Throughout the history of television, it has been evident that certain news stations have portrayed their news in a way that aligns itself with a certain viewpoint or political position. For example, today one can see how stations like Fox take a conservative stance on most issues while CNN takes a more liberal perspective on the same issues. Much of the influence that the media could have on people, especially during elections, was a cause of alarm for many people. This led to the creation of the Fairness Doctrine in 1949.
Before the Fairness Doctrine, there had been numerous attempts at trying to prevent biases or influences from making their way through the media. First of all, the Communications Act of 1934 asked for television stations to provide “equal opportunities” to candidates running for office. The intention of this act was to make sure that the media could not influence the people in any way when talking about a candidate running for office. However, it seemed as if there was almost no point to this act since the act did not apply to news programs, interviews or documentaries which should be some of the top places where “equal opportunity” should be given. Secondly, before the Fairness Doctrine had been the Mayflower Doctrine which discouraged stations from editorializing. However, as time went on restrictions began to soften up and editorializing was allowed as long as the views matched those of the station.
After the Communications Act of 1934 and the Mayflower Doctrine were not as successful as they were thought to be, the Fairness Doctrine started to be planned out. In 1949, the Fairness Doctrine ordered broadcast networks to contrast views on issues of importance in order to level the playing field....
... middle of paper ...
...ine had been to level the playing field in hopes that political candidates and popular figures would not have their careers negatively impacted based on a comment made by a television station. Additionally, it allowed people to comment on editorials or statements made about them within a reasonable time frame. Furthermore, it was also used to ensure that people would be able to get two sides to every story and decide for themselves what they would rather believe. Although the Fairness Doctrine may have had a short history, the idea that it had should be something people hold on to. People need to realize that many of the stations they watch will try to influence their viewers to believe one statement or another. Therefore, it is up to the individual to take a step back and analyze what a certain issue or story is really about so they can form their own opinions.
In the modern century, Christian value creates the disagreement in the American society. The issue didn’t get solved, but become more controversial. But think about what we usually been told about Christians? Hate-filled hypocrites? Christian right? Against gay marriage? All the terms come from media and with their hidden bias. In Brooke Gladstone’s “Great Refusal”, she mentions some types of bias that the media frequently use in their work. In decades ago, George Orwell tells us that people use language to mislead others. However, in “Politics and the English Language”, he devises the six rules to fix the problem as Gladstone states in her article. So, if contemporary journalists were required to use Orwell’s rules, this would prevent hidden the biases within their work. It also can prevent increased tension between Christian and American.
1. What is the tone of this article? The tone of this article is kinda snotty but truthful in all ways.
Let’s start by taking a look at the bias side of electronic media. Take for instance the difference between Fox News and CBS. Both are news stations, both are intended to bring us the news, yet the way in which each station presents its stories to their viewers could not be more different. Few would argue the fact that Fox news appeals to the conservative audience while a station such as CBS would tend to be more liberal. This creates bias. To illustrate my point, let us take a look at how these 2 news stations covered the very same story in completely different ways.
The United States Federal Communications Commission, also known as the FCC, introduced the Fairness Doctrine to make broadcasters report controversial issues of public importance in a manner that was equally balanced, honest, and fair. Broadcasting companies were required to provide a certain amount of airtime reporting accurate and fair information both for and against public issues. Broadcasters were not required to provide equal time for opposing views, but were required to present opposing viewpoints. Broadcasters were received broader boundaries as how to how they were to provide those opposing views. Because under the constitutional right of free speech, the government wanted to insure that broadcasting companies provided both accurate and fair information from both sides of the viewpoint.
The news media rejects the fact that they are biased. They claim that they are the “middle of the road,” and are neutral on the stories that they cover. Publishers also claim that they are the watchdog for the political system, and they make sure that the system is free of any corruption, or wrongdoing. Th...
The television allowed for people around the country to get involved in politics, and while it did just that, it had several negative effects on politics as well. Both what people look for in a candidate and what a candidate’s effort to convince voters changed - imagery had become more important than the subject matter. Celebrities and reporters were able to directly influence the opinions of the American people. Television still has a large impact on politics today and, while improved, still suffers from many of the negative effects it created when it was
...plications, the public is able to share and obtain information before the morning newspaper is delivered. In addition, the media today continues to dramatize public events. Cases such as the Zimmerman Trial or foreign incidents in Ukraine remain headlines on news articles for months. Each source presents bias and influences its audience differently.
