Corporate-owned local news: should we expand the 1st Amendment to protect news creators?

I don't know your tongue.

But this isn't a matter of giving government discretion over the corporation. It is a matter of imputing the limitations of government to the corporations as a narrowing channel of First Amendment speech. It forces the corporations to recognize a constitutional right to not air political content. So a corporation would not be able to force local outlets that they buy to air anti-Trump or anti-Hillary rhetoric, for instance.

So CNN should remain impartial? Today he made the news for coloring 'outside the lines'

I know a guy here on your tribal side who was surprised at how much CNN attacked Donald Trump (Before he became the President) I think a lot of American news is very sensational, regardless of the party they support. Forget the local outlets, they have a pretty small outlet to perform their antics. CNN and Fox by far and large run this game of anti party stances that get ridiculous. This is maybe where we agree?
 
So CNN should remain impartial? Today he made the news for coloring 'outside the lines'

CNN's partiality is within their business judgment. However, if CNN were to buy up a bunch of local news stations -- a fairly easily defined new medium -- those stations should be able to say fuck off to anti-Trump scripts.

I know a guy here on your tribal side who was surprised at how much CNN attacked Donald Trump (Before he became the President) I think a lot of American news is very sensational, regardless of the party they support. Forget the local outlets, they have a pretty small outlet to perform their antics. CNN and Fox by far and large run this game of anti party stances that get ridiculous. This is maybe where we agree?

Yes, I agree with that. I also agree with economic conservatives, though, that Fox News and CNN should be allowed to be propagandized within their own media brand. I guess you could say that their individual anchors could be allowed to refuse corporate directives re content, but I think that would be pretty silly, as it would make the industry unmanageable.

Now, if they were to start buying up other local news stations -- independent journalistic entities -- and forcing their bias and cornering the market on local news, then it becomes an entirely different subject (to me).
 
This is actually a substantive result of this proposal. It wouldn't break up monopolized corporate ownership,

That's a shame. Seems to be the most simple, tried and true method. Not sure why radical proposals make sense instead of taking the obvious route first.
 
That's a shame. Seems to be the most simple, tried and true method. Not sure why radical proposals make sense instead of taking the obvious route first.

Honestly, I'm actually less fervent on the "break up the oligopolies" line than I used to be just because legal history shows that it's an effort that will always be on sinking ground given the natural tendencies of both the market (to consolidate) and the market's actors (to influence government - just look at the current FTC, FCC, DOL, NLRB, EPA, SEC). It would seem to me that using positive constitutional rights would be more lasting and sustainable.
 
Honestly, I'm actually less fervent on the "break up the oligopolies" line than I used to be just because legal history shows that it's an effort that will always be on sinking ground given the natural tendencies of both the market (to consolidate) and the market's actors (to influence government - just look at the current FTC, FCC, DOL, NLRB, EPA, SEC). It would seem to me that using positive constitutional rights would be more lasting and sustainable.

Somehow your idea will be legally cut & dried?

I'd rather we preserve the simple principle that a business can decide which products they wish to sell, and which not to sell.
 
Somehow your idea will be legally cut & dried?

God, no. Just more so than antitrust legislation/jurisprudence, which is extremely unreliable and inefficient.

I'd rather we preserve the simple principle that a business can decide which products they wish to sell, and which not to sell.

Haha, sadly that principle has not existed (at least simply) for quite some time.
 
God, no. Just more so than antitrust legislation/jurisprudence, which is extremely unreliable and inefficient.

Haha, sadly that principle has not existed (at least simply) for quite some time.

I'm sure it's far easier to prove ownership than influence.

It appears mostly intact to me. In spite of SCOTUS' illogical rulings regarding the commerce clause.
 
With how sadly corporations have intertwined themselves with the power of government, I think discussions like this one are fair to have that people in positions such as Trostsky describes should also be protected by the hammer that is a corporation that spends millions on lobbying to the government

Unsure of my position here yet as I've always been a private company does what a private company wants guy, but definitely worth considering and debating at this point
 
@Tropodan suggested nationalizing YouTube and Facebook?

Trope, what the fuck??!!!!
 
For what seems like a couple decades now, I'v been an advocate for decentralizing the media. That's as much government interference as I'm comfortable with.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'decentralising the media', and how that would work in a capitalist economy? Can you explain what this would look like?
 
