which of the following is a true statement related to changes in the american media?

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, y'all will be able to:

• Identify circumstances in which the freedom of the press is not accented
• Compare the means in which the government oversees and influences media programming

The Constitution gives Congress responsibility for promoting the general welfare. While it is hard to ascertain what this broad dictate means, Congress has used it to protect citizens from media content information technology deems inappropriate. Although the media are independent participants in the U.South. political system, their liberties are non accented and there are rules they must follow.

Media and the First Amendment

The U.Due south. Constitution was written in secrecy. Journalists were neither invited to watch the drafting, nor did the framers talk to the press about their disagreements and decisions. Once it was finished, however, the Constitution was released to the public and near all newspapers printed it. Paper editors also published commentary and opinion about the new certificate and the course of regime it proposed. Early on support for the Constitution was strong, and Anti-Federalists (who opposed it) argued that their concerns were non properly covered past the press. The eventual press of The Federalist Papers, and the lesser-known Anti-Federalist Papers, fueled the argument that the printing was vital to American democracy. It was also clear the press had the power to bear on public opinion and therefore public policy.^[ane]

The approval of the First Amendment, equally a role of the Bill of Rights, demonstrated the framers' belief that a complimentary and vital press was of import enough to protect. It said:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of organized religion, or prohibiting the free practise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the correct of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the authorities for a redress of grievances."

This amendment serves as the basis for the political freedoms of the United states of america, and freedom of the press plays a stiff role in keeping commonwealth healthy. Without it, the press would not exist free to alert citizens to government abuses and corruption. In fact, one of New York's first newspapers, the New York Weekly Journal, began nether John Peter Zenger in 1733 with the goal of routing corruption in the colonial regime. After the colonial governor, William Cosby, had Zenger arrested and charged with seditious libel in 1835, his lawyers successfully defended his case and Zenger was plant not guilty, affirming the importance of a gratuitous printing in the colonies.

In defending John Peter Zenger against charges of libel against colonial governor William Cosby, Andrew Hamilton argued that a statement is not libelous if information technology can exist proved. (credit: modification of work by the Library of Congress)

The media act as informants and messengers, providing the means for citizens to get informed and serving as a venue for citizens to denote plans to assemble and protest actions by their government. Nonetheless the regime must ensure the media are acting in expert organized religion and not abusing their power. Like the other Outset Amendment liberties, liberty of the press is not absolute. The media have limitations on their freedom to publish and broadcast.

Slander and Libel

First, the media do non have the right to commit slander, speak false data with an intent to damage a person or entity, or libel, print false data with an intent to harm a person or entity. These acts constitute defamation of character that can cause a loss of reputation and income. The media do not accept the right to gratuitous speech communication in cases of libel and slander because the information is known to exist false. Nonetheless on a weekly footing, newspapers and magazines print stories that are negative and harmful. How tin they do this and not be sued?

First, libel and slander occur only in cases where false information is presented as fact. When editors or columnists write opinions, they are protected from many of the libel and slander provisions because they are not claiming their statements are facts. 2nd, information technology is upwards to the defamed private or company to bring a lawsuit confronting the media outlet, and the courts take dissimilar standards depending on whether the claimant is a private or public figure. A public figure must show that the publisher or broadcaster acted in "reckless disregard" when submitting information as truth or that the writer's intent was malicious. This test goes back to the New York Times 5. Sullivan (1964) case, in which a police commissioner in Alabama sued over inaccurate statements in a paper advertisement.^[2] Because the commissioner was a public figure, the U.South. Supreme Court applied a stringent test of malice to determine whether the advertisement was libel; the courtroom deemed it was not.

A private private must make one of the in a higher place arguments or argue that the writer was negligent in not making sure the information was authentic before publishing it. For this reason, newspapers and magazines are less probable to stray from hard facts when covering private individuals, even so they tin be willing to stretch the facts when writing most politicians, celebrities, or public figures. Only even stretching the truth can be costly for a publisher. In 2022, Star magazine published a headline, "Addiction Nightmare: Katie Drug Shocker," leading readers to believe actress Katie Holmes was taking drugs. While the article in the magazine focuses on the addictive quality of Scientology sessions rather than drugs, the implication and the headline were different. Considering drugs crusade people to act erratically, directors might be less inclined to hire Holmes if she were fond to drugs. Thus Holmes could contend that she had lost opportunity and income from the headline. While the publisher initially declined to correct the story, Holmes filed a $50 million lawsuit, and Star's parent company American Media, Inc. somewhen settled. Star printed an apology and made a donation to a charity on Holmes' behalf.^[3]

Classified Cloth

The media have only a limited right to publish material the government says is classified. If a paper or media outlet obtains classified fabric, or if a journalist is witness to information that is classified, the government may request certain cloth be redacted or removed from the commodity. In many instances, government officials and onetime employees give journalists classified paperwork in an try to bring public awareness to a problem. If the journalist calls the White House or Pentagon for quotations on a classified topic, the president may order the newspaper to end publication in the involvement of national security. The courts are then asked to rule on what is censored and what tin can be printed.

