Media Fairness » Article References

Is There Such a Thing as “Media Malpractice”?

Brian Rowland — Thu, 27 May 2010 10:48:44 +0000

Joe Scarborough calls the media’s apparent ignoring of the brewing Sestak story, “Media Malpractice”. Does he imply that there is a duty or obligation for fairness in reporting, or is he merely pointing out the continuing intellectual dishonesty in the mainstream media? If the former, this sentiment lends itself to the question: Who will impose and enforce that duty or obligation? Certainly he does not expect such fairness to be self imposed when the mainstream media is infested with left-leaning automatons. If the latter, then this is old news and only the public’s tuning out will result in change.

Use of the phrase “Media Malpractice” is catchy, but really not meaningful. Currently we suffer from a concerted and one-voiced mainstream media, and were it not for the renegade voices on Internet, radio and occasionally Fox, who dare counter the prevailing current, we would be experiencing a controlled message somewhat similar to that when government actually owns the media (e.g. Cuba, former communist Eastern European countries, the Soviet Union, etc.).

Members of the U.S. media are free to propagate whatever messages and stories they each desire; each may even report the same news stories as the other. This is the beauty of a largely free press. Hand in hand with this freedom is the public’s freedom to tune them out, not purchase their stock and not patronize their advertisers. Ultimately, “Media Malpractice” (whatever it is) should be self-correcting by our refusal to listen, watch, soak up and march in lock-step to, the message. However, if we, as a viewing, reading and listening public, do not respond to the media negatively and instead lap up the lies simply taking in what we’re fed, then we will continue to receive more of the same “Media Malpractice.”

Does Obama think we have too much access to information?

Brian Rowland — Sun, 09 May 2010 23:35:17 +0000

DANGER ZONE!

It seems that Mr. Obama thinks we have too much information and that our free and increased access to information is putting a “strain” on democracy. Fundamentally, this is troublesome, and while much could be said on this topic, because there is no argument to win with Mr. Obama himself, not much more needs to be said. His views speak clearly for him.

It is agreeable that the nonsense often reported on cable and broadcast networks is, at best, insulting. However, those media are collapsing from the weight of the manure they carry and spread. Time, and the evolution of gatekeepers, will solve this problem – meaning, poor ratings and advertising revenues will force change.

Meanwhile, review this article and please think about what it means for our President to lament our free access to abundant information.

Is Iceland’s Government More Concerned About Free Speech Than The U.S.?

Brian Rowland — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:40:23 +0000

While our Congressional leaders make noise about revival of the “fairness doctrine”, Iceland, somewhat known for its pseudo-socialist policies, is making bona-fide efforts to become the world leader in ensuring a free press. See their government’s proposal here: Modern Icelandic Media Initiative. Congressional desire to roll back free speech and Iceland’s initiatives to ramp up free speech should be a warning sign that our leaders are fearful of a truly free press and likely see control of it as a measure to ensure their grip on power. Thoughts?

Gov’t Subsidies for Media … Part II

Brian Rowland — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:25:37 +0000

Just a short blurb here to ask, “Should the feds prop up Air America?”.

It seems they’re in dire straits. If you read my rant below on gov’t media subsidy, then this is the natural result of the marketplace of ideas I am preaching, and the marketplace should not be tampered with by Uncle Sam.