Fox News Cover-up??????

[UGAalum94]

So, you all think that televisions stations have an obligation to air shows that they fear may damage their advertising relationships?

If it were public broadcasting, I'd be right there with you in terms of this amounting to meaningful censorship, but if you are a privately owned, for profit station shouldn't you have the right to choose what you air?

No doubt we should always remember that the news we get is incredibly biased*, but I'm not sure that the reporters really thought their rights were. They were hired to make a show; the show they made was going to make advertisers mad (or give them grounds to sue); the network didn't want to air it; it apparently couldn't be edited in such a way as to make it satisfying for the reporters and the station; it didn't get aired.

* If it's just a Fox thing, it kind of surprises me that the story didn't get picked up elsewhere.

I'm really not a fan of Fox other than the Simpsons, but isn't this really just corporate news as usual? Certainly, we could try to influence networks by boycotting their shows unless they were willing to be better about not letting advertisers dictate the news. And we have more news related options that ever with the internet.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

So, you all think that televisions stations have an obligation to air shows that they fear may damage their advertising relationships?

If it were public broadcasting, I'd be right there with you in terms of this amounting to meaningful censorship, but if you are a privately owned, for profit station shouldn't you have the right to choose what you air?

I personally don't think it is a Fox thing at all. I think that the public has an expectation that journalists (TV, newspaper, and otherwise) and those people that employ journalists will report true and accurate stories that pique the public interest without regard to whether their advertisers will pull funding. It is what gives a newspaper or TV program credibility.

What is wrong is when journalists feed this expectation and pretend that this is how the business works because it misleads the public. I think if more people knew this was the norm, you'd see a lot more people personally lobbying their government officials to raise money for public broadcasting. Can you imagine having a couple of stations instead of just a single PBS that is inadequately funded?

[UGAalum94]

I tend to think the marketplace usually works okay, and that we might not need more PBS, as much as I love watching it sometimes. I certainly don't think we need more taxpayer supported news channels. I mentioned PBS because I think we very much have an expectation that they aren't beholden to advertisers (although ADM used to be (maybe still is) a big sponsor which probably should creep us out if the topic at hand is how agricultural companies influenced FOX)

If we're really outraged that advertisers influence the news, they we'd ought to watch and support the advertisers of channels and shows that reflect our attitudes about investigative journalism or the press as a watchdog. And if one doesn't exist, then there'd be a gap in the market from someone, just as FOXnews has successfully exploited a perceived gap in right wing news sources.

It seems like it works for print journalism okay, and there ought to be a way to make it work for TV news as well.

If you think about news or even general interest magazines, which might be a dying market share unfortunately, or online magazines like Slate or Salon, the problem doesn't seem to be as pronounced, does it? What's the difference? Is it that TV news audiences are already so passive that it doesn't really bug them?

ETA: or maybe it's that the cost and rates of advertisements keep any one advertiser from being crucial to print or online media sources.

[UGAalum94]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331106,00.html

This is a foxnews online story that I saw linked on Instapundit today. Take it for what it's worth. The dude sounds like little bit of a crack pot, but I still don't expect google to block him out of their news searches.

But it does demonstrate and immediate accountability that online sources are subject to that TV channels don't seems as subject to.

ETA: maybe it's just a question of being bound to TV news stations somewhat geographically. I'm not going to be watching the FOX stations in Florida, so I don't care that much about their practices; if no one locally wants to cover the killing of the BGH story, then nobody who isn't looking for links on YouTube from the local market likely knows or cares.
With the internet, everyone is a skeptic.