Hi--
I just wanted to post a final note saying that it's been a pleasure having you in class this summer.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog entries and I hope that you've gotten something useful from the class.
You'll get my comments regarding your projects and any other missing grades you have by tomorrow (Monday).
Peace,
Jack
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Any questions as we head down the home stretch?
If you have any questions or would like for me to check in on your projects, let me know by posting a comment here or sending me an email...
Jack
Jack
Monday, June 22, 2009
Blog Entry #8 (Law and Social Effects): Due Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Greetings,
For your final blog entry, write a reaction (based on the reading, the notes posted, and your own experiences/observations) on the following:
Media Law and Social Effects
As you know, the First Amendment is especially important to our society-- particularly to our political system. The problem is that the Constitution also affords other "rights" such as the right we have to protect the citizenry.
Sometimes, a battle of rights ensues.
Suppose, for example, that I am a television producer and I create a show-- a gritty cop show-- that is filled with extreme violence and lots of "f" bombs. As a proponent of the First Amendment, I believe I have the right to tell my story the way I see fit and that no one has the right to tell me what I can or can't include.
Then again, as a society, do we not also have the right to protect our children from material that may affect them negatively (we know that exposure to extreme violence can influence kids, for example)?
Who should win such a battle-- an individual's First Amendment's right, or a a society's right to protect its children?
Why?
Post your reactions as comments here. The blog is due Wednesday, by midnight.
Peace,
Jack
For your final blog entry, write a reaction (based on the reading, the notes posted, and your own experiences/observations) on the following:
Media Law and Social Effects
As you know, the First Amendment is especially important to our society-- particularly to our political system. The problem is that the Constitution also affords other "rights" such as the right we have to protect the citizenry.
Sometimes, a battle of rights ensues.
Suppose, for example, that I am a television producer and I create a show-- a gritty cop show-- that is filled with extreme violence and lots of "f" bombs. As a proponent of the First Amendment, I believe I have the right to tell my story the way I see fit and that no one has the right to tell me what I can or can't include.
Then again, as a society, do we not also have the right to protect our children from material that may affect them negatively (we know that exposure to extreme violence can influence kids, for example)?
Who should win such a battle-- an individual's First Amendment's right, or a a society's right to protect its children?
Why?
Post your reactions as comments here. The blog is due Wednesday, by midnight.
Peace,
Jack
Overview: Social Effects of Mass Media
Social Effects of Mass Communication
INVESTIGATING MASS COMMUNICATION EFFECTS
Although you can look at mass media’s effects on individuals and society in a number of ways, we’ve chosen to use the scientific method which employs two primary methods to gather information:
1. Survey The survey consists of a large group of people who answer questions put to them via a questionnaire. Although surveys can’t establish proof of cause and effect, they do help establish associations. One survey type, the panel study, sheds light on patterns of cause and effect. This study type collects data from the same people at two or more different points in time. It controls the effects of other variables to see if viewing TV violence at an early age, for example, is related to aggressive behavior later.
2. Experiment An experiment is performed in a laboratory setting and usually consists of the
controlled manipulation of a single factor to determine its impact on another factor. A variation, the field experiment, is conducted in a real-life setting. Experiments are useful because they can help establish causality.
EFFECTS ON KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES
Media and Socialization
Socialization includes the ways in which an individual comes to adopt the behavior and values of the group; it is a complex process, extending over a number of years and involving various people and organizations. These groups, called agencies of socialization, contribute to the socialization process.
The Media as a Primary Source of Information
Learning is an important part of the socialization process, and the media (primarily TV) serves as an important source of information, if not the primary one, for a wide range of topics such as politics, crime, occupations, environment, and minorities. Entertainment media also serves as a source of information about such topics as occupations, crime, relationships, minorities, alcohol and drug abuse, morals, values, and law enforcement.
Shaping Attitudes, Perceptions, and Beliefs
The mass media also plays an important role in the transmission of attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs. In specific, TV can be an influential force with young people when:
. the same stereotyped ideas, people, or behaviors recur consistently in TV programs
. a child is heavily exposed to TV content
. a child has limited interaction with parents or other socializing agents and lacks an
alternative set of beliefs to serve as a standard against which to assess media portrayals
All this means is that under certain conditions, TV will be an influential force in shaping what children think about certain topics.
Creating Stereotypes: The TV world often presents images of people and lifestyles that are at odds with reality. There are many areas of reality that are stereotyped by TV such as crime and law enforcement, sex-role portrayals, the depiction of occupations, the methods of problem solving, the portrayals of scientists, and the depiction of mental illness.
The Effects of Heavy Viewing: Research assumes, but does not necessarily prove, that the mass media plays a significant part in creating either negative or prosocial attitudes among children who are “heavy” TV viewers. Although some evidence points to the media as the cause of certain attitudes, we can’t entirely rule out other explanations. Nevertheless, it’s likely that the link between media exposure and certain attitudes demonstrates reciprocal causation.
The Absence of Alternative Information: Although the evidence is less consistent here than in other areas, experiments suggest that under some circumstances TV can affect young people’s attitudes about matters for which their environment failed to provide first-hand experience or alternative sources of information. Where media influence is indirect, it is difficult to pinpoint a cause and effect relationship. This is particularly true when the media operates simultaneously with other agencies of socialization and when interpersonal channels outweigh media channels in forming attitudes and opinions.
Cultivation Analysis
Cultivation analysis suggests that heavy TV viewing “cultivates” perceptions of reality consistent with the view of the world presented in TV programs. Cultivation analysis concentrates on the long-term effects of exposure rather than the short-term impact on attitudes and opinions.
Methodology: The first stage is a careful study of TV content to identify predominant themes and messages. Not surprisingly, TV portrays a rather idiosyncratic world that is unlike reality in many dimensions. Step two examines what, if anything, viewers absorb from heavy exposure to the world of television. Study respondents are given questionnaires about our society where each question has two answers: the real world answer and the TV world answer. If heavy viewers show a tendency to choose TV answers, we might have evidence that a cultivation effect is occurring.
Research Findings: How strong is the evidence? Most findings suggest that among some people, TV cultivated distorted perceptions of the real world. Other studies show that cultivation isn’t limited just to children, and other studies show that content other than crime and violence might also evoke a cultivation effect. Although the results of cultivation-analysis studies are intriguing, its conclusions can be clouded by three problems:
1. It’s difficult to determine cause and effect.
2. People differ in ways other than in their TV habits: as such, factors other than TV watching
might affect the differences in perceptions and attitudes between heavy and light viewers.
Two other observations come out of this area: (a) a phenomena called mainstreaming,
whereby differences apparently due to cultural and social factors tend to diminish among
heavy TV watchers; and (b) resonance, a situation in which a respondent’s real life
experiences parallel those of the TV world, thereby leading to a greater cultivation effect.
3. Technical decisions about the way TV viewing and attitudes are measured can have a
significant impact on findings, such as the precise wording of the questions.
Recent research suggests that (a) the cultivation effect is stronger when a particular kind type of TV viewing is measured (e.g., soap operas and adventure series) as opposed to overall TV viewing, and (b) you must take into account the context of the TV portrayals viewed. In 1997 media scholars reviewed more than 5,600 cultivation analysis studies and findings collected over two decades. In it, they reported that the cultivation effect is indeed real for many people.
Children and Television Advertising
A typical child sees about 20,000 TV commercials every year, mostly for toys, cereals, candies, and fast-food restaurants. So it’s not surprising that by the early 1980s, most people accepted the idea that children deserve special consideration from advertisers for the following reasons:
. Children are a vulnerable audience and should not be exploited by TV advertising
. Children, especially young ones, might be easily deceived by TV advertising techniques
. Long-term effects of exposure to TV ads might have a negative effect on a child’s
socialization as a future consumer
A Vulnerable Audience: Research hints that younger children (5 to 8 years old) are able to identify commercials, but they have difficulty separating ads from the rest of the program and have little idea as to the purpose behind them. Older children (9 to 12 years old) are better able to differentiate the ads from the rest of the program and have little trouble distinguishing between the purpose of the ad and a program. In 1974, partly as a result of these findings, broadcasters started using a separation device between the programs, typically a message five to ten seconds long. As before, younger children under five still had trouble distinguishing ad from program content.
Effects of Special Selling Techniques: It’s obvious that toys and other products designed for children can be made to look more appealing through the use of special camera angles, lenses, advertising copy, sound effects, animation, and special lighting techniques. However, the effects of these techniques on children is unclear. In short, exaggerated claims lead to exaggerated expectations and almost always end with exaggerated disappointments. As such, guidelines for toy ads now state that audio and video techniques should not misrepresent the appearance and performance of toys and that disclaimers should be used when batteries are needed, assembly is necessary, or accessory items show in the ad are not included.
Consumer Socialization: Consumer socialization includes all those processes by which children learn behaviors and attitudes relevant to their future behavior as consumers. For example, we do know:
1. as kids get older, they tend to distrust commercials and even become cynical about them
2. exposure to TV commercials is not related to consumer skills, such as price or product value comparisons
3. some studies suggest a link between heavy exposure to ads and the personal endorsement of materialistic values, equating money and possessions as being necessary for happiness
Agenda Setting
By saying the media has an impact on agenda setting, we mean that they have the ability to choose and emphasize certain topics, which can cause the public to perceive these issues as important. Or, as one author put it, “the media may not always be successful in telling people what to think, but they usually are successful in telling people what to think about.” Generally most agenda-setting studies examine information-based media, with much of the research revolving around political campaigns and issues. The research to date suggests:
. cause and effect relationships are still unclear
. the results can hinge on the medium being studied
. topic covered can influence agenda setting (concrete topics do better than abstract ones)
. a person’s experience with the topic will influence the results
The agenda-setting effect can also be influenced by other factors, such as a person’s interest in the topic, experience with the topic, age, education, and political involvement.
Agenda-setting research, now over 30 years old, has two general fields of study:
. framing the way a news topic is treated by the media. This research posits that
not only do the media tell us what to think about, they also tell us how to think about it by the way the story is framed
. agenda building examines how the media build their agenda of newsworthy items. Some
factors that seem to have an impact include presidential press conferences, congressional hearings, and special-interest PR efforts
Television and Cognitive Skills
Studies on what, if anything, heavy TV viewing does to a child’s IQ level are so far inconclusive. Some of the research done on the relationship between reading and TV viewing suggests that the relationship was influenced by such factors as age, the type of TV content watched, social class, and parental attitudes toward reading. Although TV has been linked to decreased intellectual performance, its effects are complicated and its impact is relatively light. On the other hand, the hours that youngsters invest in watching TV don’t seem to pay off in better academic skills.
