This week we start to take a look at the various ways in which the government, or particular politicians or organizations try to influence or shape the media. This discussion will start with regulations. Some people view government regulations, in general, as an infringement into our lives and the lives of private companies. Others see regulations as the government actively safeguarding the people and helping society.
When we think about media regulation in particular, some think that popular media (and potentially the news media) should be regulated in order to keep it decent, safe, and fair. Another side of the debate focuses on the freedom of the press, a founding principle of American democracy, and often argues that regulation of other forms of media amount to censorship and unnecessary government infringement. The primary agency in charge of regulating the media is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and you can check out their website and all that they do here.
I am interested in a wide ranging conversation on the topic of government regulation of the media, directed both at news media and broader entertainment media. In order to get the conversation started I'll pose the basic questions below:
- How would increasing or decreasing the regulations on news media help or hurt democracy or democratic discourse in America?
- Should the government regulate popular entertainment media? If no, why not? If yes, what standards should they use.
Although many argue that the government should have absolutely no influence in shaping the media, I believe that the FCC, an independent agency of the United States government, is vital. The FCC regulates the industry in several ways. It limits the number of radio and television stations a company can own, has rules governing public service and local programming, and reviews station operations as part of licensing process. Under the equal time rule, stations are required to give all candidates for political office access to airtime on the same terms. Although the FCC is actively regulating media outlets, they attempt to enforce this rule to their greatest capability. If all news stations were privately owned and only had to abide by their own rules, many political candidates would get absolutely no coverage. In a democracy, it is essential to provide the public with information regarding all candidates, not just those that the news station supports or endorses. I believe this is one way increasing regulation helps democratic discourse in America.
ReplyDeleteA number of regulations felt to be outdated were removed, most controversially the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. This doctrine obligated broadcasters to present conflicting points of view on public issues. In my mind, this regulation should have never been taken away. Although many argued that this was a violation of the freedom of press, competition in the broadcast media isn’t enough to ensure diversity of opinion. As we discuss frequently in this class, many, if not all, media outlets contain some degree of bias. If it was required by all media outlets to present both sides of each argument, I think our media would be prevented from discussing issues from only one side of the political spectrum. Sure, viewers can bounce between news channels to retrieve both sides, but why should audiences be responsible for this? Journalists should be responsible for providing the public with objective news.
Regarding popular entertainment, I believe the government also has the right to regulate this type of media. In recent years, the FCC has levied significant fines on broadcasters for profanity and indecency, and rightly so. Our freedoms do not and should not extend to the misuse or abuse of media.
With this being said, I do not suggest the government should be able to control the media completely. If the government was given this role, they could easily block out information from the public that they didn’t want them to see. Because a democracy is built around the power of the people, the people have the right to know what is occurring and shouldn’t be kept in the dark. It is important to have agencies like the FCC to serve as a watchdog over biases within the media by instating policies that make it slightly more difficult for the media not to be objective.
I think the FCC's more important role, as others have touched on, is that of regulating the industry as opposed to censorship. I think most people think of the FCC negatively because of their ability to censor the media and entertainment programs. I do not especially take offense to this part of their operations, but this is probably because I do not watch all that much TV in the first place. I suppose if I did, I would be annoyed if, for example, my favorite comedy was not as funny as it could be because of FCC limitations of some sort. I would be interested to see what would happen to the media industry if FCC regulations were increased to break up the "big six" into smaller companies. One would hope that this would allow for more freedom and independence in terms of the performance of news programs, but it is difficult to predict the outcome, especially since it is possible that news programs would not change in order to preserve their original audiences.
ReplyDeleteI think decreasing the regulations on the news media would hurt democracy because in my understanding when one decreases regulation you are also decreases their limits on what they can report. I also believe that this is how it all starts. By what I mean that this is how it all starts is that at first you decrease some regulations and since it was done already it can be easily done again, so every time someone does not like something a journalist does they keep decreases there regulations until they are very limited to what they can report on. That being said the journalist should always keep in mind to keep their job professional. In one of my classes we read Tocqueville and to my understanding he did not exactly like the USA press but he respected because he liked the idea of having the freedom to cover everything.
ReplyDeleteSo with what i had mentioned in my first paragraph, no i do not think that the government should regulate the popular media and especially the government of all people. The media is out there to make us aware of what is going on in the world no matter what and what is done in the world has no limits, people usually have no limits, so why should the media. I will mention again the media should always keeps stuff in a professional way and give us information that can benefit the audience. Also when i say the media should not have any limits, I mean on important information that can be useful to us, real issues that we should be aware of,
For me, it’s an oversimplification to say that an overall increase or decrease in the level of regulation of the media by the government would be inherently good or bad. It has to be looked at on a case by case, item by item basis. One cannot simply say that all regulation is good or all regulation is bad. It is important that the implementation of regulations on the media is done in moderation.
