Anne and Martin

The fairness doctrine would not work today. First of all, it was found unconstitutional by Congress because it violates the first amendment. Next, it would take too much time and money for it to be followed. It is the job of a journalist to report the facts, not to send transcripts to everyone they talk about.

tony and caleb's presentation

False news is not the problem in broadcasting, funding and fact checking are the problems.
If I were a journalist getting paid $18,000 a year, I would not feel a huge urge to go the extra mile it takes to check out all of my facts. That aside, I feel the facts are stretched more than made up. It is reflectance rather than malicious behavior that is to blame for false information. Sensationalism goes a long with fact stretching.

Fairness Doctrine

This is a gray area for me. In terms of what one can use and what one can't use, the fairness doctrine comes into play as a measuring tool for fair use. Some examples are using copyrighted materials for educational purposes, using an image for parody or commenting on an original. This all stems from problems of monetary loss and the ever alluring "deep pockets". I think that artists tend to get a little sue crazy sometimes. It usually happens after the pinnacle of the career but before the Casino concert tours. One day and artist wakes up and says, "Crap. I can't afford to buy wal-mart oatmeal this month... I wonder if I can find a Christina Aguillera song that sounds like something I hummed in the shower about 20 years ago." I think that there are legitimate reasons for some copyright infringements and sometimes there are no excuses period. It all stems back to a character issue of the perp. Moral and ethical values are disappearing in the world of media. We have developed a generation that knows where to go to get free music and movies. We have nobody to blame but ourselves. If you look at specific court cases regarding the fairness doctrine, you will find some rulings to be complicated, relying heavily on variables for truly unique situations. I think that a court should step up and offer a stronger precedent for the fairness doctrine. Give some strong guidelines that are not so broad in nature. It seems almost too easy to prove fair use in some cases and sometimes too easy to prove that you were infringed upon. This is an issue for the courts to decide, however we need to bring a legitimate case in front of the courts so that they can make a clear ruling... and that we will have to wait for.

False Stories

I really don't think there is an issue here. The very article that we were asked to read gave perfect evidence as to what steps are being taken so that this doesn't turn into a problem. For example, ombudsmen are ever more present in the industry now. But it's not like we need them, the public does a fair job of checks and balances. There is a good chance that when you write an article or report a story that somewhere out there, there is an expert on the very subject that you are writing about that is waiting on pins and needles to prove you wrong. Say you make a mistake, well then here comes the letters to the editor and trust me, someone reads those. The Oklahoma Daily tells me that they usually print every letter to the editor that they receive... with the exception of one person who sends multiple letters to the editor in a days period. What we are focusing on here a couple of stories out of a thousand that were allegedly "false". Lets take a look at where those people are now. Let's start with Dan Rather. Forced out of his job after the network aired a story in which an army of Internet users assured Dan that he was wrong. Even after an apology he was ousted. Credibility ruined. There is incentive enough to strive for credible journalism. Everyone here has a conscience... you live with it. If you mess up, it will be the first thing to tell you so. If you can handle that feeling then by all means go right ahead. There are your checks and balances. I don't think that this is an issue at all.

Fairness Doctrine

The fairness doctrine is something I’ve learned about previously (Mass Comm Law, etc.) but never really thought about. I don’t believe it is/was a negative force or control in media, that said, I highly doubt it could work with any level of success in today’s media marketplace. The media works so hard to give the people what they want (instead of what they ‘need’) nowadays, that to alter the recipe would undoubtedly cause a ratings disaster. Now, I’m not talking liberal/conservative, right/left, liberal media bias/overly conservative; I’m simply saying that people expect certain views and opinions from certain media outlets and altering that networks viewpoint would have an adverse affect on the almighty dollar. And we can’t have that now can we.
(My posts are always so short... you guys are making me look bad!)

Post for Tony and Caleb's Presentation

I do not believe falsifying stories is a widespread problem in American news media; however, the few journalists who choose to falsify information give the entire industry a bad name. A negative or damaging story on the actions of journalists is much more likely to make national news than a positive story about a hard-working ethical reporter. When a reporter at a highly respected publication or network is caught lying or bending the truth, competitors latch onto the story. This, in turn, raises doubt in the minds of the American public. As the article stated, a majority of Americans already believe journalists can be dishonest and unethical so damaging information is just fuel to the fire. Of course there are reporters who cut corners and don’t research topics as thoroughly as they should, but this can be blamed as much on newsroom cutbacks as the journalists themselves.
A revocable license to practice journalism seems unlikely and unnecessary. To employ such a license, we would have to define who qualifies as a journalist. Would bloggers get a license? What would be the penalty for writing and reporting without a license? There are far too many variables for the idea to actually go into practice. I think such a license would violate out freedom of speech.

Falsifing Stories

I do think it is a problem that the media does falsify some stories. It is not good to mislead the public when they usually count on you (the media) as a #1 source to receiving information. Also.... if it happens to be slander or libel, that could lead to serious trouble of whoever is doing it. The media, whether it is television, radio, internet or the newspaper, have the responsibility to report the accurate facts of something to the public. There is no excuse for falsifing stories in any situation.