See here, for the answer. It's being able to disguise commercials as independent news reports. Having to disclose that fake news is fake news threatens the "the free speech rights of my corporate clients" says Kevin Foley, owner of KEF Media Associates.
In the comment of that entry linked above, Mr. Foley explains that it's a "free market." If people don't like fake news, they can go somewhere else for the news. For that to happen, Mr. Foley, they'd have to first know what the fake news is.
Which is why the Center for Media and Democracy is such an invaluable resource. Ethically challenged individuals like Mr. Foley defend lies and deception on the grounds that it's free speech. Mr. Foley, in resisting having to disclose fake news, admits that he makes money from deception, that not lying to the public would hurt his business.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Why should the only fake news we get be that on CBS, ABC, NBC, or the New York Times and Washington Post. I'm not in favor of fake news monopolies. We need competition in fake news.
One man's fake news is another man's gospel and another's proven facts. That's free speech and its not just for the unshaven and unemployed of the left.
Says the "Dog"
It used to be that relativism was embraced by the left. Now it's been co-opted by individuals such as yourself. You might not mind being lied to, and might consider false advertising "free speech", but the rest of us put a premium on truth in a democratic society.
And judging by your response, I doubt you visited the link provided or are very familiar with the subject. This is not a matter of dispute over facts.
And if the media outlets you list are presenting VNRs as fake news then they would be subject to the same FCC disclosure rules. Of course, we know this is not what you mean when you say "fake news."
HG,
Pardon this, but did you really just seriously engage that idiot troll? I know you want more commentary, but that's going a bit far. Hell, man, I'll commit to commenting regularly rather than watch you have to argue with the braindead.
Oop, that above is me...
He's an American. He votes. I'd rather engage him, so far as I can do so without going insane with frustration, than let the matter go unaddressed.
I don't understand how my first post embraces relativism in your mind?
If a news service wishes to adopt as its own the work of another camera crew, how is that different from them sending out their own camera crew and creating that very same story? If a news service continually publishes lies and deceit and shoddy reporting then surely the public will quit reading them.
Wait a minute, the public (although less of them every year) continues to read and digest reports from organizations that publish lies and decit and shoddy reporting continuously. Fake news organizations like the New York Times and WaPo, CBS, and CNN.
Free speech is free speech. It can't be false advertising unless a product or service is being offered for sale as the central message of the content presented.
Says the "Dog"
Have you even read the link yet? Are you at all familiar with the subject? You're conflating two different issues, news organizations issuing reports that you believe are false or lies, and news organizations running stories that were created as advertisements by the PR industry, but are disguised to look as if they are independent news reports.
The lie is in the nondisclosure, and people can not know they are being lied to without that disclosure in the first place.
"Free speech is free speech" is not a defense for false advertising. Drano can not sell its product as a health elixir and claim a free speech right to do so.
Hume's Ghost said...
He's an American. He votes. I'd rather engage him, so far as I can do so without going insane with frustration, than let the matter go unaddressed.
No American, he. He's a fricking Royalist. But I defer to your judgement, sir, as I am not your equal in such things.
These are information and/or fluff pieces of the sort aired on LOCAL news stations all the time. They are not commercials because they do NOT offer a particular product for sale, and they are deemed newsworthy because they impart some information about current events or currently evolving technology. Your complain seems to be that the cameraman and narrator of the video didn't work for the news station. If the news station adopts the camera work of others as its own, that makes it a news report of that station. If you don't like what that station puts on the air then change the channel.
Frankly I don't see at all what you've got your panties all in a wad about. The biggest complaint seems to be that its something that benefits capitalism versus putting on the air some disguised press release from the anti-globalization or environmental terrorist groups.
Its news if the local news station adopts it as its news. Free speech is free speech. If you don't like what you here on some fox station in Oklahoma, then just change the frickin channel. That's what its there for.