MEDIA EFFECTS ON BEHAVIOR: A SHORT HISTORY
In 1929, films became the first target of scholarly research into the possible effects of media on the morals and actions of children. The results, as might be expected by now, were inconclusive.
Growing Public Concern
In the 1940s, researchers turned their attention to the potential effects that radio might have on politics. Louisiana Governor Huey Long’s firebrand radio speeches and President Roosevelt’s fireside chats helped jump start the curiosity. The results suggested that the media actually had little direct effect on political decision-making. Instead, personal influence was more important, and individuals called “opinion leaders” were thought to be more important in the decision-making process.
In the 1950s, the research spotlight turned to the potentially negative effects that heavy TV viewing might have on children. A British study concluded that TV did have an impact on children’s values and perceptions of the world, while a US study found that as children got older, heavy TV viewing was associated with lower IQ scores and unsatisfactory social relationships.
During the 1960s, a congressional subcommittee investigating the causes and prevention of violence concluded that constant viewing of violent behavior on TV might cause antisocial behavior among young people. A study ordered by President Johnson concluded that (a) more definitive research in this area was needed, and (b) that a “constant diet of violent behavior on television had an adverse effect on human character and attitudes.” During the same period, a presidential commission studying obscenity and its effects concluded that all laws prohibiting the distribution of pornographic materials be repealed.
TV Violence
In 1972, and again in 1982, federally funded research projects determined that exposure to TV violence could increase the probability of antisocial behavior and that there was a causal link between TV violence viewing and real-life aggressive behavior.
The 1990s saw the start of program advisories, which warned TV viewers of upcoming programs that featured strong language, violence, or sexual content. The Telecommunication Act of 1996 also took on the TV violence problem with the introduction of the V-Chip, a device that could electronically block out programs that were unsuitable for younger viewers. The success of this new technology depended on creating a new program rating system, and the TV and cable industries responded (after a failed first attempt) with a detailed content warning system patterned after the MPAA film ratings.
THE IMPACT OF TELEVISED VIOLENCE
Survey Results: Though it is difficult to summarize decades of surveys, this conclusion may come closest to being the most representative, “the evidence to date indicates that there is a significant correlation between the viewing of violent television programs and aggressive behavior in day-to-day life.” Nevertheless, a relationship is not necessarily evidence of a cause and effect.
In 1986, a five-country panel study came to varying conclusions about the effects on children of viewing TV violence and their later aggressive behavioral tendencies. The panel did, however, agree on two major areas:
. the relationship between the viewing of violence and aggressive behavior tends to be weak
. there was a pattern of circularity in causation. Viewing violent TV caused some children to become more aggressive, and being aggressive caused them to watch more violent TV
Experimental Results: The Catharsis vs. Stimulation Debate
Two mainstream avenues to explore the impact of media violence on audiences have been attempted. The first is from the Aristotelian theory of catharsis. This theory holds that viewing scenes of aggression can actually purge the viewer’s own aggressive feelings. The second approach, stimulation theory, holds just the opposite view and suggests that seeing scenes of violence will actually stimulate an individual to behave more violently afterward. The results of numerous studies in these areas conclude that watching media violence does tend to stimulate aggressive behavior, while on the other hand, there is little empirical evidence for catharsis.
Bandura’s Experiment
A series of experiments conducted by psychologist Albert Bandura in the 1960s indicated that, in fact, film and TV just might teach aggressive behavior in children. Bandura’s research team found that children who had just finished watching violent content on TV or film were much more likely to be aggressive in follow up situations than were children who had not been exposed to TV violence.
Complicating Factors
As “conclusive” as reports from laboratory experiments may sound, there are many complicating factors that could be influencing the outcome; these factors could include the experimental setting itself, participant age and sex, length and type of violent media content, who the subject watches the film with and what their reactions are, social class, family history, economic background and so on. Finally, the reactions of other people to the same media exposure can directly influence a viewer’s the potential for aggressive behavior.
Field Experiments: Although people in field experiments are studied in their natural environments, and thus react more naturally than in a lab setting, they’re also exposed to new, outside influences that may affect results.
Though results vary, surveys, panel studies, lab research studies, and field experiments all tend to support the notion that violent TV viewing may foster aggressive behavior in some viewers.
What Can We Conclude?
Though no one study or group of studies can make any definitive conclusion, a consistent thread seems to run through most experiments about watching TV violence and aggressive behavior. Taken as a whole, these results encourage a tentative acceptance of the proposition that watching violence on television increases aggressiveness on the part of at least some viewers. Yet while the effects might be small, they are not necessarily trivial.
ENCOURAGING PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR
While most media research has concentrated on investigating the potential negative effects of media consumption by some people, some scholars began examining the positive effects the media might have on people. These effects, called prosocial behavior, can include actions such as cooperation, sharing, self-control, and helping.
Developing Self-control
Lab experiments have shown that films and TV programs can affect a young child’s self-control.
Cooperation, Sharing, and Helping
Experiments here show that children are willing to imitate cooperative, generous, and helping behavior, which they’ve seen portrayed in a film or on television programs.
Survey Data
Though survey data on prosocial media effects are scarce, what there is suggests that children do perceive prosocial messages incorporated into a film or television program. However, two survey studies have found little relationship between viewing prosocial messages and actually transferring those actions into everyday behavior.
OTHER BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS
Political Behavior
Studies of Voter Turnout: Voter turnout has dropped continually since 1964, but there is little, if any, conclusive data to link that fact with the media. But some relationships are notable; for example, data from presidential elections from 1960-1976 indicate that the frequency of reading a newspaper was strongly related to voter turnout, but radio and television exposure were not.
Negative political advertising does not seem to have much of an effect on voters above reinforcing already polarized views on candidates and issues.
Effects of the Mass Media on Voter Choice: When it comes to choosing a candidate to vote for, the mass media functions along with many other factors, both social and psychological, to affect a person’s choice. Some generalizations can, however, be put forward. First, conversion, switching your vote from one political party to another, is unlikely to result from simple media exposure since it’s difficult for the media to persuade someone whose mind is already made up, and roughly 2/3 of voters have made up their minds before the campaigns even begin. Far more common are two effects that have a direct bearing on voter choice:
. reinforcement strengthening or support of existing attitudes and opinions
. crystallization sharpening and elaboration of vaguely held attitudes or predispositions
If a person approaches a campaign undecided or neutral, then crystallization is likely to occur. If the person has already made up his or her mind, then reinforcement will probably take place.
A key factor in winning any election is to keep the party faithful loyal (reinforcement) and to persuade enough of the undecided people to vote for your side (crystallization) in order to win.
Thus, even though widespread conversion is not usually seen, the media is still influential. Yet
these effects are generally attributable to national and perhaps even state wide elections; other studies indicate, however, that newspapers may heavily influence the outcome of local elections.
The Debates: Research into the effects of presidential debates suggests that they’ve actually had little effect other than reinforcing previously held opinions on the candidates. That said, debates may affect the choice of previously undecided or neutral voters; though the numbers may be small, it’s worth remembering that the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon election was one by less than 1/10 of one percent of the total vote. The principal effect of presidential debates is to reinforce rather than shift voter attitudes. TV debates crystallize opinion far more often than they convert.
Television and the Political Behavior of Politicians: TV has clearly affected the political behavior of politicians and political campaigns. Look at the changes politicians have adopted since the advent of TV into the political arena:
. nominating conventions are scheduled to suit TV prime time, and thereby hopefully get
viewers and gain favorable public opinion
. television has dramatically increased the cost of campaigning
. television has become the medium around which most campaigns are organized
. campaign staffs now routinely include TV consultants and image makers
Effects of Obscenity and Pornography
This area of media content has had far fewer research studies than that of the media’s effects on children or politics. In the 1960s, a presidential committee suggested:
. most pornography consumers were middle class, middle-age men
. no evidence that viewing pornography was related to antisocial or deviant behavior
. that pornographic material served a positive function in some healthy, sexual relationships
. that all laws against distributing pornography be repealed
In 1970, the Nixon administration repudiated their findings, and now that study has largely since been ignored.
In 1984, a new commission began re-examining the effects pornography might have on the public. Two years later, and surrounded by political considerations, the commission concluded that pornography, particularly violent pornography, was harmful and that its distribution should be curtailed. More recent studies have found that sexual arousal might be linked to subsequent aggressive behavior if other outlets for release are not available. In addition, other studies found a disturbing link between exposure to pornography and feelings of callousness toward women.
RESEARCH ON THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF THE INTERNET
Obviously, studies about the effect of the Internet on the public have only recently begun; that said, three major areas of study have already developed:
The impact of Internet use on other media
Early studies are confident that an increased use of the Internet generally comes at the expense of decreased television viewing; a lessening involvement with other media doesn’t seem to be generally affected.
The relationship between Internet use and social involvement
Several early studies have given contradictory results. As such, it’s too early to conclude how, or even if, heavy Internet usage affects one’s involvement with personal or social relationships.
Internet addiction
As above, little definitive research yet exists. However, psychologists have identified three characteristics of any addiction: increased tolerance, loss of control, and withdrawal. In one recent study of heavy recreational-Internet users, most exhibited some or all of all three symptoms.
COMMUNICATION IN THE FUTURE: SOCIAL IMPACT
Privacy
While the advent of new communication technology and the explosion of harvesting personal information about us have obviously contributed to our own benefit as well as society’s, there are just as many troubling issues all that information exchange raises. One of the biggest issues is our increasing loss of privacy in the area of e-mails, cellular phones, medical records, shopping habits, financial information, and so on. Information is getting to be uncomfortably easy to find and access through centralized computer databases.
