The Cupertino Courier

Letters & Opinions

Speak Out

Corporate media
doesn't provide
public service

The Federal Communications Act of 1933 granted free use of the public airwaves to broadcasters and required that in return they provide public service.

During the Reagan administration, the requirement for public service was dropped along with some other minor details like the "fairness doctrine." The Reagan, Clinton and Bush administrations slashed regulation of the broadcast industry and allowed broadcasters to own multiple radio and TV stations in the same market, as well as multiple print media. Because of deregulation, a handful of corporations now own all radio, all TV and most print media.

How can some Americans believe that the information they receive from print or broadcast media is unbiased or, as some claim, "fair and balanced?" Corporations serve stockholders and they have no interest in irritating advertisers or the government that regulates their industry.

Phillip P. Pflager

Cupertino

Independent media is important to democracy

As a former broadcast journalist, I've enjoyed the written debate regarding FOX news and media bias. I'd like to add a few comments, based on my decades of education and experience.

It is naive to think the goal of any media outlet is anything other than making money. If money could be made broadcasting to earthworms, someone would do it.

The president of FOX News, Roger Ailes, has been quoted as saying FOX's goal is to (politically) counter other news sources. I have never heard any representatives of other news sources say they were motivated by anything other than public service. So I wonder if FOX's goal is to serve the public or counter other sources. Those goals are not necessarily the same. It is the difference between serving hamburgers, and serving hamburgers that don't taste like Burger King's.

Media outlets are blurring the line between news and opinion. Bill O'Reilly was a journalist. Paul Harvey reads what advertisers pay him to read. Look at their motive: pleasing advertisers, stockholders and regulatory agencies? Do you think those advertisers, stockholders and regulatory agencies are concerned about the well-being of you and your family? Nope.

Niche programming, which involves targeting a specific audience, is good for entertainment and opinion, but it's dangerous for news. That's because, in niche news, viewers are not getting the full picture. They are getting only information that research says will keep them from switching channels. It would be like hiding the sports section from my father when the Giants lose--he isn't getting the true story and, eventually, he might even think the Giants are doing better than they really are.

A truly independent media is important to our form of government. When citizens are best informed, we will have the best government. Of course, all media needs financing, either through advertising, donations or tax money. Hence, all media has some sort of bias to please those who write the checks.

That's why it is important to get information from a variety of sources, both domestic and foreign, print, broadcast and Internet. Even then, one should be skeptical. Is the motive truly to inform? Or do they just want you to sit down, shut up and see more ads for Viagra and Celebrex?

Lastly, how does a person know that one particular news source is "fair and balanced" if they have no other source to compare it to?

Matt Conens

Cupertino native