The line between the people's correct to know and national security is non always articulate. In 1971, the Supreme Court heard the Pentagon Papers example, in which the U.Southward. government sued the New York Times and the Washington Mail to stop the release of information from a classified study of the Vietnam State of war. The Supreme Court ruled that while the regime can impose prior restraint on the media, significant the government can foreclose the publication of data, that right is very express. The court gave the newspapers the right to publish much of the study, just revelation of troop movements and the names of secret operatives are some of the few canonical reasons for which the government tin can finish publication or reporting.

During the second Persian Gulf War, FOX News reporter Geraldo Rivera convinced the military to embed him with a U.Due south. Army unit in Iraq to provide alive coverage of its twenty-four hour period-to-solar day activities. During one of the reports he filed while traveling with the 101st Airborne Sectionalisation, Rivera had his photographic camera operator record him drawing a map in the sand, showing where his unit of measurement was and using Baghdad every bit a reference point. Rivera then discussed where the unit would get adjacent. Rivera was immediately removed from the unit of measurement and escorted from Republic of iraq.^[4]

The armed services exercised its correct to maintain secrecy over troop movements, stating that Rivera'southward reporting had given away troop locations and compromised the prophylactic of the unit. Rivera's future transmissions and reporting were censored until he was away from the unit.

Media and FCC Regulations

The liberties enjoyed by newspapers are overseen by the U.S. court system, while television and radio broadcasters are monitored by both the courts and a government regulatory commission.

The Radio Act of 1927 was the commencement attempt by Congress to regulate broadcast materials. The human activity was written to organize the rapidly expanding number of radio stations and the overuse of frequencies. Only politicians feared that broadcast material would exist obscene or biased. The Radio Act thus contained linguistic communication that gave the regime control over the quality of programming sent over public airwaves, and the power to ensure that stations maintained the public'due south best interest.^[5]

The Communications Deed of 1934 replaced the Radio Act and created a more than powerful entity to monitor the airwaves—a seven-fellow member Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to oversee both radio and telephone communication. The FCC, which at present has just five members, requires radio stations to apply for licenses, granted just if stations follow rules about limiting ad, providing a public forum for discussion, and serving local and minority communities. With the advent of tv, the FCC was given the aforementioned authority to license and monitor idiot box stations. The FCC at present also enforces ownership limits to avert monopolies and censors materials deemed inappropriate. It has no jurisdiction over print media, mainly because print media are purchased and not circulate.

In November 2022, the leadership of the FCC included (from left to right) Ajit Pai, Mignon Clyburn, Chairman Tom Wheeler, Jessica Rosenworcel, and Michael O'Rielly. (credit: Federal Communications Commission)

Concerned about something you lot heard or viewed? Would you similar to file a complaint most an obscene radio program or place your telephone number on the Do Not Phone call list? The FCC oversees each of these.

To maintain a license, stations are required to meet a number of criteria. The equal-time dominion, for instance, states that registered candidates running for office must be given equal opportunities for airtime and advertisements at not-cablevision television and radio stations offset forty-five days before a chief ballot and sixty days before a general ballot. Should WBNS in Columbus, Ohio, concur to sell Senator Marco Rubio thirty seconds of airtime for a presidential campaign commercial, the station must also sell all other candidates in that race thirty seconds of airtime at the same toll. This rate cannot be more than the station charges favored commercial advertisers that run ads of the same class and during the same time period.^[6]

More importantly, should Fox5 in Atlanta give Bernie Sanders five minutes of gratis airtime for an infomercial, the station must honor requests from all other candidates in the race for five minutes of free equal air fourth dimension or a complaint may be filed with the FCC.^[seven]

In 2022, Donald Trump, when he was a candidate running for the presidential Republican nomination, appeared on Saturday Night Live. Other Republican candidates made equal fourth dimension requests, and NBC agreed to give each candidate twelve minutes and 5 seconds of air time on a Friday and Sat night, as well as during a later episode of Sabbatum Night Alive.^[8]