Fragmentation and Isolation
Mass media are increasingly serving the needs of more specialized audiences, thus directing individuals toward more selective content exposure. If this trend continues, it could result into smaller and smaller interest groups with little in common with the rest of society. This phenomena has been labeled the cocoon effect by sociologists. This effect suggests that people surround themselves with only the political and social information that they find comforting, appealing, or acceptable. Moreover, as telecommuting becomes more popular, more people will stay at home. Already the computer allows consumers to work, bank, shop, and be entertained without leaving the confines of your family room. What might happen if people begin to overly distance themselves from the reality of the outside world?
Overload in the Information Society
One of the central problems for 21st Century citizens may well be how they manage the vastly increasing flood of news, information, and entertainment available to them. It’s likely that those who succeed in the future will be the ones who can maximize the efficiency of their information-seeking behavior.
Escape
The possibility of people immersing themselves in the world of mass media and tuning out of the real world has always been a concern, but it just didn’t happen that often or with any significant numbers of people. Today, however, with the advent and advances in the areas of HDTV, the Internet, virtual reality, and role playing games, those fears have again resurfaced, and this time perhaps, with considerably more likelihood of those fears becoming realized.
INVESTIGATING MASS COMMUNICATION EFFECTS
Although you can look at mass media’s effects on individuals and society in a number of ways, we’ve chosen to use the scientific method which employs two primary methods to gather information:
1. Survey The survey consists of a large group of people who answer questions put to them via a questionnaire. Although surveys can’t establish proof of cause and effect, they do help establish associations. One survey type, the panel study, sheds light on patterns of cause and effect. This study type collects data from the same people at two or more different points in time. It controls the effects of other variables to see if viewing TV violence at an early age, for example, is related to aggressive behavior later.
2. Experiment An experiment is performed in a laboratory setting and usually consists of the
controlled manipulation of a single factor to determine its impact on another factor. A variation, the field experiment, is conducted in a real-life setting. Experiments are useful because they can help establish causality.
EFFECTS ON KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES
Media and Socialization
Socialization includes the ways in which an individual comes to adopt the behavior and values of the group; it is a complex process, extending over a number of years and involving various people and organizations. These groups, called agencies of socialization, contribute to the socialization process.
The Media as a Primary Source of Information
Learning is an important part of the socialization process, and the media (primarily TV) serves as an important source of information, if not the primary one, for a wide range of topics such as politics, crime, occupations, environment, and minorities. Entertainment media also serves as a source of information about such topics as occupations, crime, relationships, minorities, alcohol and drug abuse, morals, values, and law enforcement.
Shaping Attitudes, Perceptions, and Beliefs
The mass media also plays an important role in the transmission of attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs. In specific, TV can be an influential force with young people when:
. the same stereotyped ideas, people, or behaviors recur consistently in TV programs
. a child is heavily exposed to TV content
. a child has limited interaction with parents or other socializing agents and lacks an
alternative set of beliefs to serve as a standard against which to assess media portrayals
All this means is that under certain conditions, TV will be an influential force in shaping what children think about certain topics.
Creating Stereotypes: The TV world often presents images of people and lifestyles that are at odds with reality. There are many areas of reality that are stereotyped by TV such as crime and law enforcement, sex-role portrayals, the depiction of occupations, the methods of problem solving, the portrayals of scientists, and the depiction of mental illness.
The Effects of Heavy Viewing: Research assumes, but does not necessarily prove, that the mass media plays a significant part in creating either negative or prosocial attitudes among children who are “heavy” TV viewers. Although some evidence points to the media as the cause of certain attitudes, we can’t entirely rule out other explanations. Nevertheless, it’s likely that the link between media exposure and certain attitudes demonstrates reciprocal causation.
The Absence of Alternative Information: Although the evidence is less consistent here than in other areas, experiments suggest that under some circumstances TV can affect young people’s attitudes about matters for which their environment failed to provide first-hand experience or alternative sources of information. Where media influence is indirect, it is difficult to pinpoint a cause and effect relationship. This is particularly true when the media operates simultaneously with other agencies of socialization and when interpersonal channels outweigh media channels in forming attitudes and opinions.
Cultivation Analysis
Cultivation analysis suggests that heavy TV viewing “cultivates” perceptions of reality consistent with the view of the world presented in TV programs. Cultivation analysis concentrates on the long-term effects of exposure rather than the short-term impact on attitudes and opinions.
Methodology: The first stage is a careful study of TV content to identify predominant themes and messages. Not surprisingly, TV portrays a rather idiosyncratic world that is unlike reality in many dimensions. Step two examines what, if anything, viewers absorb from heavy exposure to the world of television. Study respondents are given questionnaires about our society where each question has two answers: the real world answer and the TV world answer. If heavy viewers show a tendency to choose TV answers, we might have evidence that a cultivation effect is occurring.
Research Findings: How strong is the evidence? Most findings suggest that among some people, TV cultivated distorted perceptions of the real world. Other studies show that cultivation isn’t limited just to children, and other studies show that content other than crime and violence might also evoke a cultivation effect. Although the results of cultivation-analysis studies are intriguing, its conclusions can be clouded by three problems:
1. It’s difficult to determine cause and effect.
2. People differ in ways other than in their TV habits: as such, factors other than TV watching
might affect the differences in perceptions and attitudes between heavy and light viewers.
Two other observations come out of this area: (a) a phenomena called mainstreaming,
whereby differences apparently due to cultural and social factors tend to diminish among
heavy TV watchers; and (b) resonance, a situation in which a respondent’s real life
experiences parallel those of the TV world, thereby leading to a greater cultivation effect.
3. Technical decisions about the way TV viewing and attitudes are measured can have a
significant impact on findings, such as the precise wording of the questions.
Recent research suggests that (a) the cultivation effect is stronger when a particular kind type of TV viewing is measured (e.g., soap operas and adventure series) as opposed to overall TV viewing, and (b) you must take into account the context of the TV portrayals viewed. In 1997 media scholars reviewed more than 5,600 cultivation analysis studies and findings collected over two decades. In it, they reported that the cultivation effect is indeed real for many people.
Children and Television Advertising
A typical child sees about 20,000 TV commercials every year, mostly for toys, cereals, candies, and fast-food restaurants. So it’s not surprising that by the early 1980s, most people accepted the idea that children deserve special consideration from advertisers for the following reasons:
. Children are a vulnerable audience and should not be exploited by TV advertising
. Children, especially young ones, might be easily deceived by TV advertising techniques
. Long-term effects of exposure to TV ads might have a negative effect on a child’s
socialization as a future consumer
A Vulnerable Audience: Research hints that younger children (5 to 8 years old) are able to identify commercials, but they have difficulty separating ads from the rest of the program and have little idea as to the purpose behind them. Older children (9 to 12 years old) are better able to differentiate the ads from the rest of the program and have little trouble distinguishing between the purpose of the ad and a program. In 1974, partly as a result of these findings, broadcasters started using a separation device between the programs, typically a message five to ten seconds long. As before, younger children under five still had trouble distinguishing ad from program content.
Effects of Special Selling Techniques: It’s obvious that toys and other products designed for children can be made to look more appealing through the use of special camera angles, lenses, advertising copy, sound effects, animation, and special lighting techniques. However, the effects of these techniques on children is unclear. In short, exaggerated claims lead to exaggerated expectations and almost always end with exaggerated disappointments. As such, guidelines for toy ads now state that audio and video techniques should not misrepresent the appearance and performance of toys and that disclaimers should be used when batteries are needed, assembly is necessary, or accessory items show in the ad are not included.
Consumer Socialization: Consumer socialization includes all those processes by which children learn behaviors and attitudes relevant to their future behavior as consumers. For example, we do know:
1. as kids get older, they tend to distrust commercials and even become cynical about them
2. exposure to TV commercials is not related to consumer skills, such as price or product value comparisons
3. some studies suggest a link between heavy exposure to ads and the personal endorsement of materialistic values, equating money and possessions as being necessary for happiness
Agenda Setting
By saying the media has an impact on agenda setting, we mean that they have the ability to choose and emphasize certain topics, which can cause the public to perceive these issues as important. Or, as one author put it, “the media may not always be successful in telling people what to think, but they usually are successful in telling people what to think about.” Generally most agenda-setting studies examine information-based media, with much of the research revolving around political campaigns and issues. The research to date suggests:
. cause and effect relationships are still unclear
. the results can hinge on the medium being studied
. topic covered can influence agenda setting (concrete topics do better than abstract ones)
. a person’s experience with the topic will influence the results
The agenda-setting effect can also be influenced by other factors, such as a person’s interest in the topic, experience with the topic, age, education, and political involvement.
Agenda-setting research, now over 30 years old, has two general fields of study:
. framing the way a news topic is treated by the media. This research posits that
not only do the media tell us what to think about, they also tell us how to think about it by the way the story is framed
. agenda building examines how the media build their agenda of newsworthy items. Some
factors that seem to have an impact include presidential press conferences, congressional hearings, and special-interest PR efforts
Television and Cognitive Skills
Studies on what, if anything, heavy TV viewing does to a child’s IQ level are so far inconclusive. Some of the research done on the relationship between reading and TV viewing suggests that the relationship was influenced by such factors as age, the type of TV content watched, social class, and parental attitudes toward reading. Although TV has been linked to decreased intellectual performance, its effects are complicated and its impact is relatively light. On the other hand, the hours that youngsters invest in watching TV don’t seem to pay off in better academic skills.
MEDIA EFFECTS ON BEHAVIOR: A SHORT HISTORY
In 1929, films became the first target of scholarly research into the possible effects of media on the morals and actions of children. The results, as might be expected by now, were inconclusive.
Growing Public Concern
In the 1940s, researchers turned their attention to the potential effects that radio might have on politics. Louisiana Governor Huey Long’s firebrand radio speeches and President Roosevelt’s fireside chats helped jump start the curiosity. The results suggested that the media actually had little direct effect on political decision-making. Instead, personal influence was more important, and individuals called “opinion leaders” were thought to be more important in the decision-making process.
In the 1950s, the research spotlight turned to the potentially negative effects that heavy TV viewing might have on children. A British study concluded that TV did have an impact on children’s values and perceptions of the world, while a US study found that as children got older, heavy TV viewing was associated with lower IQ scores and unsatisfactory social relationships.
