Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia caused a bit of an uproar at a hearing yesterday. As Brian Stelter reported at his New York Times blog (11/17/10), Rockefeller mused:
There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, "Out. Off. End. Goodbye." It would be a big favor to political discourse, to our ability to do our work here in Congress and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future.
Rockefeller should tell that "little bug" to keep quiet, for a number of reasons. For starters, the FCC can't–and obviously shouldn't–be in the business of killing cable channels that lawmakers find objectionable.
Rockefeller's remarks did not escape notice; "SHOCK VIDEO," says a link at the Drudge Report. And Keith Olbermann pointed out last night that Rockefeller has told him that he's a fan of the show–presumably he knows that Olbermann's show is on MSNBC, right?
But Rockefeller did make one point that's worth defending–that the rise in cable TV rates is in part due to the fact that subscribers are forced to pay for channels we don't watch (most of the channels you get with your cable package), or might find objectionable (Fox News, to pick an example at random). As Stelter noted:
Beyond the news media, Mr. Rockefeller also questioned why consumers have to buy bundles of channels, rather than ordering the channels they want and nothing else.
This is a good point, though there's no need to exclude the "news" channels from consideration. As we noted here recently, Fox boss Rupert Murdoch bragged that he could basically name his price with cable operators: "Cancel us, you might get your house burnt down" was how he described his negotiating strategy. In most places, viewers pay far more for Fox News than MSNBC. In an era of seemingly endless digital media possibilities, why are TV viewers forced to send millions of dollars to pay Sean Hannity's salary?
About Peter Hart
hard to tell what's the stupider …that jay thinks the fcc has any sway over cable channels or his false equivalency between fauxnews and msnbc…
It's incorrect that people pay more to watch FOX "news" Channel vs. MSNBC. On the satellite DISH network, FOX "news" is available at all levels, even the cheapest plan. MSNBC is only offered on that top two service plans. So, we have to pay more to watch MSNBC.
But there aught to be a law about equal time on the satellite and cable channels.
SactoBob, don't presume to understand how media broadcasters tier their products. It makes perfect sense (knowing the "greed" factor is at work) that they would put the more expensive product on every level. They can get by charging more for every level without too much scrutiny. On the higher tiers, they can throw bunches of cheap channels and make it look more expensive than it is.
I'd like to see more customizability offered by cable systems, but the problem with allowing viewers to only select the channels they want is that some of the smaller interest channels with lower viewer numbers (such as the Independent Film Channel) would die out. Besides, haven't you ever channel surfed when you were bored and found something interesting on a station you never would have selected if you'd had that option?
Currently, channels such as IFC are usually bundled with pay channels such as HBO, so they're already doing something like this. Personally, I'd like to be able to pay a lower price to get IFC without having to get HBO, and while I'm sure there are others like me, the vast majority of HBO subscribers would, given the option, not include IFC if it meant their cost was lower.
So what I'd like to see is the option to choose the channels I want, and then have them throw in a few I don't ask for so I have the chance to accidentally see something I didn't expect. As for FOX News and MSNBC, I think they should be part of the same package, so dedicated viewers of each have the chance to check in on (or accidentally get a glimpse of) the other.
As to SactoBob misunderstanding how business works.
The cable provider is the one that pays more for Fox coverage, and they usually will pass such a cost onto us.
As Stone points out, if the provider has to pay more, why not make everybody pay for it, and throw the cheaper services together at the premium levels to make them more enticing by making people feel they are getting more bang for their buch with big premium packages.
Though I have a feeling, and I hope, that if things go as they are, Fox may lose viewership at a point and be moved up to the second tier and NBC moved in closer parody.
I do get why we have bundles though. There are alot of channels that are cool and unique, they have an audience, but its not big enough to pay the bills, so they cover the most channels by a sort of socialist system.
Nearly everything in humanity is run this way. I get something, you get something else. Its better then nobody getting anything or only a select segment getting what they want.
We never never watch FIX (FOX) NEWS. I don't see why we must pay for it.
It's outrageous. I upgrade to see 'Real Time with Bill Maher' on HBO, who it turns out is not being broadcast til next year again…. contrary to what the sales people at Comcast tell me!
They give me pathetic, right wing propaganda rubbish like Fox and CNN.. and no sign of MSNBC with Oberman or Maddow to balance it.
Naturally I can turn the crap off, but I have to accept a 'bundle': TV in order to get the best price while ordering the internet.
