It is against Federal law for a TV station to conspire to influence

[ladjf]

the outcome of a federal election.

I have been watching CNN for about 3 hours today. During that time, Soledad O'Brien has been the
main announcer. Her role has obviously been to do everything possible to undermine, distract and divide the Democratic Party during this convention.

Tune her in and see for yourself. Almost every paragraph she speaks starts with an introductory, topic sentence, for example Sen. Bidden is know for his foreign policy expertise followed by a "But, how is he on economic issues?"

You will note that almost every sentence that follows the topic sentence begins with the word "but" or it's equivalent. She has constantly diverted the interviewees back to the issue of the Clinton supporters or some other disparaging or divisive topic. If the election outcome wasn't so desperately serious for America, her tactics would be comical.

Which brings me to this, is Mrs. O'Brien breaking Federal anti-conspiracy laws by hammering relentlessly a presentation that seems to be designed so as to influence the outcome of the Presidential election? I believe that the answer is yes and if so, she should be prosecuted?

In the event that Obama were to win the election, along with filibuster proof gains in Congress, and an added supreme court appointee, Mrs. O'Brien could well find herself in a lawsuit, originating filed by the Justice Department that finds her guilty of conspiracy. Such an outcome could, and probably would, put a stop to what has been happening in the media for the past several decades.

You might ask, why am I singling out O'brien? Simply because as I watched her this morning, it struck me that the tapes of her performance from today, presented by the Justice Department in a lawsuit against her would have resulted in an easy conviction.

What about CNN itself? They also could be prosecuted. But, it might be more difficult to accomplish.
The same for dozens of other "shills" that work for several TV companies. There only needs to be one
landmark conviction to bring the house of shame down.

To carry this further, the Democratic Party could hire a company to analyze the tapes of CNN and FOX for a period of say, Oct. ,2007 through Oct. ,2008, laying out the research results in various graphical forms showing tendencies toward Party bias. Such statistics would speak volumes about how the news information is mis-handled.

The first two steps toward bringing down the crime syndicate that is now running our government would be to elect a strong Democratic administration and then neutralize the media bias.

[goclark]

1. I just had to turn on CSPAN

The format is at least giving others a time to speak.
And, there are not so many Media Thugs trying out for Tim Russet's job.

[cosmik debris]

2. Against the law? Which law? What ever happened to freedom of speech?

And freedom of the Press?

This is all news to me, please explain.

[nc4bo]

3. The Neocon liberal media "took it off the table". nt

[HamdenRice]

7. Now that is an ill informed post!

While the answer to the OP is a partial but not complete no, it is stupefying that you seem to believe that the only law that applies to regulate television content is the First Amendment.

To put it in simple, easy to understand terms, the public airways are considered the property of the people of the United States and that ownership is exercised through the federal government.

The federal government leases (or licenses) television stations and networks the right to use the public airways in exchange for those stations undertaking certain obligations and submitting to regulation.

Hence, television is regulated by Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code, as well as regulations promulgated thereunder, and by administrative action and decisions of the Federal Communications Commission.

For example, section 521 of Subchapter V-A of Chapter 5 of Title 47 states the purpose of federal regulation of cable television:

The purposes of this subchapter are to—

(1) establish a national policy concerning cable communications;

(2) establish franchise procedures and standards which encourage the growth and development of cable systems and which assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the local community;

(3) establish guidelines for the exercise of Federal, State, and local authority with respect to the regulation of cable systems;

(4) assure that cable communications provide and are encouraged to provide the widest possible diversity of information sources and services to the public;

(5) establish an orderly process for franchise renewal which protects cable operators against unfair denials of renewal where the operator’s past performance and proposal for future performance meet the standards established by this subchapter; and

(6) promote competition in cable communications and minimize unnecessary regulation that would impose an undue economic burden on cable systems.