During the 1960s, a congressional subcommittee investigating the causes and prevention of violence concluded that constant viewing of violent behavior on TV might cause antisocial behavior among young people. A study ordered by President Johnson concluded that (a) more definitive research in this area was needed, and (b) that a “constant diet of violent behavior on television had an adverse effect on human character and attitudes.” During the same period, a presidential commission studying obscenity and its effects concluded that all laws prohibiting the distribution of pornographic materials be repealed.
TV Violence
In 1972, and again in 1982, federally funded research projects determined that exposure to TV violence could increase the probability of antisocial behavior and that there was a causal link between TV violence viewing and real-life aggressive behavior.
The 1990s saw the start of program advisories, which warned TV viewers of upcoming programs that featured strong language, violence, or sexual content. The Telecommunication Act of 1996 also took on the TV violence problem with the introduction of the V-Chip, a device that could electronically block out programs that were unsuitable for younger viewers. The success of this new technology depended on creating a new program rating system, and the TV and cable industries responded (after a failed first attempt) with a detailed content warning system patterned after the MPAA film ratings.
THE IMPACT OF TELEVISED VIOLENCE
Survey Results: Though it is difficult to summarize decades of surveys, this conclusion may come closest to being the most representative, “the evidence to date indicates that there is a significant correlation between the viewing of violent television programs and aggressive behavior in day-to-day life.” Nevertheless, a relationship is not necessarily evidence of a cause and effect.
In 1986, a five-country panel study came to varying conclusions about the effects on children of viewing TV violence and their later aggressive behavioral tendencies. The panel did, however, agree on two major areas:
. the relationship between the viewing of violence and aggressive behavior tends to be weak
. there was a pattern of circularity in causation. Viewing violent TV caused some children to become more aggressive, and being aggressive caused them to watch more violent TV
Experimental Results: The Catharsis vs. Stimulation Debate
Two mainstream avenues to explore the impact of media violence on audiences have been attempted. The first is from the Aristotelian theory of catharsis. This theory holds that viewing scenes of aggression can actually purge the viewer’s own aggressive feelings. The second approach, stimulation theory, holds just the opposite view and suggests that seeing scenes of violence will actually stimulate an individual to behave more violently afterward. The results of numerous studies in these areas conclude that watching media violence does tend to stimulate aggressive behavior, while on the other hand, there is little empirical evidence for catharsis.
Bandura’s Experiment
A series of experiments conducted by psychologist Albert Bandura in the 1960s indicated that, in fact, film and TV just might teach aggressive behavior in children. Bandura’s research team found that children who had just finished watching violent content on TV or film were much more likely to be aggressive in follow up situations than were children who had not been exposed to TV violence.
Complicating Factors
As “conclusive” as reports from laboratory experiments may sound, there are many complicating factors that could be influencing the outcome; these factors could include the experimental setting itself, participant age and sex, length and type of violent media content, who the subject watches the film with and what their reactions are, social class, family history, economic background and so on. Finally, the reactions of other people to the same media exposure can directly influence a viewer’s the potential for aggressive behavior.
Field Experiments: Although people in field experiments are studied in their natural environments, and thus react more naturally than in a lab setting, they’re also exposed to new, outside influences that may affect results.
Though results vary, surveys, panel studies, lab research studies, and field experiments all tend to support the notion that violent TV viewing may foster aggressive behavior in some viewers.
What Can We Conclude?
Though no one study or group of studies can make any definitive conclusion, a consistent thread seems to run through most experiments about watching TV violence and aggressive behavior. Taken as a whole, these results encourage a tentative acceptance of the proposition that watching violence on television increases aggressiveness on the part of at least some viewers. Yet while the effects might be small, they are not necessarily trivial.
ENCOURAGING PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR
While most media research has concentrated on investigating the potential negative effects of media consumption by some people, some scholars began examining the positive effects the media might have on people. These effects, called prosocial behavior, can include actions such as cooperation, sharing, self-control, and helping.
Developing Self-control
Lab experiments have shown that films and TV programs can affect a young child’s self-control.
Cooperation, Sharing, and Helping
Experiments here show that children are willing to imitate cooperative, generous, and helping behavior, which they’ve seen portrayed in a film or on television programs.
Survey Data
Though survey data on prosocial media effects are scarce, what there is suggests that children do perceive prosocial messages incorporated into a film or television program. However, two survey studies have found little relationship between viewing prosocial messages and actually transferring those actions into everyday behavior.
OTHER BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS
Political Behavior
Studies of Voter Turnout: Voter turnout has dropped continually since 1964, but there is little, if any, conclusive data to link that fact with the media. But some relationships are notable; for example, data from presidential elections from 1960-1976 indicate that the frequency of reading a newspaper was strongly related to voter turnout, but radio and television exposure were not.
Negative political advertising does not seem to have much of an effect on voters above reinforcing already polarized views on candidates and issues.
Effects of the Mass Media on Voter Choice: When it comes to choosing a candidate to vote for, the mass media functions along with many other factors, both social and psychological, to affect a person’s choice. Some generalizations can, however, be put forward. First, conversion, switching your vote from one political party to another, is unlikely to result from simple media exposure since it’s difficult for the media to persuade someone whose mind is already made up, and roughly 2/3 of voters have made up their minds before the campaigns even begin. Far more common are two effects that have a direct bearing on voter choice:
. reinforcement strengthening or support of existing attitudes and opinions
. crystallization sharpening and elaboration of vaguely held attitudes or predispositions
If a person approaches a campaign undecided or neutral, then crystallization is likely to occur. If the person has already made up his or her mind, then reinforcement will probably take place.
A key factor in winning any election is to keep the party faithful loyal (reinforcement) and to persuade enough of the undecided people to vote for your side (crystallization) in order to win.
Thus, even though widespread conversion is not usually seen, the media is still influential. Yet
these effects are generally attributable to national and perhaps even state wide elections; other studies indicate, however, that newspapers may heavily influence the outcome of local elections.
The Debates: Research into the effects of presidential debates suggests that they’ve actually had little effect other than reinforcing previously held opinions on the candidates. That said, debates may affect the choice of previously undecided or neutral voters; though the numbers may be small, it’s worth remembering that the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon election was one by less than 1/10 of one percent of the total vote. The principal effect of presidential debates is to reinforce rather than shift voter attitudes. TV debates crystallize opinion far more often than they convert.
Television and the Political Behavior of Politicians: TV has clearly affected the political behavior of politicians and political campaigns. Look at the changes politicians have adopted since the advent of TV into the political arena:
. nominating conventions are scheduled to suit TV prime time, and thereby hopefully get
viewers and gain favorable public opinion
. television has dramatically increased the cost of campaigning
. television has become the medium around which most campaigns are organized
. campaign staffs now routinely include TV consultants and image makers
Effects of Obscenity and Pornography
This area of media content has had far fewer research studies than that of the media’s effects on children or politics. In the 1960s, a presidential committee suggested:
. most pornography consumers were middle class, middle-age men
. no evidence that viewing pornography was related to antisocial or deviant behavior
. that pornographic material served a positive function in some healthy, sexual relationships
. that all laws against distributing pornography be repealed
In 1970, the Nixon administration repudiated their findings, and now that study has largely since been ignored.
In 1984, a new commission began re-examining the effects pornography might have on the public. Two years later, and surrounded by political considerations, the commission concluded that pornography, particularly violent pornography, was harmful and that its distribution should be curtailed. More recent studies have found that sexual arousal might be linked to subsequent aggressive behavior if other outlets for release are not available. In addition, other studies found a disturbing link between exposure to pornography and feelings of callousness toward women.
RESEARCH ON THE SOCIAL EFFECTS OF THE INTERNET
Obviously, studies about the effect of the Internet on the public have only recently begun; that said, three major areas of study have already developed:
The impact of Internet use on other media
Early studies are confident that an increased use of the Internet generally comes at the expense of decreased television viewing; a lessening involvement with other media doesn’t seem to be generally affected.
The relationship between Internet use and social involvement
Several early studies have given contradictory results. As such, it’s too early to conclude how, or even if, heavy Internet usage affects one’s involvement with personal or social relationships.
Internet addiction
As above, little definitive research yet exists. However, psychologists have identified three characteristics of any addiction: increased tolerance, loss of control, and withdrawal. In one recent study of heavy recreational-Internet users, most exhibited some or all of all three symptoms.
COMMUNICATION IN THE FUTURE: SOCIAL IMPACT
Privacy
While the advent of new communication technology and the explosion of harvesting personal information about us have obviously contributed to our own benefit as well as society’s, there are just as many troubling issues all that information exchange raises. One of the biggest issues is our increasing loss of privacy in the area of e-mails, cellular phones, medical records, shopping habits, financial information, and so on. Information is getting to be uncomfortably easy to find and access through centralized computer databases.
Fragmentation and Isolation
Mass media are increasingly serving the needs of more specialized audiences, thus directing individuals toward more selective content exposure. If this trend continues, it could result into smaller and smaller interest groups with little in common with the rest of society. This phenomena has been labeled the cocoon effect by sociologists. This effect suggests that people surround themselves with only the political and social information that they find comforting, appealing, or acceptable. Moreover, as telecommuting becomes more popular, more people will stay at home. Already the computer allows consumers to work, bank, shop, and be entertained without leaving the confines of your family room. What might happen if people begin to overly distance themselves from the reality of the outside world?
Overload in the Information Society
One of the central problems for 21st Century citizens may well be how they manage the vastly increasing flood of news, information, and entertainment available to them. It’s likely that those who succeed in the future will be the ones who can maximize the efficiency of their information-seeking behavior.
Escape
The possibility of people immersing themselves in the world of mass media and tuning out of the real world has always been a concern, but it just didn’t happen that often or with any significant numbers of people. Today, however, with the advent and advances in the areas of HDTV, the Internet, virtual reality, and role playing games, those fears have again resurfaced, and this time perhaps, with considerably more likelihood of those fears becoming realized.
Overview: Media Law
THE PRESS, THE LAW, AND THE COURTS
A Free Press
Partially as a result of their colonial experiences, but also as a hedge against potential future abuses, the Constitution's framers enacted a specific Bill of Rights. In it, the First Amendment says in part, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." As simple and straightforward as that may sound, people and the courts have been arguing over its interpretation for over 200 years.
