppy reporting or any of the malfeasance you attribute to the "free press". We can all see how well Russia's state owned and controlled media has worked out for them. Most non commercial news operations are privately funded because they are pushing religious or political agendas. NPR and The Christian Science Monitor are the exceptions and relatively new. NPR began operations in 1971. The Christian Science Monitor was founded in 1908.

The "free press" has always been a commercial enterprise. How do you think old Benjamin Franklin made a living? The "free press" has always needed to earn a buck. US news began to degrade when The Fairness Doctrine was terminated by Reagan appointees and Republicans have steadfastly refused to do anything which might cause The Fairness Doctrine to be reinstated.