The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
On Wednesday, I fulfilled an invitation to discuss my book, Left Turn, with the congressional Media Fairness Caucus. Founded by Rep. Lamar Smith, a Republican from San Antonio, the purpose of the caucus is "not to censor or condemn, but to encourage the media to adhere to the highest standards of reporting and provide the American people with the facts, balanced stories and fair coverage of the news."
Perhaps except for being interviewed by Peter Robinson for Uncommon Knowledge, the invitation to present was about the greatest thrill and honor of my career. Congressman Smith, a true patriot and one of the nicest persons I have ever met, is seated front-left at the table in the photo. Moving clockwise, the other seated people are Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), Rep. Trent Franks (R.-Az.), Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.), and super-star columnist John Fund.
My presentation was scheduled to last an hour; however, after 45 minutes the congressmen were called to the House floor to vote on the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. Just before leaving, Congressman Franks asked, "What can we [Congress] do [about media bias]?"
I said that I had some ideas and that I'd pass them along. However, I must admit, I don't have many ideas, and most of those are pretty half-baked. I'd appreciate any suggestions from Ricochet readers. Remember, Congress is severely constrained (thankfully, in my view) by the First Amendment. Congressman Franks' question is a difficult one. It's not clear that Congress can do much.
- Comment (23)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
Tim Groseclose
Just before leaving, Congressman Franks asked, "What can we [Congress] do [about media bias]?"
De-fund PBS and NPR.
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
John Walker
Tim Groseclose
Just before leaving, Congressman Franks asked, "What can we [Congress] do [about media bias]?"
De-fund PBS and NPR. · Dec 3 at 11:14am
Amen! Why didn't I think of that?
Feb '11
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
I would imagine that how the internet is regulated would be important.
Dec '10
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
Congress may not be able to do much, but individual congressmen can. They spend a lot of time in front of the cameras and should attack the bias they see. They should stand before the lens and the mic as solutions to the problem rather than as intensifiers of it.
Nov '11
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
I don't see anything Congress can do, nor should they try. It's a fool's errand, and would do more harm than good.
Funny -- I've been thinking lately about how the media might reform itself to become less reflexively left-liberal. I'll not bore you with all my cogitations, but here's the only thing I came up with that might help -- maybe some of you with experience in journalism can comment:
Hard-bitten editors that are just as sceptical of left-liberal bromides as they are of conservative spin, that value accuracy and quality above emotions and empathy, and that are crotchety enough to take corrective action with no concern about whose feelings they might bruise. There are too many left-leaning journalists to hope to fix the problem from the ground up, but a cadre of bosses willing to tell them to either write better or find other work might make an impact.
It will never happen, of course. I expect people like this would be disproportionately male and would thus run afoul of "diversity" guidelines. The journalist subculture seems incapable of producing many such editors, in any case.
Nov '11
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
Tim Groseclose
John Walker
Tim Groseclose
Just before leaving, Congressman Franks asked, "What can we [Congress] do [about media bias]?"
De-fund PBS and NPR. · Dec 3 at 11:14am
Amen! Why didn't I think of that? · Dec 3 at 11:17am
Congress should do it because it's the right thing to do, but I doubt it'd make a lick of difference in the way most "journalists" report the news.
Oct '11
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
Public radio and television is probably the most serious problem. Not because they are good but because they are everywhere. In many of the most remote places you can find an NPR affiliate or signal. They were originally confined to a small part of the FM spectrum.
Growing up in the west and having spent 6 years in radio I miss the truly local stories in less populated areas. I miss the farm report. I miss the small town high school scores.
De-funding might help but it is actually a fairly small amount. They also get donated funds from otherwise government funded organizations. Possibly that could be stopped.
The big piece of the pie is that they are get licensed for free. There should be a way to get ‘real’ locals (as opposed to translator non-manned stations whose broadcast originates from miles away) to create the broadcasting. Licensing for free very local content by locals in geographic areas that really need it might be an answer. And it would be a very good way to start.
Jan '11
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
The following suggestion has no chance of becoming reality, but that having been said, I'd like to offer it for your consideration.
Before television, what could loosely be called "the national conversation" took place on the floors of Congress. You could have speeches and debates throughout the country, but they were only sideshows to the main event. Congress played a unique role, since the members not only conducted the debate ... they also decided it, with their votes.
What else is a congress, or a parliament, if not an arena to stage national debates? That's where we're supposed to hash things out, in full view and with all hands on deck.
Congress hardly debates anymore. Speeches are entered into the record without ever being given voice, and no one's in the chamber anyway. And where are all these guys? On Fox, MSNBC, and CNN.
I can't help but feel that when Benjamin Latrobe designed the Capitol, he bestowed the Super Bowl of politics to America, but the members won't play any championships there, and would rather play pickup games in the parking lot. It's a Capitol. Use it!
May '11
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
Before television, what could loosely be called "the national conversation" took place on the floors of Congress.
KC, that sentence alone is worthy of many dissertations, here and elsewhere.
Edited on December 3, 2011 at 11:29pmMay '11
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
Lead by example and stop giving those transparently partisan soundbites in press conferences. I'm looking at you Rep. Nancy "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it" Pelosi.
May '10
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
In my opinion, the mere fact that Congressman Franks asked the question is prima facia evidence that he is absolutely unqualified to hold office.
First, the First Amendment stands over against any such notion.
Second, the mere idea that congress must get involved in every little niggling detail of life to attempt to ensure some notion of fairness is the whole problem with the administrative state.