Prior Restraint
When the government attempts to censor the press by restraining the media before something is printed or broadcast, that's called prior restraint. Though attempts to do so have been rare, the courts have held that the First Amendment is not absolute; the government can, under certain cir-cumstances, restrain speech and the press, but the task of proving the necessity to do so is ex-tremely difficult. In most cases, the Supreme Court has sided firmly with the press.
The Near Case In the 1920s, the Minnesota legislature passed a law under which newspapers that were considered public nuisances could be curtailed by means of an injunction (an order from a court that requires somebody to do something or refrain from doing something). Even though the Minnesota law was designed, in part, to prevent press abuses against minorities, the Supreme Court held that good intentions did not supercede the greater danger of prior restraint.
The Pentagon Papers In the early 1970s the Nixon administration attempted to suppress a story set to run in the New York Times. The nine-part series, illegally leaked to the press, described a top secret Defense Department study which had been commissioned to research the roots of the Vietnam conflict. Citing that the report would "cause irreparable injury to [our] defense inter-ests," the Nixon administration successfully received an injunction against the Times to tempo-rarily prohibit publishing that story. For the first time in history, a U.S. newspaper had been or-dered to suppress a news story. Other papers (who by now also had copies of the report) began publishing the series; the administration countered with more injunctions, but very quickly the number of papers out paced the administration's ability to keep up with injunction orders.
The Supreme Court, with unprecedented haste, heard the case only 17 days after the initial story appeared in the Times. In a 9-0 vote, the Court said the government had not proven a sufficient and significant danger to national security that would justify the need for prior restraint. On the other hand, the Court didn't rule that prior restraint could never be applied, simply that this time the government had not shown sufficient cause to merit that action.
Subsequent cases involving the CIA successfully getting parts of a book deleted because it con-tained classified information, restrictions on news coverage during the Gulf War, and an attempt to ban a Business Week article because the material for that article came from sealed court docu-ments, have collectively shown the gray issue areas surrounding the First Amendment. Although there is a strong constitutional case against prior restraint of the press, significant unclear issues still exist wherein censorship might still be considered legal.
PROTECTING NEWS SOURCES
The press argues that if they are forced to disclose confidential sources, those sources will dry up and the public's right to know will be adversely affected. Government counters by citing it has a greater need to administer justice and to protect the rights of an individual to a fair trial.
The Reporter's Privilege
In the early 1970s the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not necessarily protect reporters from their obligation to testify before grand juries and to answer questions concerning a criminal investigation. The Court said that there were instances in which a reporter's claim to privilege could be valid. They also suggested that the states further define reporter rights by passing shield laws (legislation protecting a reporter from revealing his or her news sources). So far, 31 states have passed shield laws, but the differences between them and the variations in their interpretations have left these issues clouded and confused.
Search and Seizure
The ability to protect a reporter's notes and a newsroom's records from revealing a news source is also in a legal limbo. Here, the courts have offered even less protection. In response to the wide "fishing" net of a search warrant, Congress passed legislation in 1980 that required government to obtain a subpoena (an order to appear or present evidence) in order to obtain press records. A subpoena is more limited in focus than a warrant, and, more importantly, it can be challenged in the courts before being executed. These challenges suggest that reporters need to carefully con-sider potential problems before promising confidentiality to a news source.
COVERING THE COURTS
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to a trial before an impartial jury; on the other hand, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press. Trial judges are responsible for the administration of justice while reporters are responsible for informing the public about the workings of the legal system. Sometimes these responsibilities clash.
Publicity before and during a Trial
If a potential jury member has read, seen, or heard stories in the news media about a defendant that appears to indicate that person's guilt, it is possible that the defendant will not receive a fair trial. That's called pretrial publicity. In an effort to soften the conflict between the First and Sixth Amendment rights (sometimes called the Free Press/Fair Trial issue), the Supreme Court outlined safeguards which judges could use to protect a defendant's rights. Among them:
. sequestering the jury (physically isolating them from the public outside the courtroom)
. change of venue (moving the trial to another, presumably more objective, location)
. injunctions (prohibitions against making any potentially damaging statements made by
trial participants)
Gag Rules
Some judges have invoked restrictive orders, or gag orders, which restrain trial participants from giving out information to the media or restrain media coverage of events that occur in court. Press access to pre-trial proceedings, pre-trial evidence, jury selection, and even the ac-tual trial proceedings themselves has had a see-saw history of restriction and openness. In the 1980s, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the press’ right to open court access, but the Court also ruled that that judges theoretically could--using strict guidelines laid down by the Court--restrict press access if the situation warranted it.
Cameras and Microphones in the Courtroom
Still cameras, newsreel film, and radios first invaded the courts in the 1930s. Due in various part to the clumsiness and size of the equipment, the zeal of the reporters, and the inexperience of both the courts and the press with these communication systems, film and broadcast coverage became reminiscent of a circus. As a result, the American Bar Association adopted Canon 35 of its Canons of Professional Ethics, which suggested that courts bar film and broadcast in covering court proceedings. Soon after, most states did just that. Later, other court cases objected to the potential prejudice that TV coverage might produce, and it too became a court outcast.
Slowly, however, state-by-state, courtroom restrictions of AV materials have relaxed. By 1970, advances in technology and greater media experience re-opened the doors to the possibility of allowing video and audio court coverage. By 2000, only two states still prohibit film or broad-cast coverage under any circumstances. Broadcast coverage is, however, still prohibited in all federal criminal courts and in the Supreme Court of the United States.
REPORTER'S ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Government Information
After World War II, members of the press complained that government secrecy was becoming a major problem. Reporters were being restricted from official meetings, and access to govern-ment documents was often difficult to obtain. In response, Congress passed the 1966 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which gave the public the right--with some restrictions--to find out what the federal government was up to.
The law states that every federal executive-branch agency must publish instructions on what methods a member of the public should follow to get information. If information is improperly withheld, a court can force the agency to disclose what is sought. There are nine areas of ex-empted material such as trade secrets, criminal investigations, oil well maps, and IRS files.
In 1996, the Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA) was also passed to make more government information available on the Internet, although agencies have been slow to imple-ment all the requirements of the EFOIA.
Journalists, however, have not made extensive use of this law since getting the information is often a cumbersome and time-consuming process. But the FOIA has been used effectively in some investigative series where time wasn't an issue. Sunshine Acts, allowing press access to most government meetings--again, with some restrictions--have also helped further public access to government proceedings. As is usually the case, most states have adopted similar FOIA and Sunshine Acts to cover state and local government proceedings.
Access to News Scenes
A reporter's right to access a news scene, above and beyond the public's right to the same access, is still in the evolutionary stage of definitive court decisions. The Supreme Court has suggested the press has no more of an inherent right to news scenes or public facilities than does the public at large, or to put in another way, when the public is not admitted, neither is the press. State laws themselves vary widely in the interpretation of what are a reporter’s access limits.
DEFAMATION
The right of free speech and the rights of a free press sometimes come into conflict with the right of an individual to protect his or her reputation. These conflicts are dealt with under defamation law, which can be broken down into several areas:
. libel written defamation that tends to injure a person's reputation or good
name or that diminishes the esteem, respect, or goodwill due a person
. slander spoken defamation; broadcast defamation is often considered libelous
because the defamation usually has broader impact than a typical slander
case; libel is also considered a more serious offense than slander
. libel per se some words are always libelous; falsely written accusations, such as
labeling a person a "thief" or a "swindler" automatically constitutes libel
. libel per quod normally innocent words could be libelous under certain circumstances
Though each state has its own defamation definitions, the same general rules apply. For example, in order for someone to win a libel suit against the media, that person must prove five things:
1. that he or she has actually been defamed and harmed by the statements
2. that he or she has been identified (although not necessarily by name)
3. that the defamatory statements have been published
4. that the media were at fault
5. in most instances, that what was published or broadcast was false
In proving that the media is at fault, people suing for libel must generally also prove that the pur-ported defamatory statement is indeed false, so that virtually anyone who brings a libel suit must show the wrongfulness of what was published. But the media are responsible for whatever they report, and thus can’t hide behind the fact that they were only repeating what someone else said.
Defenses against Libel Suits
1. truth If what's been reported is true, defamation, by definition, has not occurred.
2. privilege The courts have held that in some situations, the public's right to know takes
precedence over a person's right to preserve a reputation. In common cases, like government or public proceedings, the press is protected as long as the reporter gives a fair and accurate report of those events, even if what’s reported contains a libelous statement.
3. fair comment Any person who voluntarily puts himself into the public eye or is at the
and criticism center of public attention is open to fair criticism. This applies only to fair
criticism, not misrepresentations of fact.
In 1964, the Supreme Court significantly loosened the potential restrictions on comments con-cerning public officials or public figures in the New York Times vs. Sullivan case. A civil rights group published an ad in the Times concerning a protest in Montgomery that Sullivan, an Ala-bama police official, claimed libeled him. Evidence revealed that several statements in the ad were indeed false. An Alabama court found in favor of Sullivan and awarded him $500,000; shortly thereafter, however, the Supreme Court overturned the decision and enumerated three major principles that would affect all future defamation decisions:
1. Editorial advertising is protected by the First Amendment.
2. Even false statements might qualify for First Amendment protection if they concern a
public official’s public conduct.
3. Public officials must prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice.
Actual malice means publishing a statement with the knowledge that it was false or publishing a statement in "reckless disregard" of whether it was false or not. The Court noted the fact that being involved in a newsworthy event doesn't necessarily make a person a public figure. Private citizens however still need to show some degree of fault or negligence by the media. In many states this simply means showing that the media did not exercise ordinary care in carrying a story. People suing for defamation collect awards in one or both of two forms: actual damages (dollar damages the defamation actually cost them), and/or punitive damages, in which juries tend to award big fines with the intent of punishing media performance. With punitive damages, however, even a private citizen must show the media acted with actual malice.
Defamation and the Internet
A whole new medium often brings whole new problems. For example, should defamation on the Internet be treated as libel or slander? If someone sues you for defamation, should your ISP also be held liable for carrying your message? The answer to the first question rests largely on your own state’s laws; the answer to the second is leaning towards “no,” at least not if your ISP does not routinely and strictly monitor the posting areas it makes available to you.