ReplyDeleteThe implementation of restrictions on what is considered “appropriate” to say about the government or corporations or to regulate what a reporter can say would be a violation of the core aspects of American liberal democracy. Allowing the media to freely report on topics and inform the public of important subjects are the oil that keeps the wheels of our democracy running smoothly.
Yet at the same time other regulations are important. The job of the FCC is largely an example of this. They ensure that there is fair competition, investment, and innovation in American media and that the media remains an open market place subject to the equalizing forces of the free market in which everyone can be a player in a fair game.
Additionally it’s important for the federal government to regulate media to ensure that certain parties don’t engage in slander or libel against other parties and that the media doesn’t report false stories to create hype. The government has a responsibility to safeguard the ability of the media to inform the public of the social ills and corruption within society.
As far as the regulation of entertainment media, I don’t believe that the government has any role in the regulation of this form of media. Absolutely NONE. The only role I believe the government has here is to rate the appropriateness of content for certain audiences, e.g. making sure that certain media is labeled PG and others as R. Yet they should not be the ones to decide who can watch what, that is to be left up to the individual, or the private citizen. It is once again at the core of American liberal democracy, and in part defines what it means to be an American.
There is a debate whether media is too strictly regulated or is not under enough regulations. I was a part of the second group, until I did some side research. In an article in The Atlantic, Author Max Fisher reports of the falling of U.S. Press on the freedom scale of Reporters Without Border’s World Press Freedom Index. I was expecting the U.S. Press and Media to be at the top of the ranks when it comes to freedom, but the U.S. Press freedom fell down to 47th place in the World for the period of 2010 to 2011. U.S. is among the Middle East, which has some of the harshest rules and regulations placed on media, and China. On the contrary, media in Africa is becoming more free and full of quality content. For example, the nation of Niger jumped 75 places up to 29th place in the world. What affected U.S. media’s place on the freedom scale was affected by police crackdowns on journalists who were covering mass gatherings, often part of the “occupy” movements. For example, the New York Times complained that the New York City police have been physically obstructing photographers to prevent them from documenting arrests. Police were under government rules and advice on how they should act. This is just one case among many similar, and this just screams out at me.
ReplyDeleteI believe the FCC Regulation of media and media content and activity itself is just where it should be, as long as FCC members stay consistent with their implying the laws and rules. As we have read in Mass Media and American Politics’ Chapter 2, despite the strong pressures for deregulation in the United States at the dawn of the twenty-first century, the Federal Government continues to regulate private electronic media to ensure that they “serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity”. In theory, the commission is n independent regulatory body, but in practice, congressional purse strings, public and industry pressures, and presidential control over the appointment of new members have greatly curtailed the FCC’s freedom of operation. It is in this area of governmental control that abuse with regulatory power could be done. It is also why the United States ranked 47th on the media freedom scale. Government use of the police to physically regulate the media and crack down on it is not okay. I do not find it acceptable in cases where journalists are covering protests, gatherings, or any other event concerning the public’s wants, needs, and opinions. I believe media is a two-way street, helping government reach the public, and helping the public and public opinion reach government officials’ ears. Overall, regulation is fine, as long as it is thought out, actions are well supported and reasonable, and power is not abused, as in the case stated above.
The regulation of the Media is a broad subject. The basic shared assumptions are simple: on the one hand there is a need for regulations to make sure that the free speech liberty does not encroach upon other liberties, and on the other hand the regulation must stop before it becomes censorship. Regulation is about insuring a proper, decent and correct operating of a process. Here, what is relevant is to ask what is the decent functioning of the Media. In fact, it appears that some media should be more regulated in order to protect the citizens and their liberties: that is the case of the due process of law. To insure a fair trial, the presumption of innocence should be more protected by the media than it is today. Privacy is also an important issue. However, popular entertainment seems overly protected or at least regulated more than the media would need to be operating. There is a bit of hypocrisy in my opinion, when nudity and swearing are prohibited on broadcast channels while so present on cable. So, we should ask ourselves what kind of regulations can help or hurt democracy rather than considering it as a whole. The standards used to regulate reflect the state of our society, and the subjects that matter to its people. It can be very enriching to look at the evolution of FCC rulings over the time.