I don't know your tongue.

But this isn't a matter of giving government discretion over the corporation. It is a matter of imputing the limitations of government to the corporations as a narrowing channel of First Amendment speech. So a corporation would not be able to force local outlets that they buy to air anti-Trump or anti-Hillary rhetoric, for instance.
He said: Don't compare Canada to the USA, please. Keep attacking your friends. You'll lose all credibility. Government controlled media agencies are a bad thing.

His grammar was incorrect.
 
This thread topic was brought to mind by two things:

  1. A thread by @lifelessheap about the optics of local news stations all repeating the same national news headlines passed down to them by their corporate parent company.
  2. A post by @Tropodan suggesting that Facebook and Youtube be nationalized to prevent selective promotion or coverage based on corporate political motivations.

These two topics seem to me to coalesce into a broader discussion about entitling positive First Amendment rights to content producers in the arena of journalism and news coverage. While I think that the experience of using Facebook/Youtube is too user-driven to really accommodate an argument for nationalization or First Amendment protections (that is, the users pick the videos they watch and the content providers that they follow), I think the argument for more robust protection against censorship does exist for local news outlets.

As it stands, most local news stations are owned by larger national corporations. This can result in news anchors and stations being forced to propagate the overtly political rhetoric and agenda of their corporate headquarters, as was once displayed when hundreds of local stations owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group read a pre-scripted statement about news bias that clearly tinged of rhetoric espoused by a certain famous politician. Likewise, Sinclair Stations had previously been forced to air short segments by talking heads deriding "snowflakes" and more recently attacking critics of border family separation.


Because the First Amendment only protects citizens from government infringement on or substitution of speech, if a news station director were to refuse to air these pre-scripted headlines or political rants, they could be fired.


So, should positive First Amendment rights extended to local stations' journalists or managers so that they can resist scripted political rhetoric from their parent company? This would not be natonalizing local news since the government would not be administering the channels, but it would be extending government status and limitation to corporate parent companies and giving speech protections to local news stations.

In effect, individual local news organizations would enjoy First Amendment protections from their parent corporation, which is itself being subject to the same limitations as the government faces.
Obama floated the same idea and I said no to policing google back then.

To your specific point though, if it’s a private company they can do what they want. Doesn’t matter if we like it. It’s not first amendment.
 
Nationalize a search engine? Full north Korea -- never go full NK
 
@Tropodan suggested nationalizing YouTube and Facebook?

Trope, what the fuck??!!!!

One of my crazy rightie "friends" is also suggesting controlling social media like a public resource due to its prevalence and societal need its developed into. So the thought is out there in the alt right after the conservative voices being banned/shadow banned stuff

I give him shit of some "How very communist of you" now and then and then a few counter arguments of leaving government out of private business, but I avoid wading into political arguments on FB
 
As long as they can be fired if they don't do what their company wants their employees to do.
 
@Tropodan suggested nationalizing YouTube and Facebook?

Trope, what the fuck??!!!!

Do it quick before the Chinese do it for you.

Anyway, I think nationalizing just about anything ought to be off the table. Hack politicians in control of such vast power, would probably be an even worse alternative to hack corporations. Just imagine, @Tropodan, if it was Justin Trudeau in control of Facebook or YouTube instead?

However, the governments should retain enough power against mass corporations to regulate their industries.

We don't want to under-go a dystopian scenario where national governments become too meek to resist against corporate power, and instead choose to become its subjects. Nobody wants to be ruled over by a cabal of elite billionaires, who are not necessarily the most "elite" of men, just the first in line to benefit from a bubble.
 
Last edited:
S'il vous plaît ne pas comparer le canada à l'amérique. Continuez à attaquer vos amis. vous perdrez toute crédibilité. Les médias contrôlés par le gouvernement sont une mauvaise chose.
I disagree. Canada would not be Canada without the CBC, and I mean that in a good way.
If not for the CBC, too much good programming would never make it to air.
 
He said: Don't compare Canada to the USA, please. Keep attacking your friends. You'll lose all credibility. Government controlled media agencies are a bad thing.

His grammar was incorrect.
Oui, c'est vrais.
Edit: what you said, not what he said.
 
Last edited:
Firstly I don't understand the hatred for government owned news. With proper independence I think it is some of the best news service available.
 
Back
Top