The alternative would be to get ATT. Another broadcaster offering dumb and dumber content and an organization that provides awful service and bundled TV/internet.
Every day now I am more suspicious than ever that the American people have been duped since 1945 when World War II ended, and we were immediately informed of an imminent danger to all the things we love, that is all the things that money can buy. America emerged from World War II with all industries and institutions in tact, nothing damaged in the Continental United States having survived a little shelling off the coast of California and balloon bombs from Japan.
Americans were also told that France should be restored to its colonial empire zenith in French Indo-China (an area in Southeast Asia and currently known as Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia). We know all too well what happened here.
Between 1945 and 1992 America and the Soviet Union spent several trillion dollars on military hardware such as, for us, B-47s, B-52s, ICBM, Nukes, aircraft carriers, drones, and other endless war toys. (Just how paranoid can you get?)
Here's the tragedy in all this: when WWII ended, the Soviets were notoriously weak, but that was irrelevent; it didn't fit the plans of the Military-Industrial Complex. Now America is $13,000,000,000,000.00 in debt because of an insane war policy; don't call it defense. When a Commander-in-Chief (the bush) orders armed aggression against an innocent nation (the bush in Iraq similar to Hitler in Poland, 1939), that costs a lot.
Please correct the to (should be too)
I don't want the FCC to have the power to yank anybody for NO reason, but why isn't what FOX does criminal?
No one should be allowed to present out-and-out lies as news.
I admit I'm uninformed on this topic, but are there no standards at all? No ability to yank a network's license for repeated offenses? Aren't retractions a requirement anymore?
I got rid of my cable about a year ago. I don't miss it. I also don't miss having to pay for Rupert Murdoch's fascist propaganda.
Ok I get it .You all hate FOX.Why not …they make you wear the shit you try to throw about.The egg is all over your faces. Liberalism has been shown to be a scam and America is turning away in droves.Here is a thought…Instead of turning against the people who have pointed out your failings; maybe…just maybe you would look inward at those failings ,and try to understand why it is that America has turned her backs on your theory's of governance.
I've been cableless for 3months. Relieved to be free of the screaming pundits and the relentless ads for cheeseburgers and ab tighteners, I rely on the net for onscreen entertainment and news instead of cable. Haven't missed cable for one minute and don't think I will as long as the net is free.
It concerns me that Senator Jay Rockefeller would put Fox News and MSNBC in the same category. I can't understand how those stations can appear similar to him. Three contrasts between them immediately come to my mind:
1. Fox News distorts the truth – when they aren't outright lying. MSNBC doesn't.
2. Fox News's programming represents only one side, the neo-conservativism. MSNBC offers programming that takes a conservative slant (e.g., Scarborough and The Last Word).
3. Fox News – as a network – allows Republican and Tea Party candidates to come on to their programs and insert mini-fundraising commercials during their interviews. They also organize fundraisers for the candidates. MSNBC doesn't do that.
I completely agree with the article. Being a political free thinking-independent, I don't want to pay for either FOX or MSNBC. Neither of them pursue the truth; all they care about is pushing a partisan, ideological agenda.
Re: Patricia M'S NO.2, I just don't agree. For example, there are far more liberal voices on O'Reilly than there are conservative voices on Olbermann (who never has anyone who disagree with him on the show). All of the primetime anchors on MSNBC are liberal. I see the two networks as equivalent. My only edge to MSNBC is at least they don't constantly claim to be "fair and balanced."
Patricia i can answer that.They are all the same.In the sense that sooner or later they may not be in Rockefeller's(or his ilks) corner.So the move is to control all the means of communication at some level.The Rockefeller's are managers deep in their DNA.What he does not get is a free press must resist being managed outside of their own choices.
Fox rose up along with conservative commentators as a reaction to a lockstep press.I love FOX.You hate it.I hate MSNB,you love it.Aint America grand?Why is it that we conservatives embrace you liberals and your right to spout as much as you want(personally I feel the more you speak the more we gain)Yet all you want to do is silence us?
"Mr. Rockefeller also questioned why consumers have to buy bundles of channels, rather than ordering the channels they want and nothing else."
This is something that we all should question – as loudly and as often as we can. I have long been angry that cable television "bundles" channels into "packages," denying consumers the right to choose which channels they really want. A large part of the appeal of cable TV channels, when they first appeared, was that they made commercial-free programs available – this is how they used to justify charging us so much. Now, we all have to accept cable channels we don't want with every "package," and most of them consist primarily of commercial blather.