The FCC does waive the equal-fourth dimension dominion if the coverage is purely news. If a newscaster is covering a political rally and is able to secure a short interview with a candidate, equal time does not utilise. Besides, if a news programs creates a short documentary on the problem of immigration reform and chooses to include clips from just ane or two candidates, the dominion does not utilize.^[ix]

Merely the rule may include shows that are not news. For this reason, some stations will not show a movie or television program if a candidate appears in information technology. In 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gary Coleman, both actors, became candidates in California's gubernatorial think election. Television stations did not run Coleman's sitcom Diff'rent Strokes or Schwarzenegger's movies, considering they would accept been discipline to the equal fourth dimension provision. With 135 candidates on the official ballot, stations would have been hard-pressed to offer thirty-infinitesimal and two-hr time slots to all.^[x]

Fifty-fifty the broadcasting of the president'south Country of the Marriage spoken language tin can trigger the equal-fourth dimension provisions. Opposing parties in Congress now use their time immediately following the State of the Union to offer an official rebuttal to the president'southward proposals.^[11]

While the idea behind the equal-time rule is fairness, it may not apply beyond candidates to supporters of that candidate or of a crusade. Hence, there potentially may exist a loophole in which broadcasters can requite free time to only one candidate's supporters. In the 2022 Wisconsin gubernatorial recall ballot, Scott Walker's supporters were allegedly given costless air fourth dimension to enhance funds and ask for volunteers while opponent Tom Barrett's supporters were not.^[12]

According to someone involved in the case, the FCC declined to intervene after a complaint was filed on the matter, saying the equal-time rule applied simply to the actual candidates, and that the case was an instance of the now-expressionless fairness doctrine.^[xiii]

The fairness doctrine was instituted in 1949 and required licensed stations to cover controversial problems in a balanced manner by providing listeners with information nigh all perspectives on any controversial result. If one candidate, cause, or supporter was given an opportunity to reach the viewers or listeners, the other side was to be given a chance to nowadays its side also. The fairness doctrine ended in the 1980s, subsequently a succession of courtroom cases led to its repeal by the FCC in 1987, with stations and critics arguing the doctrine express contend of controversial topics and placed the authorities in the role of editor.^[14]

The FCC too maintains indecency regulations over television, radio, and other broadcasters, which limit indecent material and go along the public airwaves free of obscene textile.^[15] While the Supreme Court has declined to define obscenity, it is identified using a examination outlined in Miller 5. California (1973).^[16] Under the Miller exam, obscenity is something that appeals to deviants, breaks local or state laws, and lacks value.^[17]

The Supreme Court determined that the presence of children in the audience trumped the correct of broadcasters to air obscene and profane programming. However, broadcasters can prove indecent programming or air profane language between the hours of 10 p.grand. and 6 a.m.^[18]

The Supreme Court has besides affirmed that the FCC has the authority to regulate content. When a George Carlin skit was aired on the radio with a warning that material might be offensive, the FCC still censored information technology. The station appealed the decision and lost.^[19] Fines can range from tens of thousands to millions of dollars, and many are levied for sexual jokes on radio talk shows and nudity on telly. In 2004, Janet Jackson'southward wardrobe malfunction during the Super Bowl'due south half-time bear witness cost the CBS network $550,000.

While some FCC violations are witnessed directly by commission members, similar Jackson'south exposure at the Super Basin, the FCC mainly relies on citizens and consumers to file complaints nigh violations of equal time and indecency rules. Approximately 2 percent of complaints to the FCC are about radio programming and ten percent about television programming, compared to 71 pct most telephone complaints and fifteen percent near Internet complaints.^[twenty]

Yet what constitutes a violation is not always clear for citizens wishing to complain, nor is it articulate what volition pb to a fine or license revocation. In October 2022, parent advocacy groups and consumers filed complaints and called for the FCC to fine ABC for running a sexually charged opening scene in the drama Scandal immediately later on Information technology'south the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brownish—without an ad or the cartoon'southward credits to human action every bit a buffer between the very unlike types of programming.^[21] The FCC did non fine ABC.

The Telecommunication Act of 1996 brought pregnant changes to the radio and telly industries. It dropped the limit on the number of radio stations (xl) and television stations (twelve) a single visitor could own. It also allowed networks to purchase big numbers of cable stations. In essence, it reduced competition and increased the number of conglomerates. Some critics, such as Common Cause, debate that the act also raised cablevision prices and made information technology easier for companies to neglect their public interest obligations.^[22] The act also changed the role of the FCC from regulator to monitor. The Commission oversees the buy of stations to avoid media monopolies and adjudicates consumer complaints against radio, television, and telephone companies.

