Wasn’t the Fairness Doctrine killed 25 years ago? Yes, but until August of 2011, the rules were still on the books. The FCC finally got rid of more than 80 media industry rules.
Does this mean that popular radio show hostscan finally stop claiming the federal government is bringing these rules back? Probably not..
Wonkbook’s Dylan Matthews has a clear summary of the importance of the death of the Fairness Doctrine.
There’s been a long debate in the United States whether still, movie or television cameras belong in the courtrooms. TV cameras have become a common feature in many local, state, and appellate courts, but as of this writing, the Supreme Court has said an emphatic “no” to cameras of any sort covering their proceedings. Here are links to several articles on cameras in the courtrooms:
UPDATED: Couple of readings on photography and privacy:
Is spending money on behalf of a candidate or an issue the same as speaking out in favor or in opposition to it? According the the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it is.
In the case, a nonprofit company sued to be able to run a documentary film on cable television that some saw as a thinly disguised anti-Hillary Clinton political ad. The FEC said the film couldn’t be aired because the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law prohibited corporate funded commercials for-or-against a presidential candidate less than 30 days before the election.
Citizen’s United appealed the ruling, and the United States Supreme Court ruled that organizations such as corporations and labor unions, as well as individuals, could give money in unlimited amounts to political action committees (PACs). These so-called superPACs could bundle together contributions to either support or oppose a particular candidate or issue. The one caveat is that the committees are not allowed to directly coordinate their activities with those of a candidate’s official campaign.
How separate these are is a matter of some debate, with top campaign officials oftentimes being on the steering committees for the associated superPAC.
James Bopp, a conservative activist lawyer, argues that the court’s decision makes it possible for individuals and organizations to create more political speech through their spending. As an example, multimillionaire Sheldon Adelson helped keep Newt Gingrich’s primary run for the Republican nomination going in 2012 by making a $10 million donation to Gingrich’s superPAC. Other supporters of the decision argue that the ads supported by the superPACs create a better informed public.
Before the Citizen’s United case, an individual could spend unlimited money directly on advertising supporting or attacking a candidate, but he or she couldn’t give that money to a political action committee.
Critics of the ruling argue that it puts almost unlimited political power in the hands of those who have the most money to spend.
You can listen to the Bopp interview here:
Here is a collection of a wide range of codes of ethics from the communication industry:
Back in 2008, there was a a big debate going on over at SportsShooter.com as to whether it was proper for a college newspaper adviser to tell a photographer that he needed to make the sky bluer in a photo of an MLK Day march. (The winter sky in the photo looks pretty pale.) Actually, it’s not really fair to call it a debate. Most of the folks on the board are outraged. I wonder, however, how many photographers would simply boost up the blue in the sky without a moment’s thought. How many people in the film era used Kodachrome instead of Ektachrome to get more vibrant colors, especially the “Kodachrome blue” skies. Don’t get me wrong…. I’m not defending the advisor who promoted “fixing” the sky color. I’m just thinking that maybe folks are more outraged about the adviser interfering with a photo than the actual changes being advocated. (Thanks to Elliott Parker of the JOURNET listserv for the main link.)
Space photographer Jerry Lodriguss talks about the ethics of digitally manipulating their images. It’s not just press photography where this is an issue.
In the movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, the emotionless Spock performs a rational yet selfless act. He saves the crew of the starship U.S.S. Enterprise by entering a reactor room to prevent an explosion that would have killed everyone on board the ship. But in doing so he absorbs a lethal dose of radiation. As he dies, he justifies his actions to his friends with the maxim, “The good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one.” In this moment, Spock sums up the central tenet of the nineteenth-century ethical philosopher John Stuart Mill’s principle of utility: the greatest good for the greatest number.
Here’s a clip from Wrath of Khan where Spock explains this principle:
In this second clip from YouTube, a fan has edited down all of the film’s discussion of the principle of utility down to 9 1/2 minutes. A great way to see this philosophical principle applied in popular culture. (This clip comes and goes in terms of availability. As of October 2014, it was available.)
So I made a bit of a joke about punk polka as long-tail content in my book Mass Communication: Living in a Media World. But it’s only partially a joke. Punk polka actually (well, sorta) exists.
Here’s a story from the Washington Post about the polka scene in Chicago that mentions punk polka. And here are a couple of videos featuring the genre:
Punk Polka by The Toons
And as long as we are being off-beat, here’s a polka version of techno band Kraftwerk’s Das Model
You can read the entire e report issued by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, entitled, “Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity?” in a variety of formats:
And here’s an opinion piece from the New York Times on regulating marketing of food to kids:
