The lawsuit is utterly silly and makes Common Cause and MoveOn look like idiots.
If they wanted to challenge the slogan, they should have gone the IMI route and argued that "fair and balanced" is no more deserving of trademark protection than "new and improved." THAT is a legitimate legal argument. The truth in advertising claim will get smacked down by a judge before anybody in the courtroom even warms their seat.
For once, I actually agree with a FoxNews spokesperson: "...this is clearly a transparent publicity stunt..."
Transparent publicity stunts are fine, if it gets criticism of Fox News into the mainstream media. As for what good it does to flog what Unfogged readers think is obvious, again I say that it's not about us -- it's about the people who get all their news from Katie Couric.
A lot of the stuff that comes out of the mouths of politicians and partisan groups is just put out there so that the already-convinced will have pre-articulated arguments they can repeat to themselves (when justifying to themselves voting against their economic interests, for example) and to their neighbors. It's put out there in order to maintain the illusion that every issue has two valid, sensible sides -- even when one of the sides is actually worthless.
The importance of discrediting Fox News isn't lessened by the fact that most of its viewers are rock-stalwart conservatives. Discrediting Fox is important because it reminds people to be critical of *all* the rhetoric they receive from both sides -- and because it makes it easier for left-leaning swingers to question the stuff that their Fox-watching friends tell them.
And I'd bet that coable or no, a lot of people watch Fox News. I stumble onto it sometimes myself, when I'm flipping through. It looks just like CNN.
You nevertheless have a complaint filed with the FTC for an utterly specious complaint. Do you truly believe that "exposing Fox News" justifies cluttering the machinery of the law?
Anyone think the Fairness Doctrine ( scuttled in 1987, leading to Limbaugh, et al, ) was a problem ? Constitutionally speaking?
If there were no need to beg the FCC for a licence to broadcast radio waves, then I think not. But given the limited space from 500Khz-1.6Mhz and 88Mhz-108Mhz....
Cable distribution is an old enough technology to be a public infrastructure, IMO
We should have a law that any one company, including subsidiaries and holdings, can own only 1 radio station, period.
1) "Fairness Doctrine." While Red Lion v. Federal Communications Commission allows the Fairness Doctrine on the airwaves, Miami Herald Publishing v. Tornillo struck down the idea that a newspaper could be compelled to give a politician a "right of reply" in its pages.
From a pure constitutional standpoint, I have serious problems with the "Fairness Doctrine," whether it is applied to the airwaves, to print media, to online media, or to cable-based media. The "Fairness Doctrine" destroys freedom of the press through excessive government regulation of the owners of that press.
2) Cable ownership -- Age of the network doesn't matter. The network can't be appropriated by government without eminent domain proceedings and just compensation.
3) Your third point is unsupported. Why should there be such a law? Please elucidate.
What has upset a lot of people about Fox is its viewership. Any day, and any hour of the day, you can flip to a cable channel and see dumb, unfair, sexist, unbalanced..., reporting. You don't see lawsuits against these channels, do you? The key is the viewership. When a large audience is influenced by the medium, it gets attention. Would Moveon.org care if only 1000 people a week watched Fox? Of course not.
Can you elaborate on the quasi-fascist part? While I don't think that slogan is fooling anyone, I don't see how challenging it is fascist.
Posted by Andrew Cholakian | Link to this comment | 07-20-04 9:28 PM
The lawsuit is utterly silly and makes Common Cause and MoveOn look like idiots.
If they wanted to challenge the slogan, they should have gone the IMI route and argued that "fair and balanced" is no more deserving of trademark protection than "new and improved." THAT is a legitimate legal argument. The truth in advertising claim will get smacked down by a judge before anybody in the courtroom even warms their seat.
For once, I actually agree with a FoxNews spokesperson: "...this is clearly a transparent publicity stunt..."
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07-20-04 10:10 PM
Transparent publicity stunts are fine, if it gets criticism of Fox News into the mainstream media. As for what good it does to flog what Unfogged readers think is obvious, again I say that it's not about us -- it's about the people who get all their news from Katie Couric.
A lot of the stuff that comes out of the mouths of politicians and partisan groups is just put out there so that the already-convinced will have pre-articulated arguments they can repeat to themselves (when justifying to themselves voting against their economic interests, for example) and to their neighbors. It's put out there in order to maintain the illusion that every issue has two valid, sensible sides -- even when one of the sides is actually worthless.
The importance of discrediting Fox News isn't lessened by the fact that most of its viewers are rock-stalwart conservatives. Discrediting Fox is important because it reminds people to be critical of *all* the rhetoric they receive from both sides -- and because it makes it easier for left-leaning swingers to question the stuff that their Fox-watching friends tell them.
And I'd bet that coable or no, a lot of people watch Fox News. I stumble onto it sometimes myself, when I'm flipping through. It looks just like CNN.
Posted by Bob | Link to this comment | 07-21-04 6:54 AM
Bob:
You nevertheless have a complaint filed with the FTC for an utterly specious complaint. Do you truly believe that "exposing Fox News" justifies cluttering the machinery of the law?
--|PW|--
Posted by pennywit | Link to this comment | 07-21-04 8:13 AM
Maybe not. But I dunno -- I'm not a lawyer. Lawyers get away with things that amaze me in their audacity and occasional effectiveness.
Posted by Bob | Link to this comment | 07-21-04 8:19 AM
Anyone think the Fairness Doctrine ( scuttled in 1987, leading to Limbaugh, et al, ) was a problem ? Constitutionally speaking?
If there were no need to beg the FCC for a licence to broadcast radio waves, then I think not. But given the limited space from 500Khz-1.6Mhz and 88Mhz-108Mhz....
Cable distribution is an old enough technology to be a public infrastructure, IMO
We should have a law that any one company, including subsidiaries and holdings, can own only 1 radio station, period.
Posted by Stoe Orkeo | Link to this comment | 07-21-04 9:16 AM
1) "Fairness Doctrine." While Red Lion v. Federal Communications Commission allows the Fairness Doctrine on the airwaves, Miami Herald Publishing v. Tornillo struck down the idea that a newspaper could be compelled to give a politician a "right of reply" in its pages.
From a pure constitutional standpoint, I have serious problems with the "Fairness Doctrine," whether it is applied to the airwaves, to print media, to online media, or to cable-based media. The "Fairness Doctrine" destroys freedom of the press through excessive government regulation of the owners of that press.
2) Cable ownership -- Age of the network doesn't matter. The network can't be appropriated by government without eminent domain proceedings and just compensation.
3) Your third point is unsupported. Why should there be such a law? Please elucidate.
--|PW|--
Posted by pennywit | Link to this comment | 07-21-04 10:24 AM
What has upset a lot of people about Fox is its viewership. Any day, and any hour of the day, you can flip to a cable channel and see dumb, unfair, sexist, unbalanced..., reporting. You don't see lawsuits against these channels, do you? The key is the viewership. When a large audience is influenced by the medium, it gets attention. Would Moveon.org care if only 1000 people a week watched Fox? Of course not.
Posted by Tadhg | Link to this comment | 07-25-04 10:45 PM