ReplyDeleteI do think the FCC regulations put in place are there for good reason, but I also think the FCC focuses on certain facets of their regulations more than others, which is the real issue. My mind naturally goes back to the Superbowl half-time show with Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. Granted, it was a different time, but America cared more about that nipple than the actual game. But now, however many years later, footage of Ray Rice beating his fiancé can be shown on television and no one has anything to say. The FCC does important work, however, I think something like that being shown on television (that could be a trigger for other domestic violence survivors) seems odd. But I also think Nevena brought up a few interesting statistics about how the U.S. ranks in terms of censorship, but hearing Claire talk in class about the differences between French and American media, it would seem as if the reins might be pulled a little too tight in America.
ReplyDeleteI guess I’m just not sure what would be considered “popular media.” Are we talking about “The Daily Show” or something like TMZ? Or possibly cable networks like MTV or Disney Channel? I think it would be difficult to regulate something that isn’t necessarily consumed by the majority of Americans, and even if they are, it seems entertainment media has its own standards that they’re held accountable to. I think it depends mostly on the audience too, to determine what sort of regulations are placed on them but I guess I would need more context to know how to answer that question. But as I said, the media companies that have control seem to have a pretty regimented process and adding the government might only complicate the situation further to an unnecessary degree.
I feel that increasing regulations would contribute towards the minimization of the vast realm of misinformation that is continually presented. However, doing so would inevitably lead to an increase in censorship of the news that is allowed to be conveyed. The detrimental effects of increased censorship can be exemplified through the extensive censorship efforts made by the Chinese government, involving the prevention of particular news stories to be viewed by their citizens. On the opposite end of the spectrum, decreasing regulations would decrease the possibility for particular stories to be veiled from public awareness, while at the same time influencing a potential decrease in credible sources presenting news stories.
ReplyDeleteI believe that popular entertainment media should be regulated because there is often an immense deal of socially detrimental information conveyed by media outlets that engage in popular entertainment media. AS we have learned, people tend to pay attention to the most exciting and interesting news stories. Unfortunately, due to the boundless realm of content that is allowed to be expressed through popular entertainment media, such outlets tend to draw large crowds. Due to the sustained ignorance of most people, people are then far more likely to mistake such information as being factual and relevant.
I find that—in the abstract or in actually policymaking and subsequent implications—discussing media regulation in the US is a thorny subject. On one hand, increasing regulation can hurt democracy by limiting freedom of speech and controlling what media content Americans receive (or do not receive). On the other hand, increasing regulation can ensure equitability in media content, such as breaking up powerful news monopolies or allowing important, yet less funded media outlets more airtime. Obviously from legislation enacted in the 1990’s it’s evident that deregulation does not always increase competition among media outlets, but it can ironically led to their conglomeration. However, I support the deregulation of media content, because a universal, one-size fits all censorship of content often discriminates against many of the different (sub-, counter-, and minority-) cultures co-existing in the US.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, the government should not regulate popular entertainment media for several reasons. First, as I mentioned above, how can we develop an overarching way to regulate the media that is in the best interest of all cultures living in the States? We cannot. Second, media regulation can spiral out of control once the government gains enough influence and access to it. In turn, the government has too much authority and power over media content so that it can push its agenda though the creative and entertainment facets of media. Third, although media regulation committees, commissions, and independent agencies create a barrier between the populous and the government, they too can be subject to corruption, naturally, and may not be the best persons to decide what content is acceptable for our citizens.
I found that my views were similar to that of my peers. I think Luke said it well in regards to the fact that it has to be looked at on a case by case basis. The country does require some government and bureaucracy involvement, such as the FAA, whose job is to guide pilots so people land safely. If the government increased their involvement, I feel as though the American people would become enraged; not to mention the fact that the U.S. government would begin to reflect that of a communist regime. Be that as it may, if government removes itself from essentially everything, it could lead to violence/borderline anarchy. Without the rules of conduct, people would be free to do and/or say what they desired, causing more conflict in an already feuding world. The good thing about the FCC is that it prevents certain language and dialogue from being discussed so that no one is offended. For me, I would say that everything should be in moderation.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not think that the government should regulate popular entertainment media. I would not see the purpose to regulating pop culture. It’s a whole other genre of media. If the government began to regulate entertainment media, I feel as though that would become too “hands on” and controlling. Entertainment media is news that someone keeps up with for their leisure. If the government controlled pop culture, sports and extracurricular activities would not be too far, which would be similar to a communist state and Americans would definitely have a problem with that.
The FCC does not create laws it merely enforces them, and laws can neither prohibit nor enforce social/cultural norms in a democratic society, because that would violate freedom speech. But profanity is not protected by freedom speech so the FCC which enforces the law, can choose to censor it because on it's website it says it censored things that “destabilizes established institutions, like family.” I would rather prefer the FCC regulate news monopolies then censor TV content.