If it were possible to order only PBS and a few other cable channels of my own choosing, I would. As it is, my wife and I refuse to subscribe to cable TV. We get our news from newspapers and the Internet and our entertainment from Netflix.
To bad that Dish Network signed another contract with Fox News.
Michael e: It seems to me that you would have a lot to give to the FAIR forums if you just toned down the aggression.
I appreciate the dissenting opinion. We're all American. We all want our neighbors fed and our citizens sheltered. Frankly, I think your posts are worth any 10 posts from us lefty folk leaving a "right on" comment of affirmation that doesn't really contain any new thought provoking information.
I'm leaving this here because your 2 comments are very different. the first one is so hateful that I'm tempted to write off any value of your second statement, which would be a good addition to the debate if you had left out those last two sentences.
please don't stop posting! I LIKE that I usually disagree with you :)
Hey, Frank Walter, you may be on to something. My advice to you is to read Paul Fussell's "Doing Battle", his memoirs about serving as a combat infrantry officer in World War Two. An excellent book, including the stuff he takes notice of after the war, when the US's one tiny chance of becoming something other than what it is now was passed by. The ignorant think that things just happen, mostly in time they can measure out in relation to their own lives. Fussell connects the events surrounding the war to the events that follow–we're still experiencing the effects of W.W. Two today, politically andf culturally. My apologies if you've already read it, but anybody can benefit from it's keen observations, especially about the relentless, insane horrors of war.
Say, Carter, don't feed the trolls–you're not the only person grazing here, and the cycle of literary and emotional death needs to be slowed down a bit, dig? Don't confuse ideas with immense and abiding irritation, and don't confuse being a dope with having a valid opinion. Believe me, we've been through a lot here, and I'm breaking my silence only to let you, an honest poster, know what the score is here. Ignore the trolls–it's a matter of lie and death, don't ya know.
Carter? You still with me? I had to break off to go back to the Olbermann story in this current FAIR blog. Go to that story there, and scroll down to Jim Naureckas' link just above my post–that tells the story, simply and fairly, about what's going on here. Jim's simple remark, with the link, is all you need to know.
About a year ago I ordered DishNetwork and said that I wanted HBO but would not pay for Fox "News". They found me a bundle, that is not advertised on their web site, that does not include Fox "News".
Ask for what you want; you may get it.
TimN I don't really understand your first bit ("you're not the only person grazing here, and the cycle of literary and emotional death needs to be slowed down a bit") I think you mean that the "trolls" bring down the quality of content and bring nothing good.
after checking out the conversation you reference he does seem to only desire to distort facts, throw out red herrings and knock down strawmen. I vaguely remember appreciating a few of mikes posts a month or two ago.
However, also on the Olbermann blog is a comment calling mike a "conservative interloper" and I wish that this comment was not directed at mike because to be honest I feel like many people here consider ANY conservative opinion on FAIR blogs to be from an interloper. An interloper is one who intrudes into some region or field of trade without a proper license. one who thrusts oneself into the affairs of others.
How can we have a Fair and balanced debate if the Fox web site blocks liberal comments, and liberals shout down conservative posts until the conservatives get angry and start acting like Michael? Again Mike may be a poor example, but I know I have seen this happen with non-mike posters in the past.
I have a good friend who has radically conservative beliefs (and I hate to admit it, loves Glen Beck) but we frequently have civilized political arguments from which we both come away refreshed, not angry.
conservative and interloper should not be synonymous here.
Carter M
Thanks (I think)for your remarks.It is something I have often said on these blogs(refraining from shouting down other opnions)Of course im sad you consider me to be to be" acting "in a way that brings derision on the conservative cause.Probably My own fault.I can be a wise ass little stinker at times.But consider the constant personal attacks flung my way on these blogs.Sometimes all they deserve is an off handed wise ass remark in return.
Regular cable sucks because you get a list of channels and you surf through that entire list to find something to watch. Satellite, like DireCTV and Dish Network, you can set favorites and completely forget there are other channels out there.
You can do that with digital cable as well, but digital cable is a premium service you pay extra for to get 'extras' that are basic features on satellite. Though it is a shame that DirecTV dropped G4, but continues to fund channels that are mostly opinion and pundit rhetoric like Fox News.