The case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell is an outstanding example of establishing Judicial Review for the benefit of American citizens who wish to share ideas, opinions, and other forms of speech with one another through media. Television shows such as South Park, the Simpsons, and Family Guy have the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell to thank for establishing a standard in media law that proves parody can be a phenomenal way to both entertain and enlighten viewers with ideas thought up by the shows writers and creators. At the time, the most surprising part about this case was not the advertisement itself, but the fact that the 1st amendment and the right to parody protected such an advertisement from any type of consequence that resulted in breaking the law. Yes, Falwell did receive compensation, but it was not because Hustler Magazine or Larry Flynt did anything more than hurt his feelings and reputation. To be compared to an event of today, the uncountable uses of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in media today can not be proven as defamatory of breaking the 1st amendment because of the strong rules of protecting opinion of the American citizen, which comes as a right thanks to the Bill of Rights. The case does show a flaw on the American
One such argument or premise upon which the doctrine would be required is that the broadcast spectrum of radio frequencies is a scarce resource and as such, is subject to regulation by the federal government and that this regulation is effected through the Fairness Doctrine. In contrast, what made the doctrine necessary in 1949 does not apply today. As one can read in between the first premise, the argument is that the public has limited access to information. However, with cable television and the immense number of radio and television stations available today, access to information is not a problem. It is readily available in variety, quantity, quality and at the press of a button anywhere, anytime (National Association of Broadcasters). In other words, the scarcity of broadcast spectrum does not limit access to information to the public today, as may have been the case in
The United States court system has seen far too many unfair court cases during the last five years. People should trust the court system and know that justice will be served depending on guilt or innocence. Distrusting the court system arises when jurors use racist comments, lack interest, and the unfair rules.
The origins of freedom of speech and press are nearly alike, because critical utterances about the government, either written or spoken, were subject to punishment under English law. It did not matter whether what had been printed was true; government saw the very fact of the criticism as an evil, since it cast doubt on the integrity and reliability of public officers. Progress toward a truly free press, that is, one in which people could publish their views without fear of government reprisal, was halting, and in the mid-18th century the great English legal commentator, Sir William Blackstone, declared that although liberty of the press was essential to the nature of a free state, it could and should be bounded.
Media bias is the tendency for the media to represent different people in a particular way based on their own views, the views of their sponsors, and possibly the views of society. Media bias could be blatant, but usually it is subtle. It can be expressed in the content of television shows. It can be expressed in the choices of types of stories that they show on the news. It can be expressed in the language used on shows, and that is written in the newspaper and magazines.
"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." This quote by A.J. Liebling illustrates the reality of where the media stands in today's society. Over the past twenty years there has been an increase in power throughout the media with regard to politics. The media's original purpose was to inform the public of the relevant events that occurred around the world. The job of the media is to search out the truth and relay that news to the people. The media has the power to inform the people but often times the stories given to the public are distorted for one reason or another. Using slant and sensationalism, the media has begun to shape our views in society and the process by which we choose our leaders. There was once a time when the government used the media as a medium to influence voters, committees, communities etc. Recently, it has been the presidents of major media outlets that have not only exercised power over the public but also made their presences felt in government and in the halls of congress. When the word democracy is thrown about it usually has to do with the rights or original intentions for a group or organization. The first group intended to be influenced by the media was the informed voter. Political parties along with the government used a variety of media resources to persuade the voter or in effect receive a vote for their cause. Returning to the thought of ?democracy? the question is, what was the original intention of the media with relation to the theme of democracy and the informed voter? To analyze this thought thoroughly one must first grasp an understanding of the basic definition of democracy.
Promoting fairness in the classroom not only gives the teacher respect but also gives the students a sense of safeness and trust within the classroom. Creating an environment that revolves around fairness, trust and respect will be beneficial to all of the children in the class. The terms respect and trust are pretty straightforward. There doesn’t need to be a debate on what those two mean, but the same cannot be said for fairness. When one usually hears the word “fair” it is often looked at as synonymous to the term “equal” but the two are not the same, especially in a classroom setting. The term fairness on the classroom level means that the individual students are given what he or she may need in order to be successful; fairness does not
...nd balances being in place that are supposed to at least question why laws like this are being overturned. In order to combat the downfalls of current day media, we should be pursuing more legislation that combats monopolistic behaviors and corruption in the media, particularly information sources. The power that the media holds comes largely from its oligopolistic structure, where a handful of players are controlling the game. Returning to the mindset that lead to anti-trust laws and ownership on regulation would anger a lot of wealthy, powerful figures, but it would greatly benefit the millions of people that are currently disadvantaged by a lack of reliable news sources. Engaging the public in current events could lead to more input and involvement that would better allow for politicians to consider the good of the many and could overall affect remarkable change.