ReplyDeleteThe FCC cannot hurt democracy being that it operates within the law not from the law, but it can hurt democratic discourse if it misuses its power and if has a bias interpretation of the law. For example they prevent profanity, which is verbal but not sense's of violence, which is physical. Profanity does not destabilize families but violence does. For example family guy, which is based on the American dream (married couple with two kids a dog and a white picket fence). Shows in some of its episodes Stewie (a baby) beat Brian (the dog) to a bloody pulp. Or Lois (mother) beat (her baby) Stewie like a rag doll, or peter (husband) beat Lois (his wife). The FCC in my opinion is not consistent; it’s probably easier legally to determine how to fine profanity then bursts of violence.
Michael Schudson says “the press is presumably the bastion of free expression in democracy.” I agree with this statement because the media and the press allow for a circulation in the marketplace of ideas and permit different types of beliefs, not just popular ones. I do not have a direct answer for this question. I believe that based on the type of regulation imposed, democracy could be both helped and hurt. The FCC claims to promote competition, innovation and investment in broadband services. This is an idea that helps democracy. Since primarily the big 6 media institutions deliver us our news, this regulation may help balance out how much power these companies have. Still, regulation may also hurt democracy especially since government regulation and censorship contradict first amendment rights. When it comes to popular entertainment media, the government should not regulate this. Instead, standards should be set on a case-by-case, and station-by-station basis. However, if they decide to regulate something, The FCC needs to be completely transparent about what and why they are regulating in order to gain public trust.
ReplyDeleteThere is always negatives and positives when it comes to the government having to much power in the lives of Americans. They (gov.) pacify Americans buy showing us things to distract us (an argument for a decrease in regulation) i look at news and view it as a "cluster of junk" that takes you on this wave of emotions usually starting with sadness and horrific stories (not to mention the commercials that come in and out that sets off different brain patters), leading to a happy ending every time about an old person, child, or pet (as seen in last class). Gov. doesn't have to play that big of a role!? I thought this country loved votes. The gov. should regulate entertainment media because its apart of the "cluster of junk' i previously mentioned. Entertainment media shouldn't only come on between 12am-6am (fixed it lol).
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what many of my classmates have already written. I think that if the FCC were to be harsher on censorship then there would be more frustration and anger from the public. However, if they were to regulate the amount of business the "big 6" owns or the overly sensationalized news that is covered from time to time, it may benefit Americans. One, it would give more opportunity to give other companies to have ownership instead of only six. Two, it would prevent stories like the missing Malaysian plane to be on air nearly all hours of the day, on various channels, for weeks.
ReplyDeleteIncreasing regulation could either hurt or help democracy in the United States based on what kind of regulations were put into place. For example, reinstating the Fair Time doctrine would probably help democratic discourse by promoting both sides of a debate and better educating the public. On the other hand, measures such as empowering the government to demand prior restraint (preventing publication or release of news), regardless of the justification would probably have a chilling effect on democratic discourse as media services would avoid publishing anything which the government might object to.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to popular entertainment media, there should be government regulation and the government should be given more leeway in regulating entertainment media than political or news media. In terms of standards, I think the Supreme Court’s Miller test (of obscene content) while vague does provide the best framework in which to make a decision. I like the Miller test as a standard because it sets a high threshold for a proving a work is obscene, and high standards place the burden of proof on the censor.
This is a rather polarizing subject for me pesonally.
ReplyDeleteFor the first question I do believe that there should be a set of rules as to HOW a story should be investigated and told. I believe that investigative journalism is important in being the watch dog of government and is a key component to democracy. But some of the practices of some journalists use, such as risking others safety and future for the selfish reason to further their own carriers, sometimes question how I believe that there should not be more regulations on the industry. Also I believe that there should be laws protecting news outlets from being put under because of entertainment channels. More often I see stories on places like CNN that talk about things that are not related at all to politics or world events. (i.e. justin biber's arrest last dec.) Because this is what is making respected new organizations turn to stupid incidents in order to gain viewers.
When it comes to entertainment though, I believe there should be no regulations or censorship. As long as it doesn't violate laws such as murder, robbery, child pornography , ect. But if it is a topic or subject that is being faked or just being made fun of then it is fine and should not be subject censorship just because it would offend a group of people. As good example of this is the extensive censorship of South Park's 200 and 201st episodes.
Regulation can be good or bad depending on the interest that it serves. When regulation legislation is written by the very people subject to the regulation there is a clear conflict of interest. Regulation should be int the interest of the consumer and protect them from grotesque media as well as false information.
ReplyDeleteIt should, TV can be consumed by all ages and the young mind is very sponge like. If it is available to everybody it should be censored only to avoid explicit content not in terms of dangerous information.