I went to the link and some of the links at that link. Its mostly just a boring list of allegations of some local news stations informing its viewers of emerging technology trends and other fluff pieces by utilizing packaged info from various sources. Its not hard news; it doesn't offer any product for sale; they don't mention a price for sale; or where or how the product could be purchased. Its not a advertsiement. Therefore it can't be "false" advertising. Its not a paid publication of an advertiser seeking to sell a product so it isn't advertising at all. If a news station takes publicly available information and video and does a news fluff piece on it or out of it, that's the sole decision of the news station and absolutely NOT advertising of any kind whatsoever.
Speech is speech. If you don't like the local Oklahoma fox station providing information about an emerging technology computer product, change the channel.
Now I've looked at the link. You need to try and understand the definition of advertising. Who pays for it; who decides to run it; and what its meant to do. It can't be false advertising as you claim since its NOT advertising at all. Its publicity possibly, but publicity isn't advertising. Publicity is what happens when unrelated third party TV stations broadcast reports about some person, company, or event.
Says the "Dog"
You lack the grasp of the purpose and function of what "news" is. Your definition of 'advertising' is simplistic. These VNRs are designed to advocate or sell positions for an interested party, and they are designed to look as if they are being presented by an uninterested independent party. A client paid for them to be made. They ARE advertising. They are covert propaganda. This is fundamentally deceptive, and if it is allowed, it corrupts and ruins the free press.
And you lack the purpose and function of what free speech and a free press are. My definition of advertising is accurate. Your definition of simplistic is something that isn't convulted enough to justify abridging free speech and free press in the name of preserving free speech and free press.
All speech is propaganda. Most of the "news" reports on ABC, CBS, and CNN and the New York Times are propaganda and are intentionally and fundamentally deceptive.
And if you are allowed to say what information news stations can put on the air and what they can't then THAT is corrupt and THAT would ruin the free press.
You can't save free speech and a free press by destroying the freedom of speakers to speak and air those thoughts and videos THEY choose to air. That is such a classic liberal oxymoron.
We must save free speech and free press by dictating what can be said and shown. We must ensure diversity of thought, even if that means crushing the thoughts of anyone who questions the value of our enforced diversity.
Not only the news is full of covert propaganda (and I'm not talking about these harmless VNR fluff pieces) but sitcoms and dramas and kid's shows are all full of covert propaganda. They are full of ridiculous liberal moralizing, global warning exaggerations and lies, evil corporate Americans stereotypes, and evil, stupid, redneck christian stereotypes.
All of this covert propaganda everywhere everyday and you worry about a local news station in bum fuch Oklahoma using some pre-packaged stuff to inform their viewers about this neat new fangled technology and internet thingy.
Says the "Dog"
No station would be prohibited from running VNRs. They are required to disclose the source, though.
Are they required to disclose the source of every news or fluff piece they run? You can't have a separate rule just for corporate press releases and not for Sierra Club press releases or greenpeace press releases.
When you say required. Are you saying there is some law that requires this already or is that what you are pushing to achieve?
Says the "Dog"
There is already a disclosure rule, which is why the FCC is investigating this.
I don't understand why you keep trying to set this up as a partisan issue. Press releases and VNRs should be diclsosed as such, regardless of who is behind them.
My biggest pick on this was trying to classify it as false advertising of the corporation that produced the VNR when it isn't advertising at all.
Like I said its publicity, but the producers of the VNR have no control over whether or how the VNR will be or won't be used. If there is a gripe it lies solely with the TV stations and not the corporation that produces the VNR.
If there is a content neutral disclosure rule that applies to all speech and political points of view that the possible violation of which the FCC is investigating, then to me this whole thing seems like an allegation of plagiarism and hardly something to be all that worried about.
Its certainly wrong headed to be worried ONLY about the VNR "propaganda" and so blind to all the other far more important covert propaganda in the news and TV entertainment programming.
Says the "Dog"
We shouldn't overlook the possibility that "The Dog" is himself a paid advocate for the companies that make these propaganda pieces. There are companies like Netvocates whose primary service is to pay people to leave comments on blogs defending the policies of corporations that those blogs criticize.
Post a Comment