Checks and Balances, and the Media.
Alright, I was listening to Bill O'Reilly on my way to work, and he was discussing about the media and how it's out of control.
He mentioned how the checks and balances work.
The President is checked by both the Supreme Court and Congress.
The Congress is checked by the Supreme Court.
The People are checked by the Law of the Land.
About practically everything is checked by the Media.
But there's nothing that checks on the Media.
What gives?
Apparently, I have been declared banished.
You check the media.
If they do crap you don't like, you can stop watching, then they'll lose ratings and money, which might make them rethink what they're doing.
Ironically, state-run media is the best solution for that, provided there is a true, multi-party democracy in action. The BBC is by far the best and most balanced news organisation I've come across.
Actually, what I'd do is hire a mix of libs and conservs and send one of each on every story. Between the liberal and the conservative, I would think that the bias could be dealt with. I'd try to have the stories go much farther in depth, as in give the team 2-3 weeks to dig around and get all the relevant facts. The reason being is that anyone who wants to can find out almost immediately what's going on on the web. Hell you can't even fart without it being out up in a blog somewhere on the web, so by going in depth on the story, you can make people come to you for info, as a suppliment to what is actually on the web. The big scoops are all taken. Go for depth.
Kane, you are awesome and I love you. [img]http://home.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/heart.gif[/img]Originally Posted by MecaKane
Signature by rubah. I think.
In my opinion, The Daily Show checks the media more than anything else out there. They've gotten much more edgy toward the media lately, which is a good thing.
Take care all.
The media isn't part of the government. Technically the checks and balances was deisgned by the American founding fathers so that each of the three branches is checked and balanced by the other two in many ways like the following:
presidents vetoing a bill passed by Congress
Senate confirming executive appointments
the judiciary declaring the constitutionality of laws (which I don't think is actually specifically spelled out in the Constitution, really the Constitution just allows for the judiciary to interpret the laws, and Chief Justice John Marshall interpreted that to mean the judiciary could nullify laws it felt went against the Constitution.)
President appoints judges/justices, and the Senate must approve.
etc.
Elections have nothing to do with checks and balances. That's just part of democracy, and so is a free and independent media.
Yeah, but let's not forget that the People are checked by the Laws that are enforced upon them. The People are not free to do everything they want, because there's the law. However, I'm not saying that the Media should say whatever they want, but there's not that's keeping it in Balance, except the Media itself.
Is there a Media police that censors what some of the Media is going to say? There is the FCC, but that has no real power over the entire Media industry.
Apparently, I have been declared banished.
well, I get checked by the fact that I don't have enough money to buy everything I might want to buy, but that doesn't have much to do with the governmental principle of checks and balances either.
there are slander and libel laws that protect against malicious falsehoods being spread about someone through broadcast or print.
No it doesn't, and I'm not talking about the government. I mostly want to talk about the Media, and why there isn't anything that's keeping it under control. Kane said that we keep it under control. If we don't watch or listen to them, they would stop. But who's going to force everyone to follow this? It's impossible to stop the Media using Kane's method.
Apparently, I have been declared banished.
First of all, I very much disagree that a state-run media is the best option. By its very definition, such a media is under the control of the government, and not only is the government not always (or even almost always) our buddy, but its goals are often in opposition to those of the people--for that government to control the news is a bad, bad thing.
On the contrary, it may well be impossible for a media organization to remain unbiased--people feel strongly about what they believe in; and if you're a reporter, observing the goings-on in the world as a matter of career, it's likely that you will feel even more strongly about what you believe and what you see. And indeed, the New York Times or NBC has the right to be as left-leaning as they want. The problem is when they're dishonest about this bias, and falsely advertise to the public that they are non-biased, strictly objectionist reporters of events.
If you want to know what's actually going on in the world, you check a variety of sources--if what someone says doesn't make sense, look it up and see whether or not they have the straight of it.
Marbury vs. Madison--1812, if I remember right. However, this may be a problem, because the checks and balances were arranged with the idea that the judiciary would be a branch of little importance--and after Marbury vs. Madison, the judiciary has more power to make or anull law than either of the other two branches (and while I realize that a court cannot pass a law, they can make a decision and demand that a law be passed to support it, such as when the Surpreme Court of Massechussettes legalized homosexual marriage and gave the legislature six months to pass a law complying with their ruling); which is why fights over nominees can be so bitter. I'm not sure what would be necessary to fix that, but my leaning is to make judges popularly elected like our other law-making officials--which, in turn, would require an amendment to the Constitution, and seeing as few people see it the way I do (as of yet, at least), that's not going to happen any time soon.the judiciary declaring the constitutionality of laws (which I don't think is actually specifically spelled out in the Constitution, really the Constitution just allows for the judiciary to interpret the laws, and Chief Justice John Marshall interpreted that to mean the judiciary could nullify laws it felt went against the Constitution.)
but your dealing with a group of people.You realise that a gorup of people and a individual is completely different.es individuals watch it and tune on.But you have too many poeple that watch only a certain news station .SO many of them that.Really.No media company will lose money if the smart ones stop watching.
Yes, Marbury v Madison established that the judiciary could deem a law unconstitutional. It is true the founding fathers made the judiciary rather weak (whether by intent or just by happenstance I don't know. maybe they just didn't have much practice at the whole government-making game and failed to adequately outline the powers of the judiciary.) Anyway, John Jay was the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court and he quit basically because he thought the job was pointless and had no real power. John Marshall succeeded him and set out to make the judiciary have more defined powers. I think in general his judicial reivew and establishment of the rule of law was a very good thing for the US, although it certainly can and has been abused with suspect rulings and some judicial oversteps. Then again, the judicial branch certainly is not without peer in this sense considering the myriad executive and legislative oversteps through the years.
Anyway, the media is checked by both laws supposedly preventing mendacious reporting and by the general sense of believability. When a media source loses credibility it loses everything. I think our media is currently headed down that path and we shall see what the result is.
Proto--
The media is not a government agency, and therefore the government has no power to provide 'checks and balances' on them.
Market forces will not take away every viewer of NBC or CBS, but they do have an effect, and in fact many of the big news organizations are feeling the pressure--this is why FOX News is blowing them out of the water, and I believe it will continue to do so unless some of them change their ways.
The best option, I believe, for halting the excesses of the media is to change libel law so that a media organization is as liable for action because of libel or slander as any other company--currently, if a newspaper says something untrue that causes great harm, it's very, very difficult to sue them for it. This won't stop (and like I said, I believe nothing can, and quite possibly nothing should stop) general bias, but it will stop many of the most egregrious abuses.
Rather than the media being granted special dispensation under the First Amendment, I believe it should be realized and made policy that the rights of free speech and free press are the right of every citizen of the United States equally, and no organization or person should have greater or lesser access to these rights.
Something we can agree on!
Posting Permissions
:temigi: 