<end quote>

To simply state that telelvision and cable television corporations could broadcast anything they want because of the "First Amendment" would be a lunatic libertarian delegation to the corporate sector of the power to tell us what to think and believe, which no doubt would be shaped solely by the profit making motives of the corporations themselves.

Your absolute, almost religious faith in the corporate sector is always so touching.

By contrast, most progressives and Democrats believe that in being allocated public airspace and regional cable monopolies, telecommunications corporations take on certain regulatory obligations related to public policy.

[onenote]

16. If we're citing statutory provisions, try this one: 47 USC Sec. 544(f)(1)

"Any Federal agency, State or franchising authority may not impose requirements regarding the provision or content of cale services, except as expressly provided in this title."

Cable channels have, for First Amendment purposes, standing closer to that of newspapers than broadcasters. That is not to say that their content can't be regulated, but just for the usual litany of possible speech-related violations: obscenity, libel, slander, invasion of privacy, false/misleading advertising, incitement. Of course, most of those provisions have been (properly) narrowly construed in order ensure that they don't have a chilling effect on free speech.

Also, I'm curious about the "regional cable monopolies" you refer to: in what "region" of the US are DirecTV and Dish Network not available? Basically, everyone has at least three choices of multichannel subscription television service. So the distributors aren't "monopolies" (since 1993, cable has dropped from having well over 90 percent of all subscription tv subscribers to having under 65 percent today). As for the programmers themselves, CNN is not a "monopoly."

[HamdenRice]

29. You're misreading the statute

"Any Federal agency, State or franchising authority may not impose requirements regarding the provision or content of cale services, except as expressly provided in this title..." means "we can regulate cable services and content, but no other federal agency, state or franchising authority can, except under this law" -- which is to say services and content can be regulated. In other words, it's an assertion of exclusive jurisdiction to regulate and delegate regulation.

As for cable monopolies, I never said telecommunications monopolies. I said cable monopolies. There has, for example, always been broadcast tv in most cable markets.

The model behind cable is that in each jurisdiction there is only one cable operator (the franchise). Here in New York City, because of the density of subscribers, the "region" of each monopoly may be as small as part of a borough. But it is still a cable monopoly.

It is the granting of this local monopoly by the franchising authority that its ability to regulate theoretically comes from.

Moreover, the power to regulate content is stronger than that of a newspaper. For example, cable operators are required to carry public access tv. No newspaper is required to turn over a certain number of pages to community groups.

At any rate, I'm sure you will agree that the "First Amendment" is not the only law that applies to the regulation of cable content.

[onenote]

33. if you define a market narrowly enough everyone has a monopoloy

If you want to believe that DirecTV and Dish TV don't compete in the same market as cable television, feel free. But the fact that percentage of homes getting video programming services like CNN, MTV, ESPN, etc. from cable has dropped by more than 30 percent since DirecTV and Dish TV launched, and those services have gone from zero to more than 30 percent of the subscription homes suggests you are mistaken.

Once upon a time, you might be interested to know, the FCC ruled that broadcast tv was a direct competitor to cable in that if there were three over the air channels available to a community, that community couldn't regulate cable pricing. Later the threshold was raised to 6 channels. But in 1992, Congress changed the law so it requires 15 percent penetration from competing providers to "deregulate" a cable operator's rates.

As for other elements of cable regulation, the source of that authority is not the granting of a "local monopoly." Indeed, granting an exclusive franchise has been unlawful and unenforceable for more than a decade. Verizon, most notably, has gone from nothing to a million plus subscribers in just a couple of years and competes head to head with Cablevision in Long Island and is expected to be offering service in New York City shortly. If having a local monopoly is what created regulatory authority, then there wouldn't be any regulation of cable where Verizon holds a competing franchise (or in New York, where RCN has had a competing franchise to provide video service for years). In a growing number of jurisdictions, regulation of cable is being moved to the state level from the municipal level.

The source of regulatory authority over cable comes from its use of the public rights of way to run its wires.