INVASION OF PRIVACY
The Right to Privacy
A single defamation publication might often prompt two suits: libel and invasion of privacy. The difference between the two is that while libel protects a person's reputation, the right of privacy protects a person's peace of mind and feelings. Second, libel involves publication of false mate-rial; invasion of privacy might be triggered by disclosing the truth. There are four ways the me-dia can invade someone's privacy:
1. intruding upon a person's solitude or seclusion
2. unauthorized release of private information
3. publicizing people in a false light or creating a false impression of them
4. appropriation of a person's name or likeness for commercial purposes
Trespass
Trespassing is unauthorized entry onto somebody else's territory. If the question is, “Do jour-nalists have a special First Amendment privilege to break the law in pursuit of a legitimate news story that will advance the public interest?” recent court rulings suggest that the answer is “no.” In respect to the media, this area of the law has usually focused on the tactics of some reporters to gain entry onto private property using fraudulent methods, e.g., going undercover and pretend-ing to be somebody they really weren't in order to get pictures or story background. The Food Lion vs. ABC case in 1996 is a classic example.
COPYRIGHT
Copyright laws protect authors against unfair appropriation of their work. First enacted in 1909, the copyright laws were fundamentally amended in 1976 in response to emerging communica-tion technologies. The new laws protect such things as literary and dramatic manuscripts, music works, sound recordings, motion pictures, and TV programs. The law also specifies what is not covered, such as ideas, news, a discovery, or a procedure. For works created after January 1978, copyrights last for the life of the author plus 70 years; works created before then are protected for a period of 95 years. Copyright protection extends only to copying the work in question; works that are similar, though not copied or based on the original, are not copyright infringements.
Someone can, however, use portions of a copyrighted work under the law's fair use provisions; such uses might include teaching purposes, research, news reporting, and critical reviews. To qualify for protection under fair use laws, these four factors are considered:
1. the purpose of the use (profit vs. non-profit)
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount reproduced in proportion to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. the effect of the use on the potential market value of the copyrighted work
In the famous Betamax case, the Supreme Court ruled that viewers who owned VCRs could copy programs off the air for later viewing (timeshifting) since it constituted fair use of the material.
Copyright law does apply to the Internet, a 1995 presidential task force concluding that copying materials from the Internet is a form of reproduction that is protected by current copyright laws.
OBSCENITY AND PORNOGRAPHY
This area of the law revolves around the rights of free speech under the First Amendment when they come into conflict with the right of society to protect itself from what it considers harmful messages. Although obscenity is clearly not protected by the law, the courts have been unable to adequately define what actually constitutes obscenity.
Obscenity laws began with the 1860’s Hicklin Rule, in which its guidelines judged a book to be obscene by whether isolated passages had a tendency to deprave or corrupt the mind of the most susceptible person.
In 1957 the Supreme Court attempted to redefine the definition of obscenity in its Roth v. United States ruling. Those guidelines mandated that something was obscene if, “to the average person, applying contemporary standards, the dominate theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interests.” Later, other decisions added refinements by saying that the material had to be “patently offensive” and “utterly without redeeming social value” to be obscene. A 1969 ruling came up with the concept of variable obscenity when it stated that certain magazines were ob-scene when sold to minors but not obscene when sold to adults.
In 1973 the Court tried to close up the obscenity loophole when it adjudicated the Miller v. Cali-fornia case. The new test added these new principles:
1. whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that
the work as a whole appeals to prurient interest
2. whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way certain sexual conduct
that is specifically spelled out by state law
3. whether the work as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Despite the attempts at clarification, and the indirect suggestion that obscenity problems be han-dled on a local level, the problem of defining pornography to everyone’s satisfaction continues. The Internet, of course, brings on a whole new set of legal issues in terms of creating, defining, and distributing pornographic materials. While the Court agrees that child pornography is not something protected under the First Amendment, it’s also ruled that the Internet should be given the highest level of first Amendment protection, similar to that given to books and newspapers, rather than the more limited rights of broadcasting and cable where regulation is more common.
REGULATING BROADCASTS
Because the public owns the airwaves, the government decides who gets a license to broadcast over certain frequencies on behalf of the public interest, and whether or not, after a time, they can renew that license. The broadcast media, therefore, are subject to more regulations than the print media.
The Federal Communication Commission
The governing body, the FCC, does not make the laws but rather interprets them. One of its big-gest jobs is to continually interpret the concept of “operating within the public interest.” One of its responsibilities is to examine programming and determine whether public interest is being served, not just from a technical standpoint, but also from perspective of a well-rounded program lineup. The Federal Radio Commission, forerunner to the FCC, ruled in its 1929 Great Lakes decision that the broadcasting of programs that tended to injure the public--fraudulent advertis-ing, attacks on ethnic groups, attacks on religion--would not be considered in the public interest.
A 1960 FCC policy introduced the idea of localism, contending that programs featuring local talent and aimed at local self-expression are necessary elements in serving the public interest.
In regulating stations, the FCC can make its influence felt in a number of ways. From the mild-est to the most severe levels it can, for example:
. fine a station up to $250,000
. put a license renewal on probation, usually a year
. revoke or fail to renew a license
The last step is rarely taken; from 1934 to 1978, only 142 licenses were revoked. Some 99.8 percent of all licenses are renewed.
While rules relaxed during the deregulatory period of the 1980s, regulations began to increase in the 1990s. For example, Congress recently passed the Children’s Television Act, which among other things limits the amount of commercial time for children’s programs and also man-dates that TV stations devote at least three hours of informational and educational programming for children each week.
Indecent Content
Congress, the courts, and the FCC have had a difficult time trying to find a compromise between protecting the principles of the First Amendment while also protecting children from accidental exposure to indecent content aired on radio and television. Several time periods that banned in-decent content were tried, but the one that stuck is the one that now bans broadcasters from air-ing potentially indecent content between 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
The Equal Opportunities Rule
The Equal Opportunities rule states that if a station permits one candidate for a specific office to appear on the air, it must offer the same opportunity to all other candidates for that office. If a station gives one person or party free time, other qualifying persons or parties must also get the same amount of free time. The single exception, which creates the loophole for presidential de-bates, is that networks can cover debates limited to leading candidates because it’s defined as a “news” event.
The Fairness Doctrine
Now void, the Fairness Doctrine nonetheless continues to pop up for serious reinstatement con-sideration from time to time. When it was in effect, it said that broadcasters had to seek out, and make a good faith effort at presenting, opposing viewpoints on matters of public importance.
REGULATING CABLE TV
Congress and a few presidential administrations have demanded on-again, off-again regulations to govern the TV cable industry. The latest regulations arose because of widespread consumer complaints against rising fees and poor service; in response, Congress passed the Cable TVAct of 1992, which re-instated the FCC’s power to regulate cable fees and services. Two provisions of this act had important consequences.
First, most consumers saw their monthly cable rates go down. The second effect was in response to an industry challenge to overturn the rule that required it to carry the signals of local broadcast stations. The Supreme Court held that Congress could pass laws which guaranteed that the free flow of information not be restricted by a private firm that controlled the means of transmission.
THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first major overhaul of communication laws in more than 60 years, and it affected every industry regulated by the FCC. Some of the law’s key provisions are:
. no limit on total number of radio or TV stations that can be owned by one person or com-pany, provided that no more than eight stations may be owned in a single market
. no limit on the number of TV stations that can be owned as long as that number doesn’t
reach more than 35 percent of the nation’s TV households
. extended the term of broadcast licenses to eight years
. allowed telephone companies to enter the cable field
. allowed cable companies to enter the telephone business
. deregulated the rates of many cable systems
. mandated that new TV sets come with the ability to block programs with strong sexual or
violent content (the so-called V-Chip)
. mandated that the TV industry to come up with a voluntary system to rate programs with
violent, sexual, or indecent content
Though the TV and cable industries created a rating system, and then amended it later because of public pressure, the new system is confusing and applied sporadically, if at all.
REGULATING ADVERTISING
When the Federal Trade Commission was started in 1914, its first mission was to curtail ques-tionable business practices such as bribery, false advertising, and product mislabeling. Protect-ing consumer rights came later in 1938 with the passage of the Wheeler-Lea Act which gave the FTC the power to prevent deceptive advertising that harmed the public, reversing the long-held market place concept of caveat emptor, or “let the buyer beware”.
The FTC can issue trade regulations, which outline guidelines for an industry to follow. It can also use consent orders, in which the advertiser agrees to halt a certain advertising practice, al-though without admitting any violation of the law. Somewhat stronger, a cease-and-desist order arises from a formal FTC hearing in which it’s determined that a particular advertising practice does indeed violate the law. Failing to stop that practice can lead to FTC imposed fines.
The FTC has also occasionally required companies to issue corrective advertising, in which po-tentially misleading claims need to be clarified. The FTC also stopped advertisements that tar-geted children when the products advertised were deemed harmful to children, the R. J. Rey-nolds’ “Joe Camel” campaign being one of the more recent examples.
Commercial Free Speech Under the First Amendment
For many years the Supreme Court did not view advertising (a.k.a. commercial speech) as hav-ing any First Amendment protection. The 1964 New York Times vs. Sullivan case extended a new protection, however, to advertising that dealt with important social matters. More recent cases suggest that in many instances commercial speech falls under the constitutional protection, and in 1980 the Court outlined a four-part test for determining that protection:
1. Not protected is any commercial speech that involves an unlawful activity or advertising that is false or misleading.
2. The government must have a substantial interest in regulating the commercial speech.
3. The government’s regulation must actually advance the involved interests of the state.
4. The state’s regulations may be only as broad as necessary to promote the state’s interests.
A Free Press
Partially as a result of their colonial experiences, but also as a hedge against potential future abuses, the Constitution's framers enacted a specific Bill of Rights. In it, the First Amendment says in part, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." As simple and straightforward as that may sound, people and the courts have been arguing over its interpretation for over 200 years.
Prior Restraint
When the government attempts to censor the press by restraining the media before something is printed or broadcast, that's called prior restraint. Though attempts to do so have been rare, the courts have held that the First Amendment is not absolute; the government can, under certain cir-cumstances, restrain speech and the press, but the task of proving the necessity to do so is ex-tremely difficult. In most cases, the Supreme Court has sided firmly with the press.