A better idea for Senator Rockefeller to champion is to get the FCC to make 'news' channels label opinion as opinion.
Twenty-four hours is kind of a long time when you have to fill about 40 – 45 mins of every hour (the other 15 – 20 mins are commercials [Thank God for Tivo]) with something to entice and keep viewer interest. It is no wonder we get such garbage passed off as news.
Glenn Beck needs to be medicated and institutionalized for his own good. That man obviously has some serious mental problems.
Patricia M., I agree with you on all three points.
Jack Davis, I totally disagree with you. As an Independent that you consider yourself to be, the false equivalent between MSNBC and FOX is just non existent as I see it. I'm guessing, but in your being an Independent, does that mean that you are giving each MSNBC and FOX the same consideration and that makes you "fair and balanced", giving equal time to each of them? Is that what solidifies your opinion, that you are neither "left nor right"?
I don't agree that they are equal. And I don't know how you can see them in that light. MSNBC does have a left leaning group made up of Big Ed, Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow. All of FOX is right wing Republican leaning conservatives, without exception(not even Chris Wallace). What distinguishes MSNBC and FOX is their duty to the facts. The aforementioned group of lefties, for example, did not report that the trip to India by the President costs $200 million a day, 10% of the Navy, filling up the Taj Mahal with the entourage, but FOX did. And Glenn Beck even said that the per day figure was billions, not $200 million. This report by FOX is not a rare event. How is it MSNBC and FOX are equivalent? FOX has no regard for the facts unless they can spin it to to match their ideology. MSNBC when they make a mistake, they correct it, not so with FOX. And as I understand it, after so called "climategate" and the hoopla surrounding it by FOX, the story about how those involved with "climategate" were cleared by 3 reliable sources, it was never revealed by FOX.
Truth is neither right nor left, thank god facts can be checked. At one time I was thinking about politics only when the election for President was happening, but I became disabled and watched more and more TV. Al Franken came out with a book, "Lies, and the Lying Liars who tell Them" and I became more involved, having no political slant on things at first. Since then, I decided to see for myself what was going on. So I watched(during the Bush years) for a solid month, FOX news, day in and day out. I did the same with CNN and MSNBC, one month each. I came away with learning a lot about political spin, story telling, corporate news item priorities. At the same time I was on the Internet trying to get the scoop on truth and facts and who was reporting each one accurately. FOX Lies, misinforms, commits over generalizations and logical fallacies, slices and dices videos selectively choosing distortion if possible if it gives Republicans a positive slant.
CNN reports accurately most of the time compared to FOX with there being at times obvious pressure to report something that FOX thinks incorrectly the main stream media should report on. I found myself counting on MSNBC to give me the information that was at least true and not manipulated for a particular effect. I didn't think that I was being led in a specific way to conclude that what I was hearing should be at every turn taken with a grain of salt. I discovered that indeed I am a liberal, a bleeding heart liberal at that and unafraid to admit it. I felt I had come into my own in what I believed in. If Big Ed, Keith, and Rachel reinforces that then so be it. I know where I stand and when I find out from those I just mentioned that they are trying to sell me a bill of goods then I'll drop them like a hot potato. I do not want the "left truth" or the "right truth", I want the facts of reality to be what they are and to adhere to basic acceptance of those facts. I do not want to be mislead, misinformed, see through prim rose glasses; I want my view to correspond to the real world based on science and the pursuit of the truth. I shall use the intelligence that I have to discern just that; along with compassion for others, understanding through other's eyes even though they see something different.
Some people on this site(one person) seems to bully their view across in flaming rhetoric that just divides not integrates(oh god I've said it now).
I do appreciate TimN, Carter, Jim Naurecka's postings. And others. Their posts add spirit to the discourse. Thank you.
Actually, Carter, you did get my meaning. The problem is not all arguments have the same quality, or deserve a fair hearing at all–if I say that the Earth is round, and if a "conservative" comes in here and tries to say otherwise, do you really expect me and others to treat this person fairly, as if he has a valid point? One of the biggest problems in the media today is all the false equivalency we have to deal with–that any old argument, or proof, is as good as any other. It's your opinion against mine, and if I say the Earth is round, and you insist it's flat, well then, who's to say? You've noticed, as others have, that right-wing (not conservative) blogs and websites simply don't post up stuff they see as "liberal," or that inconvenience their subjective, ill-informed positions Here, and at Salon, right-wing reactionaries can spew out whatever lies and badly reasoned bullshit they like, and are still allowed to post (unless the invective and lies are so egregious that they are removed–it happens at Salon).