If congress wants to do something, they can not only defund PBS and NPR, they can defund the FCC and every other regulatory agency that deals with communications issues, and then have the government stay the heck out of that whole arena.
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
· Dec 3 at 1:41pm
I'd like to defend Congressman Franks. I'm just about certain that he agrees with most of us -- that, because of the First Amendment, Congress needs to tread lightly on anything related to regulating the media. I think that's why he asked the question - that he sees it as a difficult problem, one that maybe Congress can't do much about. I also suspect that he agrees with most of us that NPR and PBS should be defunded. I also suspect that he'd welcome some creative solutions - such as ways, suggested in some comments above, that Congress could affect the national conversation. I suspect that he'd welcome suggestions that do not involve regulating the media. Although it was a very brief meeting, Congressman Franks struck me as a very thoughtful, right-thinking person. If I lived in the 2nd Arizona congressional district, I'd vote for him in a second.
Jun '10
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
I reject the implicit assumption that we should invoke the power of government coercion to address this "problem". This is the legislative equivalent of a man with a hammer looking for anything that might resemble a nail. How about our congress doing a better job of the things it is supposed to be doing? A budget might be nice; what's it been, three years now?
Edited on December 4, 2011 at 3:06amJul '10
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
First, the First Amendment stands over against any such notion.
Second, the mere idea that congress must get involved in every little niggling detail of life to attempt to ensure some notion of fairness is the whole problem with the administrative state.
If congress wants to do something, they can not only defund PBS and NPR, they can defund the FCC and every other regulatory agency that deals with communications issues, and then have the government stay the heck out of that whole arena.
How do you propose to handle spectrum management in the absence of the FCC? How do you assure that militaries and airlines and police and rescue and television and radio and Wi-Fi and mobile phones and CBers are not trashing each other left and right?
I fully support stripping the FCC of the many corrupting prerogatives it currently enjoys, but underneath that quivering mass of lard is a critical social function that must be performed to enjoy the very wireless network access I am using to make this post.
Jul '10
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
Yes, three years. Whatever Reid and Pelosi have been doing, it certainly has not included their Constitutionally dictated tasks. Pelosi lost her job. Reid is likely next.
But, now that we're here past the end of racism and partisanship under the dear leader, it's all good! And since Obama spent the last $15 trillion without a budget, obviously he will cheerfully pay it back out of his personal holdings. Perhaps then he will come to regret the half billion he joyfully flushed down the toilet that was Solyndra.
Dec '10
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
Defunding public broadcasting is the perfect answer.
Also, clarify "fair use" so that we don't get another Righthaven.
Strip the FCC of most of its powers beyond spectrum management.
But in general the watchword should be to provide opportunities for new media and new actors in old media.
Apr '11
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
Place me in the camp of those uneasy with this Congressional caucus. Why do our representatives spend our time and money to hold an official meeting on a subject that - however important in may be - has no legislative solution and is completely outside their Constitutional authority? If Democrats formed a "Congressional Media Fairness Caucus" to discuss the evils of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News we'd all - rightly - raise bloody hell.
This problem was caused decades ago by limited markets and government monopolies. Thanks to technological leaps and some deregulation in just 20-25 years we've seen talk radio, Fox News and the internet tilt the partisan landscape quite a bit. The market is working just fine, but these shifts don't happen overnight.
And this progress is astounding when you consider that our public schools continue to churn out kids without the critical thinking skills to understand when their news is biased.
Tim Groseclose
I'd like to defend Congressman Franks. I'm just about certain that he agrees with most of us -- that, because of the First Amendment, Congress needs to tread lightly on anything related to regulating the media.
Apr '11
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
An addendum to my previous comment: I do want to acknowledge my deep respect for the serious contributions of Tim Groseclose and I am happy that top Republicans are taking Tim's work seriously.
Such discussions, however, should take place at the RNC - on their own time - rather then in The Capital.
Edited on December 4, 2011 at 10:08amApr '11
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
Cutlass: An addendum to my previous comment: I do want to acknowledge my deep respect for the serious contributions of Tim Groseclose and I am happy that top Republicans are taking Tim's work seriously.
Such discussions, however, should take place at the RNC - on their own time - rather then in The Capital. ·
Let me defend Franks, while agreeing with Cutlass. It is my sense that the paradigmatic conservative response to any given problem is to ask how the government causes it. Once you've identified the government distortion, you cut government and help fix the problem. In other words, Republicans (and Democrats) should be thinking about this sort of problem. Plus, King Prawn is absolutely right to say that they should fight media bias through personal advocacy.
Cutlass is, however, completely correct in saying that the idea of a congressional caucus to attack media they don't like is awful politics, both in the direct partisan sense and in the impact on the public understanding of proper American civics.
Re: The Congressional Media Fairness Caucus
Cutlass:
Such discussions, however, should take place at the RNC - on their own time - rather then in The Capital. · Dec 4 at 1:06am
Edited on Dec 04 at 01:08 am
Here's some additional info that folks may appreciate knowing: First, the Caucus spent zero dollars for my talk. UVA paid my air fare (to Dulles airport). I paid for my own cab ride and hotel. The only significant costs were the opportunity costs of the congresspersons' time. Perhaps there are better uses of their time. But they actually didn't stay very long (most were there for only 20 or 30 minutes), and they left nearly immediately when the buzzer rang for a roll call vote. The caucus could have scheduled my presentation nearby in a place like the RNC, but traveling there would have imposed even greater opportunity costs on the members' time. Further, they don't actually know the exact time when a roll call vote will be called. It's problematic for them to venture too far from the Capitol.