The Near Case In the 1920s, the Minnesota legislature passed a law under which newspapers that were considered public nuisances could be curtailed by means of an injunction (an order from a court that requires somebody to do something or refrain from doing something). Even though the Minnesota law was designed, in part, to prevent press abuses against minorities, the Supreme Court held that good intentions did not supercede the greater danger of prior restraint.
The Pentagon Papers In the early 1970s the Nixon administration attempted to suppress a story set to run in the New York Times. The nine-part series, illegally leaked to the press, described a top secret Defense Department study which had been commissioned to research the roots of the Vietnam conflict. Citing that the report would "cause irreparable injury to [our] defense inter-ests," the Nixon administration successfully received an injunction against the Times to tempo-rarily prohibit publishing that story. For the first time in history, a U.S. newspaper had been or-dered to suppress a news story. Other papers (who by now also had copies of the report) began publishing the series; the administration countered with more injunctions, but very quickly the number of papers out paced the administration's ability to keep up with injunction orders.
The Supreme Court, with unprecedented haste, heard the case only 17 days after the initial story appeared in the Times. In a 9-0 vote, the Court said the government had not proven a sufficient and significant danger to national security that would justify the need for prior restraint. On the other hand, the Court didn't rule that prior restraint could never be applied, simply that this time the government had not shown sufficient cause to merit that action.
Subsequent cases involving the CIA successfully getting parts of a book deleted because it con-tained classified information, restrictions on news coverage during the Gulf War, and an attempt to ban a Business Week article because the material for that article came from sealed court docu-ments, have collectively shown the gray issue areas surrounding the First Amendment. Although there is a strong constitutional case against prior restraint of the press, significant unclear issues still exist wherein censorship might still be considered legal.
PROTECTING NEWS SOURCES
The press argues that if they are forced to disclose confidential sources, those sources will dry up and the public's right to know will be adversely affected. Government counters by citing it has a greater need to administer justice and to protect the rights of an individual to a fair trial.
The Reporter's Privilege
In the early 1970s the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not necessarily protect reporters from their obligation to testify before grand juries and to answer questions concerning a criminal investigation. The Court said that there were instances in which a reporter's claim to privilege could be valid. They also suggested that the states further define reporter rights by passing shield laws (legislation protecting a reporter from revealing his or her news sources). So far, 31 states have passed shield laws, but the differences between them and the variations in their interpretations have left these issues clouded and confused.
Search and Seizure
The ability to protect a reporter's notes and a newsroom's records from revealing a news source is also in a legal limbo. Here, the courts have offered even less protection. In response to the wide "fishing" net of a search warrant, Congress passed legislation in 1980 that required government to obtain a subpoena (an order to appear or present evidence) in order to obtain press records. A subpoena is more limited in focus than a warrant, and, more importantly, it can be challenged in the courts before being executed. These challenges suggest that reporters need to carefully con-sider potential problems before promising confidentiality to a news source.
COVERING THE COURTS
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to a trial before an impartial jury; on the other hand, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press. Trial judges are responsible for the administration of justice while reporters are responsible for informing the public about the workings of the legal system. Sometimes these responsibilities clash.
Publicity before and during a Trial
If a potential jury member has read, seen, or heard stories in the news media about a defendant that appears to indicate that person's guilt, it is possible that the defendant will not receive a fair trial. That's called pretrial publicity. In an effort to soften the conflict between the First and Sixth Amendment rights (sometimes called the Free Press/Fair Trial issue), the Supreme Court outlined safeguards which judges could use to protect a defendant's rights. Among them:
. sequestering the jury (physically isolating them from the public outside the courtroom)
. change of venue (moving the trial to another, presumably more objective, location)
. injunctions (prohibitions against making any potentially damaging statements made by
trial participants)
Gag Rules
Some judges have invoked restrictive orders, or gag orders, which restrain trial participants from giving out information to the media or restrain media coverage of events that occur in court. Press access to pre-trial proceedings, pre-trial evidence, jury selection, and even the ac-tual trial proceedings themselves has had a see-saw history of restriction and openness. In the 1980s, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the press’ right to open court access, but the Court also ruled that that judges theoretically could--using strict guidelines laid down by the Court--restrict press access if the situation warranted it.
Cameras and Microphones in the Courtroom
Still cameras, newsreel film, and radios first invaded the courts in the 1930s. Due in various part to the clumsiness and size of the equipment, the zeal of the reporters, and the inexperience of both the courts and the press with these communication systems, film and broadcast coverage became reminiscent of a circus. As a result, the American Bar Association adopted Canon 35 of its Canons of Professional Ethics, which suggested that courts bar film and broadcast in covering court proceedings. Soon after, most states did just that. Later, other court cases objected to the potential prejudice that TV coverage might produce, and it too became a court outcast.
Slowly, however, state-by-state, courtroom restrictions of AV materials have relaxed. By 1970, advances in technology and greater media experience re-opened the doors to the possibility of allowing video and audio court coverage. By 2000, only two states still prohibit film or broad-cast coverage under any circumstances. Broadcast coverage is, however, still prohibited in all federal criminal courts and in the Supreme Court of the United States.
REPORTER'S ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Government Information
After World War II, members of the press complained that government secrecy was becoming a major problem. Reporters were being restricted from official meetings, and access to govern-ment documents was often difficult to obtain. In response, Congress passed the 1966 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which gave the public the right--with some restrictions--to find out what the federal government was up to.
The law states that every federal executive-branch agency must publish instructions on what methods a member of the public should follow to get information. If information is improperly withheld, a court can force the agency to disclose what is sought. There are nine areas of ex-empted material such as trade secrets, criminal investigations, oil well maps, and IRS files.
In 1996, the Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA) was also passed to make more government information available on the Internet, although agencies have been slow to imple-ment all the requirements of the EFOIA.
Journalists, however, have not made extensive use of this law since getting the information is often a cumbersome and time-consuming process. But the FOIA has been used effectively in some investigative series where time wasn't an issue. Sunshine Acts, allowing press access to most government meetings--again, with some restrictions--have also helped further public access to government proceedings. As is usually the case, most states have adopted similar FOIA and Sunshine Acts to cover state and local government proceedings.
Access to News Scenes
A reporter's right to access a news scene, above and beyond the public's right to the same access, is still in the evolutionary stage of definitive court decisions. The Supreme Court has suggested the press has no more of an inherent right to news scenes or public facilities than does the public at large, or to put in another way, when the public is not admitted, neither is the press. State laws themselves vary widely in the interpretation of what are a reporter’s access limits.
DEFAMATION
The right of free speech and the rights of a free press sometimes come into conflict with the right of an individual to protect his or her reputation. These conflicts are dealt with under defamation law, which can be broken down into several areas:
. libel written defamation that tends to injure a person's reputation or good
name or that diminishes the esteem, respect, or goodwill due a person
. slander spoken defamation; broadcast defamation is often considered libelous
because the defamation usually has broader impact than a typical slander
case; libel is also considered a more serious offense than slander
. libel per se some words are always libelous; falsely written accusations, such as
labeling a person a "thief" or a "swindler" automatically constitutes libel
. libel per quod normally innocent words could be libelous under certain circumstances
Though each state has its own defamation definitions, the same general rules apply. For example, in order for someone to win a libel suit against the media, that person must prove five things:
1. that he or she has actually been defamed and harmed by the statements
2. that he or she has been identified (although not necessarily by name)
3. that the defamatory statements have been published
4. that the media were at fault
5. in most instances, that what was published or broadcast was false
In proving that the media is at fault, people suing for libel must generally also prove that the pur-ported defamatory statement is indeed false, so that virtually anyone who brings a libel suit must show the wrongfulness of what was published. But the media are responsible for whatever they report, and thus can’t hide behind the fact that they were only repeating what someone else said.
Defenses against Libel Suits
1. truth If what's been reported is true, defamation, by definition, has not occurred.
2. privilege The courts have held that in some situations, the public's right to know takes
precedence over a person's right to preserve a reputation. In common cases, like government or public proceedings, the press is protected as long as the reporter gives a fair and accurate report of those events, even if what’s reported contains a libelous statement.
3. fair comment Any person who voluntarily puts himself into the public eye or is at the
and criticism center of public attention is open to fair criticism. This applies only to fair
criticism, not misrepresentations of fact.
In 1964, the Supreme Court significantly loosened the potential restrictions on comments con-cerning public officials or public figures in the New York Times vs. Sullivan case. A civil rights group published an ad in the Times concerning a protest in Montgomery that Sullivan, an Ala-bama police official, claimed libeled him. Evidence revealed that several statements in the ad were indeed false. An Alabama court found in favor of Sullivan and awarded him $500,000; shortly thereafter, however, the Supreme Court overturned the decision and enumerated three major principles that would affect all future defamation decisions:
1. Editorial advertising is protected by the First Amendment.
2. Even false statements might qualify for First Amendment protection if they concern a
public official’s public conduct.
3. Public officials must prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice.
Actual malice means publishing a statement with the knowledge that it was false or publishing a statement in "reckless disregard" of whether it was false or not. The Court noted the fact that being involved in a newsworthy event doesn't necessarily make a person a public figure. Private citizens however still need to show some degree of fault or negligence by the media. In many states this simply means showing that the media did not exercise ordinary care in carrying a story. People suing for defamation collect awards in one or both of two forms: actual damages (dollar damages the defamation actually cost them), and/or punitive damages, in which juries tend to award big fines with the intent of punishing media performance. With punitive damages, however, even a private citizen must show the media acted with actual malice.
Defamation and the Internet
A whole new medium often brings whole new problems. For example, should defamation on the Internet be treated as libel or slander? If someone sues you for defamation, should your ISP also be held liable for carrying your message? The answer to the first question rests largely on your own state’s laws; the answer to the second is leaning towards “no,” at least not if your ISP does not routinely and strictly monitor the posting areas it makes available to you.