And I never said that cable (and satellite) had identical first amendment rights as newspapers -- they clearly don't, as evidenced not only by public and leased access requirements but also by the so-called "must carry" rules that require retransmission of local broadcast stations. But generally speaking, cable distributors and cable programmers have editorial freedoms not accorded to broadcasters when it comes to content -- no regulation of indecent speech, for example.

As the internet evolves as a video distribution medium and competition continues to grow between satellite and cable, it will be interesting to see if the courts' change their view of the permitted scope of regulation of cable television to limit it non-speech issues.

Finally, returning to the first point. Yes, Congress has the authority to regulate cable content (indeed, I listed a number of types of such regulation that Congress has identified). But Congress still is bounded by the FIrst Amendment and the ability of Congress to impose additional speech-related restrictions on cable television is pretty dubious at this point.

[HamdenRice]

34. "Yes, Congress has the authority to regulate cable content "

nt

[onenote]

37. "bounded by the first amendment"

nt

[Whisp]

36. so it would be ok with you if the media called Obama a baby eating

libral murdering elitist nazi for 24 hours a day without ONE positive thing to say about him or his campaign?
Would be ok then to have all the panels all the time 100% repuglicans instead of just 80% like they have now?

I know they are coming close to that, but really - this has got Nothing to do with freedom of speech - the air waves belong to the People and a fair represention of both parties should be the norm.


sheeeeeeeeesh!

[ladjf]

39. It's the quid pro quo possibilities between the TV media corporations

and the political Parties. This relationship doesn't even have to exist by actual contractual agreements. It can, and probably does exist by means of mutual understandings or assumptions, i.e.
"get our guy elected and we'll make sure that you are amply rewarded".

By virtue of their wealth and communications means, they are literally able to use their advantage to manipulate the unsuspecting public toward any candidate they so choose.

I've been rudely told by other posters that there is no statute prohibiting such practices. That may be true. But, if so, that needs to be worked on.

[onenote]

4. Answer to all of your questions: No.

No. There is no such law. And no, O'Brien isn't guilty of conspiring to influence the election. The media is allowed to attempt to influence the outcome of elections. Newspapers do it all the time. O'Brien isn't going to face prosecution when the election is over no matter who wins.

Silly stuff.

[harun]

5. Hopefully they are being so over the top biased that it back fires

against them. Lot of sheeple believe this crap though.

[maui9002]

6. Same story with segments of other channels

Yesterday, one of the hosts of a show on NBC conducted interviews with both Democratic and Republican spokepersons. A typical question posed to the Democrats: "Joe Biden was selected because of his experience in foreign policy. Does his pick highlight Senator Obama's lack of experience?"
A typical question posed to the Republicans. "Joe Biden and John McCain are friends; do you think that will have any impact on negative campaigning?"

Can't anyone other than Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow ask questions that have any sort of thought behind them (and I'm including questions for the Democratic talking heads too).

To the Republicans:

"Senator McCain says that he has the experience to step right in as President. Can you name a single time he was asked to make an executive decision similar to those that need to be made by the President?"

"Senator McCain advertises that he's a maverick and will go against his own party. But he's steadfast in his support for the war in Iraq, he's supports more tax cuts for the wealthy, he's for privatizing social security, he's for more deregulation, he's flipped on immigration policy, he's against gay marriage and civil unions, and he's staunchly anti abortion. On what key issue does the candidate differ with his party?"

"What would Senator McCain do differently during the next four years than what the current President would do?"

[HamdenRice]

8. Fox has probably broken the law you are referring to

To summarize, it is illegal for the federal government to propogandize within the United States. Because the Bush White House during the Rove years actually sent talking points to Fox each morning, Fox was arguably a propoganda arm of the federal government and Bush administration.

This is yet one more crime that will need to be investigated by a new Democratic administration.