Do you really think that there's ever going to be a "fair and balanced" argument between educated, thoughtful people and reactionaries who simply take subjective beliefs and feelings and try to turn them into established fact? Ask Jim Naureckas how many times he's posted up links to counter what some lying, witless winger has claimed to be fact. Ask Woodward burnstein how many times he's dealt with this here–you essentially asked me above, and I'm telling you that you are wasting your time and effort trying to be "fair" or nice.
The next time your "radically conservative" friend starts up an argument, take the full measure of what he's saying: Is what he is saying verifiable, or not? Is it an opinion, or no? Can he back up anything he claims? Does he think science and religion are two equally valid things, both operating in the same epistemological and critical sphere and it's just your opinion against his? For an excellent explanation of our current difficulties of talking to one another, I strongly advise you to pick up the latest copy of The Nation Magazine (Nov. 29, 2010), and read Benjamin Barber's "America's Knowledge Deficit". Therein you will find a much better way of explaining what I'm attempting to tell you here. (Barber knows his stuff: He's the author of "Jihad vs. McWorld", a fine book everyone should read.)
P.S.: Look for the above reference to The Nation as "proof" of my sadly mis-guided ways. It will be a perfect rejoinder, a blessed irony and absolute proof, too, that Professor Barber is right-on in his essay. Please read it. That is all . . . .
[...] No Senator You Cant End Fox–But Do We Have to Pay for It — FAIR [...]
Join the heritage foundation.Great conservative fact check that lays waste daily to liberal claims.Oh and read your constitution.That is the rag that daily lays waste to the Obama administration.
Thanks for doing all that heavy lifting, Raymond–a nice analysis, and a solid bit of truth-telling.
[...] No Senator You Cant End Fox–But Do We Have to Pay for It – FAIR [...]
you still here Tim?
Here's the thing. If I said leave bush alone, and was then randomly attacked for supporting the Iraq war (which mike did, and does not respectively) then I would be tempted to come back with as he says, wise ass stinker remarks.
ok, so mike, you say shit like, obama is diametrically opposed to the constitution(paraphrase). some arguable examples might be more helpful to enlighten us less politically aware folk. cuz honestly, I don't have the time to read the paper, watch the news, and check out chat forums on fox, cnn, and indepentent websites. really, I think that the only issue that matters today is media reform because who does have the time to do the leg work necessary to be politically aware – hear left, right, and center aruments and then determine what is in their self interest? IT'S ALL SPIN When's the last time you watched election news (I tried once when I was 18) and heard ANYTHING but polls? it's not a horse race!
I'm an unemployed new grad registered nurse. and I really don't know if stimulus or tax breaks will get me a job. that's all i know.
Maybe I'm a bad citizen, but I don't usually vote for canidates. I don't know who to believe. I did vote against Meg Whitman because my best friend is union but i don't know if that was in my best interest.
Tim, My conservative friend is actually very left socially, pro prop 19, anti DADT, and his spirituality is best described by the movie What The Bleep Do We Know? he has never asked himself WWJD? but he makes >$250K in silicone valley, and if the tax cuts are not extended he will have to sell his house for where he and his 3 daughters live. he's not rich. he just lives in the bay area!
Tim, can you honestly say that you have never made a reactionary decision over a rational one? there was a good program on NPR today about this very subject. One example they had was lefty folk blowing off a study finding neurological differences between women and men because the implications scared them. We all do this sometimes. I drive a car even though I suspect that the environmentalists are right. That's INSANE!
I guess the point of this rant is that I sometimes agree with you Mike, and I think that it is possible for FAIR's comments to be a productive debate rather than reactionary name calling.
P.S. Mike, here's another example. you said multiple times that Pelosi is bad. here's another case where a link, or some sort of argument beyond name calling would help us less informed people understand what the issue is. otherwise, why bother posting anything at all?
Got ya Carter M. Sometimes I do forget that not everyone is a political wonk/old fart who has followed the minutia on these matters for a hundred years.Some folks are newly minted- beginning or expanding the search for answers.It would (you are right) be better to throw in why i feel the way i do for instance, instead of taking it for granted that everybody already knows.And of course the name calling is counter productive.I shall try to start anew and do better. Lesson received
Good luck with the job search.You picked a wonderful field full of possibility.Im sure you will do well.