Posts Tagged ‘commerical speech’

Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to: Journalism and Freedom by Rupert Murdoch


This is Ishtarmuz’s rebuttal to : Journalism and Freedom :Government assistance is a greater threat to the press than any new technology. By RUPERT MURDOCH

We are at a time when many news enterprises are shutting down… some tell you that journalism is in dire shape, and the triumph of digital is to blame.

My message is just the opposite. The future of journalism is more promising than ever—limited only by editors and producers unwilling to fight for their readers and viewers, or government using its heavy hand either to over regulate or subsidize us.

No, you are correct, the straw man of progress is not to blame.  Those that think and use old models of thought are to blame. Vertical organizations built on authoritarian control from above limiting the choices of information usage based on a worldview of property that never held sway in the arena of ideas are to blame.  If the old worldview is to survive, then we will all have to become slaves, not only in the marketplace of commerce, but to the marketplace of ideas as well. Horizontal networks are cooperative and share information and profit. This is anathema to old world greed.

Note the thought process here. It is all out war between private contenders. The interference of government imposing rules, such as ‘don’t let the pirates kill each other’, is wholly unfair to such winning combatants as Kevin Rupert Murdoch. The problem with this is that no man is an island and no one does it by himself or herself.  We form an interdependent community that remains healthy only by a commitment to all.

From the beginning, newspapers have prospered for one reason: the trust that comes from representing their readers’ interests and giving them the news that’s important to them. That means covering the communities where they live, exposing government or business corruption, and standing up to the rich and powerful.

A bit of truth and honesty is always good in an opinion piece, though I think it might have been better as an opener.

Technology now allows us to do this on a much greater scale. That means we have the means to reach billions of people who until now have had no honest or independent sources of the information they need to rise in society, hold their governments accountable, and pursue their needs and dreams.

Yes, people need to rise up and hold the real government accountable, all those multinational business interests pulling the strings behind the scenes.  Interesting how a half-truth is so much more convincing than an out and out lie.

… Some newspapers and news organizations will not adapt to the digital realities of our day—and they will fail. We should not blame technology for these failures. The future of journalism … [to] find new and better ways to meet the needs of their viewers, listeners, and readers.

So it is not the digital success, but the not taking advantage of it, that is at issue. What you are saying is that it needs to be harnessed. Harnessed means controlled, but you don’t want it controlled except by the pirates of the old model.  When you suggest finding better ways to meet the needs of customers, what you mean is to bottom feed off the baser instincts of your customers.

…give people the news they want. I can’t tell you how many papers I have visited where they have a wall of journalism prizes—and a rapidly declining circulation. This tells me the editors are producing news for themselves—instead of news that is relevant to their customers…

Rome gave people what they wanted.  That’s it; maybe we need to feed more liberals to the lions? Surely that is it.  How could that be irrelevant? Keeping journalists with pesky Pulitzers working is not the business of a news organization.

His article then goes on for a bit stating how the old business model no longer working and explaining how he is maneuvering to make more money. Then, not satisfied with his empire based on winning court cases, he bemoans the FCC.

One example of outdated thinking is the FCC’s cross-ownership rule that prevents people from owning, say, a television station and a newspaper in the same market. Many of these rules were written when competition was limited because of the huge up-front costs. If you are a newspaper today, your competition is not necessarily the TV station in the same city. It can be a Web site on the other side of the world, or even an icon on someone’s cell phone.

And you have effectively been arguing this in court into a global monopoly for years. You have won the battle.  Now what do you want?  Full capitulation? Murdoch’s business model, like Monsanto’s, is model based on the Borg.  Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

After a few drum beats for the value of “free” market capitalism, he comes to this:

In my view, the growing drumbeat for government assistance for newspapers is as alarming as over regulation. One idea gaining in popularity is providing taxpayer funds for journalists. Or giving newspapers “nonprofit” status—in exchange, of course, for papers giving up their right to endorse political candidates. The most damning problem with government “help” is what we saw with the bailout of the U.S. auto industry: Help props up those who are producing things that customers do not want.

Yes, unbridled free market capitalism can sell you just about anything with the right marketing, even bogus gold coins, insurance, legal services, deadly chemicals, drugs and all manner of products we don’t need.  The needs of the consumers are created in the same way the taste in the news is created by the selective attention of the broadcaster. It would be a shame (for you) for broadcasting to follow a nonprofit model and really make the news independent of politics.