That's a bit more, however, than say CNN being biased against Democrats. If you could show some kind of political or financial direction from the Republicans or the Bush administration, that might be a different story.

[ladjf]

11. Thanks for the input. I should have studied the law before making

my original post.

[onenote]

12. what law would that be?

[HamdenRice]

23. It's actually a tangle of many laws

They are generally spread across many appropriation bills, and what they have in common is the prohibition on the use of appropriated funds for "publicity or propaganda purposes." Many are in Defense bills that prevent the Pentagon from spreading propoganda within the US, even though the Pentagon is allowed to do so overseas. Similarly, the U.S. Information Agency spreads pro American propoganda overseas, but can't do so here.

This is, however, very complicated for several reasons. First, many appropriations allow for "advertising" by the federal government for specific public policy reasons -- enforming mothers about WIC and Food Stamps, recruiting for the services and so on. So it's difficult sometimes to draw the line between legimimate advertising and propoganda.

Second, these laws are based on a pre-internet model of information in the world. If the CIA placed an item in a Jordanian newspaper in 1980, there was virtually no chance it would be read in the U.S. Now it's likely that it would, so without global information boundaries, U.S. propoganda inevitably comes home.

The White House-Fox relationship may be illegal if, for example, Rove and his staff were working on government time and using government resources (ie appropriated funds for their salaries, communications equipment, or the facilities of the GSA etc.) while they prepared and disseminated propoganda to Fox, or made arrangements with Fox for the propoganda conduit.

[ladjf]

9. It has been pointed out to me that there is no Federal law against

media influencing Federal elections. The FEC law pertains prohibiting the election influencing applies to corporations but the media, as far as I can tell, is exempt. Too damn bad.

So, my position is that should be such a law. It's not a matter of free speech such as when a newspaper or TV channel endorses a candidate. It that situation, they were open about their support of certain candidates. On the other hand, when a TV channel plans their operations toward influencing the election while posing as being unbiased, that seems crooked to me.

[demobabe]

10. I'm sure the Supreme Court will take your side on this...

...NOT.

[ladjf]

13. Of course not. But, with one or two changes on the Court it could

be a different story.

[demobabe]

15. Absolutely

And the Supreme Court is a major reason why we NEED to win this election... media issues aside!

[onenote]

18. not really. Since any SCOTUS Justice appointed by a Democratic President

is likely to have more respect for the First Amendment than some around here seem to have.

[FrenchieCat]

14. I think that we will have a to find a way to deconglomarize the media

because until it is, they have a 5 way monopoly, and those mega corporation are part of the facism that rules this nation.

That is why voting Obama/Biden is the most important thing we can do.......

IT's all about the urgency of NOW!

[ladjf]

17. Good thinking.

[onenote]

19. A 'five way' monopoly -- ah, yes, the dreaded "pentopoly"

Much discussed in antitrust and economic literature.

Not.

Let's see, the five are:
GE/NBC, CBS, Disney/ABC, Fox/News Corp. and

the major cable distributors not owned by those companies (Comcast, Time Warner, DirecTV, Dish Net, Cox, Charter, etc.) and the dozens of cable channels not affiliated with those companies.

Oh, and let's not leave out the rest of the media, including newspapers, magazines, and radio.

But it still adds up to five, right?

[FrenchieCat]

20. Yep.....adds up to 5 and some small change.

DISNEY
TIME-WARNER
GENERAL ELECTRIC
NEWSCORP
VIACOM

[onenote]

21. which one is number 5?

[FrenchieCat]

22. Edited my post.....see list in my original response to you.

[w4rma]

24. Time-Warner is the one you dropped off as they own CNN. The others you list are distributors. (nt)

[onenote]

26. Time Warner is spinning off its cable distribution arm

So I guess they'll be off the list in a few months.
And Comcast actually owns quite a bit of programming.

[FrenchieCat]

25. more on that......

