The FCC should add warning labels to news programs

Good round—let’s proceed. So far, Pro has not touched my major objection and really the major crux of the debate, namely defining the system. Without examples of “truly unbiased,” “neutral,” and “objective,” terminology I admit people find favorable but favorable in the same way people universally champion “freedom,” “democracy” and “liberty.” Anyone can quickly toss out grand concepts and run away. But they are meaningless absent of concrete scenarios and concrete definitions. It has been mentioned that the TV-MA-like rating are comparable but let me ask voters: Quick Thought Experiment: Me: Watch this show and report to me if there are any instances of nudity. You: What does that mean? Can you provide a concrete example? Are there exception? Me: Nudity means naked genitals, breasts, and anus at all times including animated characters? You: Does this mean even a woman breast-feeding is that an example of nudity? Me: Yes, if her nipple is exposed in any way at any time. You: Are there any exceptions? Me: Yes, programs aired in the evening may show a bare buttock for a short period. You: What do you mean by short? Me: No longer than 30 seconds. [According to the other Pro, one can use this method to discern a rating]: “…take a single person or recurring news story and see how each program portrays the person or story. If a program is truly unbiased and neutral, then it is reasonable to suggest that the coverage of a person or an event by that program would be predominantly mixed, with positive + negative also shown in an equal amount” While an episode [according to Pro] is not an adequate way to ascertain a particular rating. Fine, if that is the case then, then let’s look at the coverage over the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri and the most recent revelations in the Justice Department’s report. Now MSNBC was without a doubt the most sympathetic to Michael Brown and his family, including the fact that one of their correspondence [Al Sharpton] even went to the city to lead what participates called Civil Rights marches, rallies, and other kinds of support. Fox News was much more skeptical and agreed the officer should not be prosecuted and that fundamentally the whole episode had little to do with race or racism in the police department. No one would dispute that characterization I just provided, MSNBC most sympathetic network in terms covering the issue as racism bubbling up from the service, and Fox News was the least sympathetic and was more differential to the side of law enforcement. Now, of course, there was varying degrees on the stratum but overall this dichotomy mentioned just a moment ago is representative of the shows that matter on Fox and MSNBC, meaning midafternoon and late-night time slots. Then… Last week, the Justice Department released their internal report and found systemic discrimination, evidenced by a cache of emails sent among prosecutors, police, and local judges. One email sent by between police officers including this: “June 2011 described a man seeking to obtain welfare for his dogs because they are ‘“mixed in color, unemployed, lazy, can’t speak English and have no frigging clue who their Daddies are.”’ Immediately the Mayor of Ferguson James Knowles went into straight into damage control mode, claiming the report is in “no way representative of the police department.” In the Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department report, it notes these emails were “…sent by Ferguson officials…through their official City of Ferguson email accounts…during work hours.” The Justice Department also found: “A November 2008 email stated that President Barack Obama would not be President for very long because “what black man holds a steady job for four years.” “A March 2010 email mocked African Americans through speech and familial stereotypes, using a story involving child support. One line from the email read: “I be so glad that dis be my last child support payment! Month after month, year after year, all dose payments!” “An April 2011 email depicted President Barack Obama as a chimpanzee.” ‘“A May 2011 email stated: “An African-American woman in New Orleans was admitted into the hospital for a pregnancy termination. Two weeks later she received a check for $5,000. She phoned the hospital to ask who it was from. The hospital said, ‘Crimestoppers.’” What is the FCC labeling rating? Or is there another hedge? In hindsight, using the model [Pro provided] can [Pro] make provide a rating based on this coverage. Was Fox’s overall programing more objective, neutral, and unbiased? Or was MSNBC coverage more objective, neutral, and unbiased? This is what the FCC labeling system would surely have to tackle such controversial issues, so please provide an effort (it doesn’t have to be thorough) to defend the model you’re purposing, otherwise voters should take assume the proposition is actually a one bolstered by undefined concepts, albeit concepts that sounds good as principles when left undefined or never put to use like neutrality, objectivity, and unbiased. What is the “objectivity,” “neutral,” “unbiased” position on: Climate Change Keystone Pipeline Individual Mandate Gay Marriage NSA warrantless wiretapping Is waterboarding torture or enhanced interrogation Higher Taxes or Lower Taxes Half the country has think tanks staffed with analysts of every sort, and Pro does not have an answer except five political appointees are going to have to sort this out by taking the best evidence and facts and then coming to a conclusion. First, let me address the ancillary trope: The FCC doesnt have an agenda or any incentive in advocating for gay rights, or abortion rights, privacy rights, etc. FCC has nothing to gain in showing a prejudice towards a news program. FCC employees in fact have proven completely inept and demonstrate gross unethical behavior on many occasions. Here is a headline from this year: “Washington, DC, has long had a revolving door through which government officials exit to become lobbyists, and lobbyists enter to become government officials. Regulators being led by former executives from the industries they're supposed to regulate and industry groups being led by their former regulators sounds like it should be the stuff of fiction. But the Federal Communications Commission has once again proven that this phenomenon is quite real.”[1] Of course, individuals have an interest to act on behalf of certain interest, and almost exclusively, members go on to work for lobbying firms for telecommunications companies and multi-national corporations. Furthermore, let’s just take recent history, same in the aftermath of 9/11 Every news network supported the build up to the Iraq War and the government stage managed the networks, stifling dissent, so are you saying in the build up to the Iraq War the FCC would have stepped in? [How? Presumably by contradicting the Bush administration right after 9/11 and given every news network an F for inaccuracy and bias since the foundation on which we preemptively attacked Iraq was a fabrication]. Is the FCC tasked with a phalanx of investigative journalists to fact check and register every quotidian remark utter during a broadcast? If not, your proposition falls flat on its face; if so, then you are talking not only a major investment of men and man-hours, which is not only unlikely but also quixotic. [1] http://arstechnica.com...