The prospect of the U.S. government becoming directly involved in commercial journalism ought to be chilling for anyone who cares about freedom of speech. The Founding Fathers knew that the key to independence was to allow enterprises to prosper and serve as a counterweight to government power. It is precisely because newspapers make profits and do not depend on the government for their livelihood that they have the resources and wherewithal to hold the government accountable.

You mean like the news organizations being independent of big corporations like Monsanto? Anything that you say or represent when so placed must by definition fall within the purview of commercial speech.

 

 

Mr. Murdoch is chairman and CEO of News Corp. The [original WSJ] article was adapted from his Dec. 1 remarks before the Federal Trade Commission’s workshop on journalism and the Internet.

FOX Newscasters Have Been Reduced to Carnival Geeks. Fox is Not News


FOX Newscasters Have Been Reduced to Carnival Geeks. Fox is Not News

Free Speech is only free when it is not backed by front groups supported by makers of products you are shilling. So the suppression of FOX NEWS would not be an abridgment of the right to free speech . Mascarade news designed to sell products is  commercial speech, which is not free at all. If it is proven that you have unfairly undercut competition by misrepresentation, then this may be prosecutable.

In a similar manner news is not news unless it is separate from commentary and stands on its own without the filter of editorial talking points. To give the appearance that your opinion is news would appear also to be a form of commercial speech.  If you promote a millennial point of view garnered only from tainted sources and advertise gold, for example, then this is commercial speech. It has also been said that FOX news only uses incestuous sources.

News also is generally reported without high drama and emotional appeals where possible. Reporting of “grassroots” organizations that are funded by billionaires with ties to FOX and orchestrating these “grassroots” organization’s crowds is being and making the news, but it is not news. Reporting entrapment you have arranged on a group you have done nothing but misrepresent and use their own information against them, is not news. Reporting this “news” with appeals that would make carnies blush is so abhorrent that I would say that FOX newscasters have been reduced to carnival geeks, but the commentators are the real freaks. When FOX backs a movements and a party based on fear, then they can only stand for fear and ballast reporting.  Maybe they used Glenn Beck’s spelling for their slogan? So when they distort, you decide as they report all the news that fit to fake.

Fox is not news, nor is it entertaining. What FOX is, is reality TV gone wild. The cheap faux reality presented at ‘fair and balanced‘ FOX sounds more Orwellian than Orwell these days. All the expert pundits are just hired guns that follow the party line like good whore mongers. None of this is surprising as their conservative backers move more toward a fascism, politely called corporatism.  The favorite media tool of corporatism is projection, accusing their potential opposition of what they are actually doing themselves. It is done preemptively at FOX  lest anyone notice that Rupert Murdoch has no clothes.

Maybe a little history and a bit of smoke might help. Consider  the parallels between Keith Rupert Murdoch and William Randolph Heart. They are astounding.  Take such items as the illegality of hemp and Global Warming.  Hearst championed hemp’s ban for the same reason Murdoch had the two reporters fired that did the report on Monsanto.  That reason is corporatism.  So how is hemp related to global warming?  Monsanto now, like Dupont back in Hearst’s time, and now, have a vested interests in the illegality of hemp and FOX comes up with reasons to discredit anyone that objects. Similarly, Murdoch has a vested interest in global warming denial.  This corporate bias can also be seen by Murdoch’s flip flop on the climate change theme after a corporate deal with a Saudi prince, he selectively had allowed some parts of his “news” organization to champion climate change skepticism, then they did a total turnaround. Obviously Murdoch’s ideals are only based on what he considers best to make a profit. Clearly for his reality, read news, to always have a Right wing bent, his world view must be one of a Reptilian shape shifter. The stories in Murdoch’s media, like Hearst’s media, are as real as they say they are.  Their pseudoscience is firmly backed by the science of profit from human frailty.

Yet this is just the start of the parallels of Murdoch with Hearst and their strange mix of politics with faux news.  They both inherited a struggling newspaper from their father.  They both were leftist before they went right. They both made their name with tabloid journalism.  They both have been noted as ruthless competitors.  They both are warmongers. One can go on, but in the end we can reduce it all to one word: rosebud.

Other than that, why would anyone even consider boycotting Rupert Murdoch?

%d bloggers like this: