|
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.
|
Threaded Mode