Watch Dog or Paparazzi?

We await the media to keep a close eye on the government. But at what bespeak does the media coverage cross from informational to sensational?

In 2022, former secretary of land Hillary Clinton was questioned about her department'southward decisions regarding the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The consulate had been bombed by militants, leading to the death of an ambassador and a senior service officer. Information technology was clear the United States had some knowledge that there was a threat to the consulate, and officials wondered whether requests to increase security at the consulate had been ignored. Clinton was asked to appear before a House Select Committee to answer questions, and the media began its coverage. While some journalists limited their reporting to Benghazi, others did non. Clinton was hounded virtually everything from her illness (dubbed the "Benghazi-influenza") to her clothing to her facial expressions to her choice of eyeglasses.^[23] Even her hospital stay was questioned.^[24]

Some argued the expanded coverage was due to political attacks on Clinton, who at that time was widely perceived to be the top contender for the Autonomous presidential nomination in 2022.^[25] Republican majority leader Kevin McCarthy afterward implied that the hearings were an attempt to brand Clinton look untrustworthy.^[26] Even so Clinton was again brought before the House Select Commission on Benghazi as late as October 2022.

On Oct 22, 2022, the Firm Select Committee on Benghazi listened to testimony from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for close to eleven hours.

This coverage should pb us to question whether the media gives u.s. the information we need, or the information we want. Were people concerned most an attack on U.S. land officials working abroad, or did they only want to read rumors and attacks on Clinton? Did Republicans apply the media's trend to pursue a target as a way to injure Clinton in the polls? If the media gives us what we desire, the answer seems to exist that we wanted the media to human action as both watchdog and paparazzi.

How should the printing have acted in this instance if information technology were behaving merely as the watchdog of democracy?

Media and Transparency

The press has had some assistance in performing its muckraking duty. Laws that mandate federal and many state government proceedings and meeting documents be made available to the public are chosen sunshine laws. Proponents believe that open disagreements allow democracy to flourish and darkness allows corruption to occur. Opponents argue that some documents and policies are sensitive, and that the sunshine laws can inhibit policymaking.

While some documents may be classified due to national or country security, governments are encouraged to limit the over-nomenclature of documents. The main legal example for sunshine laws is the Liberty of Information Act (FOIA), passed in 1966 and signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The deed requires the executive branch of the U.S. authorities to provide information requested by citizens and was intended to increase openness in the executive branch, which had been criticized for hiding information. Citizens wishing to obtain data may request documents from the advisable agencies, and agencies may charge fees if the collection and copying of the requested documentation requires fourth dimension and labor.^[27]

FOIA also identifies data that does non need to be disclosed, such as human resource and medical records, national defense records, and fabric provided by confidential sources, to name a few.^[28] Not all presidents take embraced this openness, nonetheless. President Ronald Reagan, in 1981, exempted the CIA and FBI from FOIA requests.^[29]

Data requests have increased significantly in contempo years, with U.S. agencies receiving over 700,000 requests in 2022, many directed to the Departments of Land and Defense force, thus creating a backlog.^[30]

Want to request a government document just unsure where to showtime? If the agency is a part of the U.South. government, the Freedom of Information Act portal volition help y'all out.

Few people file requests for data because almost assume the media will find and study on important bug. And many people, including the printing, assume the regime, including the White House, sufficiently answers questions and provides information almost authorities deportment and policies. This expectation is non new. During the Ceremonious War, journalists expected to have access to those representing the government, including the military machine. But William Tecumseh Sherman, a Union general, maintained distance between the press and his war machine. Following the publication of material Sherman believed to exist protected by government censorship, a journalist was arrested and about put to death. The effect spurred the cosmos of accreditation for journalists, which meant a journalist must exist canonical to cover the White House and the military before entering a controlled area. All accredited journalists also need approval by war machine field commanders before coming about a military zone.^[31]

To cover war up close, more journalists are asking to travel with troops during armed conflict. In 2003, George Due west. Bush'south administration decided to permit more journalists in the field, hoping the concession would reduce friction between the military and the press. The U.S. Department of Defense placed fifty-eight journalists in a media boot campsite to prepare them to be embedded with war machine regiments in Iraq. Although the increase in embedded journalists resulted in substantial in-depth coverage, many journalists felt their colleagues performed poorly, acting as celebrities rather than reporters.^[32]

The line betwixt journalists' expectation of openness and the government'southward willingness to be open up has connected to be a point of contention. Some administrations employ the media to increase public support during times of war, as Woodrow Wilson did in World War I. Other presidents limit the media in lodge to limit dissent. In 1990, during the kickoff Persian Gulf State of war, journalists received all publication material from the armed forces in a prepackaged and staged fashion. Access to Dover, the air force base that receives coffins of U.S. soldiers who dice overseas, was closed. Journalists accused George H. Westward. Bush'south administration of limiting access and forcing them to produce bad pieces. The White Firm believed it controlled the message.^[33] The ban was afterward lifted.

In his 2008 presidential run, Barack Obama promised to run a transparent White House.^[34] Yet once in office, he constitute that transparency makes it difficult to go piece of work done, so he limited access and questions. In his first yr in office, George W. Bush, who was criticized by Obama as having a closed government, gave 147 question-and-answer sessions with journalists, while Obama gave but 46. Even Helen Thomas, a long-time liberal White House press correspondent, said the Obama administration tried to control both information and journalists.^[35]

President Barack Obama and White House correspondent Helen Thomas set aside their differences over transparency to bask cupcakes in accolade of their shared birthday on August 4, 2009.

Because White House limitations on the press are non unusual, many journalists rely on confidential sources. In 1972, nether the cloak of anonymity, the acquaintance manager of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mark Felt, became a news source for Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, political reporters at the Washington Post. Felt provided data nigh a number of potential stories and was Woodward'due south main source for information near President Richard Nixon's involvement in a serial of illegal activities, including the break-in at Democratic Political party headquarters in Washington's Watergate office complex. The information somewhen led to Nixon's resignation and the indictment of 60-nine people in his administration. Felt was nicknamed "Deep Pharynx," and the journalists kept his identity secret until 2005.^[36]

The practise of granting anonymity to sources is sometimes referred to every bit reporter'southward privilege. Fueled past the Beginning Amendment's protection of the press, journalists have long offered to keep sources confidential to protect them from government prosecution. To illustrate, as role of the investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA officer, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for refusing to reveal "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney'southward principal of staff, every bit her confidential government source.^[37]

Reporter'due south privilege has increased the number of instances in which whistleblowers and regime employees take given journalists tips or documents to prompt investigation into questionable government practices. Edward Snowden's 2022 leak to the press regarding the U.S. government'due south massive internal surveillance and borer program was one such case.

In 1972, withal, the Supreme Court adamant that journalists are non exempt from subpoenas and that courts could force testimony to name a confidential source. Journalists who conceal a source and thereby protect him or her from being properly tried for a criminal offense may spend time in jail for contempt of court. In the case of Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), iii journalists were placed in contempt of court for refusing to divulge sources.^[38]

The journalists appealed to the Supreme Court. In a 5–four decision, the justices determined that freedom of the printing did not extend to the confidentiality of sources. A concurring opinion did state that the case should be seen as a limited ruling, however. If the government needed to know a source due to a criminal trial, it could pursue the proper noun of that source.^[39]

More recently, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from New York Times journalist James Risen, who was subpoenaed and ordered to name a confidential source who had provided details virtually a U.South. regime mission designed to harm Iran's nuclear arms program. Risen was finally released from the subpoena, just the battle took vii years and the government eventually collected plenty other testify to make his testimony less crucial to the case.^[40] Overall, the transparency of the government is affected more past the executive currently belongings role than by the First Subpoena.

Summary

While freedom of the press is an important aspect of the Pecker of Rights, this freedom is not accented and may be regulated by the U.South. government. The press cannot libel or slander individuals or publish information about troop movements or clandestine operatives. The Federal Communications Committee can enforce limits on television and radio programming by fining or revoking licenses. Broadcast cloth cannot exist obscene, and indecent programs can be broadcast only between 10 p.m. and 6 a.thousand. Stations must also give political candidates equal time for advertising and interviews.

The media assistance governments maintain transparency. Sunshine laws require some governments and government agencies to make meeting documents public. Some presidents have encouraged journalists and allowed questioning while others have avoided the printing. Lack of openness by government officials leads journalists to use confidential sources for important or classified information. The Supreme Courtroom does not give the printing consummate freedom to keep sources confidential, though the government can choose whom it prosecutes for hiding sources.

Practice Questions

1. Why is it a potential problem that the equal-time dominion does not apply to candidates' supporters
2. Under what circumstances might a journalist be compelled to surrender a source?

Show Selected Respond

ane. Supporters can human action as advertisements, raise donations, and inquire for volunteers to assistance a entrada.

---

Source: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-baycollege-americangovernment/chapter/regulating-the-media/

Posted by: donaghyhtful1945.blogspot.com

Share this post