Concentration of media ownership (also known as media consolidation) is a commonly used term that refers to the majority of the media outlets being owned by a small number of conglomerates and corporations — especially by those who view such consolidation as detrimental, dangerous, or otherwise problematic — to characterize ownership structure of mass media industries. These individual media industries are often referred to as a 'Media Institution'. Media ownership may refer to states of oligopoly or monopoly in a given media industry, or to the importance of a low number of media conglomerates. Large media conglomerates include Disney, National Amusements, Time Warner, Viacom, News Corp, Bertelsmann AG, Sony, General Electric, Vivendi SA and Lagardère Group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership

[onenote]

30. Then and now

I grew up in the late 50s/early 60s -- an era where there typically were at most four television options: an ABC affiliate, an NBC affiliate, a CBS affiliate, and an indpendent station that did no local or national news. The ABC, CBS, and NBC stations offered only 15 minutes of nightly news until 1963. BEginning in 1961, we got a PBS affiliate. And I grew up in one of the 50 largest TV markets in the country. We had three daily newspapers, one of which was basically a joke. And we had a bunch of AM radio stations (FM was basically unknown until I was in high school), most of which offered minimal, canned news reports.

Today, I have the same broadcast stations, except that the independent is now a Fox affiliate that offers considerable news and local programming. There are two additional independent stations (neither does much in the way of news coverage). I have over 100 additional cable choices including several 24 hour news channels, channels that allow me to watch coverage of Congressional debates and hearings, channels that provide documentary programming that does not, and has not, existed on broadcast television for decades, premium channels that give me access to programming that would never be allowed on broadcast television.

Is there two much concentration in certain aspects of the media today, particularly radio? Yes. Was the situation really that much better in the past? No.

[ClassWarrior]

27. While I COMPLETELY agree that the media needs reforming...

...a cable network is NOT a "TV station," nor is it carried on a TV station, so it completely falls outside the scope of the law to which you're referring.

That being said: http://www.freepress.net

NGU.

[tritsofme]

28. Authoritarians on the left like you, scare me just as much as those on the right.

Sorry, you're not going to catch me supporting government harassment of journalists because you don't agree with their views.

Maybe we should throw Keith Olbermann in the slammer right next to her? But I suppose you already have some reason for why what he does is "ok" and "acceptable" as opposed to your politcal adversary.

[ladjf]

32. No need for you to worry about me. In the first place, I was apparently

incorrect in my belief that it was illegal for media to manipulate a Federal election.

I have no problems with any media outlet endorsing political candidates.

I also have no influence with anyone since I'm not rich, not an attorney and not even a very effective writer. So, please don't be afraid of "authoritarians on the left" like me.

I am the opposite of an authoritarian.

However, it doesn't seem good for the majority of Americans in cases where very wealthy monopolies can dictate the outcome of Federal elections through their broadcasting practices. It would be different if they came right out and voiced their true position about the candidates such as newspapers do or even Keith Oberman. But instead of an open position, the news outlets use mind control or propaganda techniques to dupe the public into favoring certain candidates.

Rest easy poster. Those that favor your position are in control.

[Erin Elizabeth]

31. I wouldn't mind the media being the devil's advocate so much

if only they played the devil's advocate FOR BOTH FUCKING SIDES.

NOT. JUST. ONE.

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. Which specific law?

:shrug:

[ladjf]

38. Apparently there is no specific law prohibiting TV outlets from

manipulating the viewers so as to change the election outcomes. I was presumptuous in my original OP by stating that there was.

However, in light of the obvious quid pro quo possibilities existing between certain candidates and the TV media's financial interest, there most definitely should be.

I'm not talking about depriving anyone of the first amendment rights. I'm talking about arrangements, often unspoken, that are grossly unfair to the American public and and the United States as a whole.

Why does the TV media almost completely favor McCain in this election? The true answer to that question would show that while they may or may not be violating an existing statute, they are enemies to most American people.