INVASION OF PRIVACY
The Right to Privacy
A single defamation publication might often prompt two suits: libel and invasion of privacy. The difference between the two is that while libel protects a person's reputation, the right of privacy protects a person's peace of mind and feelings. Second, libel involves publication of false mate-rial; invasion of privacy might be triggered by disclosing the truth. There are four ways the me-dia can invade someone's privacy:
1. intruding upon a person's solitude or seclusion
2. unauthorized release of private information
3. publicizing people in a false light or creating a false impression of them
4. appropriation of a person's name or likeness for commercial purposes
Trespass
Trespassing is unauthorized entry onto somebody else's territory. If the question is, “Do jour-nalists have a special First Amendment privilege to break the law in pursuit of a legitimate news story that will advance the public interest?” recent court rulings suggest that the answer is “no.” In respect to the media, this area of the law has usually focused on the tactics of some reporters to gain entry onto private property using fraudulent methods, e.g., going undercover and pretend-ing to be somebody they really weren't in order to get pictures or story background. The Food Lion vs. ABC case in 1996 is a classic example.
COPYRIGHT
Copyright laws protect authors against unfair appropriation of their work. First enacted in 1909, the copyright laws were fundamentally amended in 1976 in response to emerging communica-tion technologies. The new laws protect such things as literary and dramatic manuscripts, music works, sound recordings, motion pictures, and TV programs. The law also specifies what is not covered, such as ideas, news, a discovery, or a procedure. For works created after January 1978, copyrights last for the life of the author plus 70 years; works created before then are protected for a period of 95 years. Copyright protection extends only to copying the work in question; works that are similar, though not copied or based on the original, are not copyright infringements.
Someone can, however, use portions of a copyrighted work under the law's fair use provisions; such uses might include teaching purposes, research, news reporting, and critical reviews. To qualify for protection under fair use laws, these four factors are considered:
1. the purpose of the use (profit vs. non-profit)
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount reproduced in proportion to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. the effect of the use on the potential market value of the copyrighted work
In the famous Betamax case, the Supreme Court ruled that viewers who owned VCRs could copy programs off the air for later viewing (timeshifting) since it constituted fair use of the material.
Copyright law does apply to the Internet, a 1995 presidential task force concluding that copying materials from the Internet is a form of reproduction that is protected by current copyright laws.
OBSCENITY AND PORNOGRAPHY
This area of the law revolves around the rights of free speech under the First Amendment when they come into conflict with the right of society to protect itself from what it considers harmful messages. Although obscenity is clearly not protected by the law, the courts have been unable to adequately define what actually constitutes obscenity.
Obscenity laws began with the 1860’s Hicklin Rule, in which its guidelines judged a book to be obscene by whether isolated passages had a tendency to deprave or corrupt the mind of the most susceptible person.
In 1957 the Supreme Court attempted to redefine the definition of obscenity in its Roth v. United States ruling. Those guidelines mandated that something was obscene if, “to the average person, applying contemporary standards, the dominate theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interests.” Later, other decisions added refinements by saying that the material had to be “patently offensive” and “utterly without redeeming social value” to be obscene. A 1969 ruling came up with the concept of variable obscenity when it stated that certain magazines were ob-scene when sold to minors but not obscene when sold to adults.
In 1973 the Court tried to close up the obscenity loophole when it adjudicated the Miller v. Cali-fornia case. The new test added these new principles:
1. whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that
the work as a whole appeals to prurient interest
2. whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way certain sexual conduct
that is specifically spelled out by state law
3. whether the work as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Despite the attempts at clarification, and the indirect suggestion that obscenity problems be han-dled on a local level, the problem of defining pornography to everyone’s satisfaction continues. The Internet, of course, brings on a whole new set of legal issues in terms of creating, defining, and distributing pornographic materials. While the Court agrees that child pornography is not something protected under the First Amendment, it’s also ruled that the Internet should be given the highest level of first Amendment protection, similar to that given to books and newspapers, rather than the more limited rights of broadcasting and cable where regulation is more common.
REGULATING BROADCASTS
Because the public owns the airwaves, the government decides who gets a license to broadcast over certain frequencies on behalf of the public interest, and whether or not, after a time, they can renew that license. The broadcast media, therefore, are subject to more regulations than the print media.
The Federal Communication Commission
The governing body, the FCC, does not make the laws but rather interprets them. One of its big-gest jobs is to continually interpret the concept of “operating within the public interest.” One of its responsibilities is to examine programming and determine whether public interest is being served, not just from a technical standpoint, but also from perspective of a well-rounded program lineup. The Federal Radio Commission, forerunner to the FCC, ruled in its 1929 Great Lakes decision that the broadcasting of programs that tended to injure the public--fraudulent advertis-ing, attacks on ethnic groups, attacks on religion--would not be considered in the public interest.
A 1960 FCC policy introduced the idea of localism, contending that programs featuring local talent and aimed at local self-expression are necessary elements in serving the public interest.
In regulating stations, the FCC can make its influence felt in a number of ways. From the mild-est to the most severe levels it can, for example:
. fine a station up to $250,000
. put a license renewal on probation, usually a year
. revoke or fail to renew a license
The last step is rarely taken; from 1934 to 1978, only 142 licenses were revoked. Some 99.8 percent of all licenses are renewed.
While rules relaxed during the deregulatory period of the 1980s, regulations began to increase in the 1990s. For example, Congress recently passed the Children’s Television Act, which among other things limits the amount of commercial time for children’s programs and also man-dates that TV stations devote at least three hours of informational and educational programming for children each week.
Indecent Content
Congress, the courts, and the FCC have had a difficult time trying to find a compromise between protecting the principles of the First Amendment while also protecting children from accidental exposure to indecent content aired on radio and television. Several time periods that banned in-decent content were tried, but the one that stuck is the one that now bans broadcasters from air-ing potentially indecent content between 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
The Equal Opportunities Rule
The Equal Opportunities rule states that if a station permits one candidate for a specific office to appear on the air, it must offer the same opportunity to all other candidates for that office. If a station gives one person or party free time, other qualifying persons or parties must also get the same amount of free time. The single exception, which creates the loophole for presidential de-bates, is that networks can cover debates limited to leading candidates because it’s defined as a “news” event.
The Fairness Doctrine
Now void, the Fairness Doctrine nonetheless continues to pop up for serious reinstatement con-sideration from time to time. When it was in effect, it said that broadcasters had to seek out, and make a good faith effort at presenting, opposing viewpoints on matters of public importance.
REGULATING CABLE TV
Congress and a few presidential administrations have demanded on-again, off-again regulations to govern the TV cable industry. The latest regulations arose because of widespread consumer complaints against rising fees and poor service; in response, Congress passed the Cable TVAct of 1992, which re-instated the FCC’s power to regulate cable fees and services. Two provisions of this act had important consequences.
First, most consumers saw their monthly cable rates go down. The second effect was in response to an industry challenge to overturn the rule that required it to carry the signals of local broadcast stations. The Supreme Court held that Congress could pass laws which guaranteed that the free flow of information not be restricted by a private firm that controlled the means of transmission.
THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first major overhaul of communication laws in more than 60 years, and it affected every industry regulated by the FCC. Some of the law’s key provisions are:
. no limit on total number of radio or TV stations that can be owned by one person or com-pany, provided that no more than eight stations may be owned in a single market
. no limit on the number of TV stations that can be owned as long as that number doesn’t
reach more than 35 percent of the nation’s TV households
. extended the term of broadcast licenses to eight years
. allowed telephone companies to enter the cable field
. allowed cable companies to enter the telephone business
. deregulated the rates of many cable systems
. mandated that new TV sets come with the ability to block programs with strong sexual or
violent content (the so-called V-Chip)
. mandated that the TV industry to come up with a voluntary system to rate programs with
violent, sexual, or indecent content
Though the TV and cable industries created a rating system, and then amended it later because of public pressure, the new system is confusing and applied sporadically, if at all.
REGULATING ADVERTISING
When the Federal Trade Commission was started in 1914, its first mission was to curtail ques-tionable business practices such as bribery, false advertising, and product mislabeling. Protect-ing consumer rights came later in 1938 with the passage of the Wheeler-Lea Act which gave the FTC the power to prevent deceptive advertising that harmed the public, reversing the long-held market place concept of caveat emptor, or “let the buyer beware”.
The FTC can issue trade regulations, which outline guidelines for an industry to follow. It can also use consent orders, in which the advertiser agrees to halt a certain advertising practice, al-though without admitting any violation of the law. Somewhat stronger, a cease-and-desist order arises from a formal FTC hearing in which it’s determined that a particular advertising practice does indeed violate the law. Failing to stop that practice can lead to FTC imposed fines.
The FTC has also occasionally required companies to issue corrective advertising, in which po-tentially misleading claims need to be clarified. The FTC also stopped advertisements that tar-geted children when the products advertised were deemed harmful to children, the R. J. Rey-nolds’ “Joe Camel” campaign being one of the more recent examples.
Commercial Free Speech Under the First Amendment
For many years the Supreme Court did not view advertising (a.k.a. commercial speech) as hav-ing any First Amendment protection. The 1964 New York Times vs. Sullivan case extended a new protection, however, to advertising that dealt with important social matters. More recent cases suggest that in many instances commercial speech falls under the constitutional protection, and in 1980 the Court outlined a four-part test for determining that protection:
1. Not protected is any commercial speech that involves an unlawful activity or advertising that is false or misleading.
2. The government must have a substantial interest in regulating the commercial speech.
3. The government’s regulation must actually advance the involved interests of the state.
4. The state’s regulations may be only as broad as necessary to promote the state’s interests.
Won't be online 'til later this afternoon...
Greetings,
I have a school function that I need to attend (my kids don't get out of school until this Friday).
Consequently, I won't be online until later this afternoon.
Just wanted to let you know...
Jack
I have a school function that I need to attend (my kids don't get out of school until this Friday).
Consequently, I won't be online until later this afternoon.
Just wanted to let you know...
Jack
Friday, June 19, 2009
Reminder about projects...
Hi,
If you're creating a blog for your project, please remember to invite me to read it using my gmail address (jackpowers2@gmail.com).
If you're completing a video project, just post it to YouTube (or email it to me if you know how to compress it so that it's small enough to be emailed).
I believe that covers all the projects. If yours doesn't fit into one of those two groups, send me an email and we'll make arrangements.
Peace,
Jack
If you're creating a blog for your project, please remember to invite me to read it using my gmail address (jackpowers2@gmail.com).
If you're completing a video project, just post it to YouTube (or email it to me if you know how to compress it so that it's small enough to be emailed).
I believe that covers all the projects. If yours doesn't fit into one of those two groups, send me an email and we'll make arrangements.
Peace,
Jack
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
