Media Final

Media Final - Media Final November 11, 2011 Will run on...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Media Final November 11, 2011 Will run on The First Amendment and Government Regulations Freedom of the Press? -The First Amendment allegedly prohibits federal regulation of speech and press, yet the Communications Act of 1934 and Telecommunications Act of 1996 have imposed federal regulations -Publishers of newspapers own the press and paper. Broadcasters use the broadcasting spectrum which is owned by the public -The rulings on broadcasting are different from those of newspapers. They are licensing the right to you, to read the newspapers Two Court Cases -Red Lion Decision (1969)- The Supreme Court ruled that the FCC’s rule that entitled persons attacked on a broadcast media to reply to their attackers was legal and just o -YES, have to give response time -Tornillo Decision (1974 )- said the exact opposite of the Red Lion Decision. The Supreme Court overthrew a Florida law which gave political candidates the right to reply to printed attacks o -NO Regulated Fairness -The Fairness Doctrine - in effect until 1987. Upheld by Red Lion Decision. Series of laws that level playing field -Personal Attack Rule - Stations have a duty to inform individuals or groups of personal attacks -Political Editorial Rule - a candidate must be given a chance to respond when a licensee (station) endorses an opponent -Both rules repealed in 2000 Exceptions to the Rules -FCC mandates access FOR IDEAS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE ONLY. Decision of what is important is done by the station itself and away from the public. Decided by the people who have the license. -Fairness dealt with the overall programming of the station, not just one issue -Equal time doesn’t mean equal time. Equal time provision said that have to make the same offer so that it is level but was repealed Public’s right to know vs. Personal Privacy -NY Times vs. Sullivan (1964)- NY Times was sued -“A profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” Key phrase, if Sullivan was going to win he had to prove the Times did this WITH DELIBERATE MALICE—intentionally went after him -“With deliberate Malice”- if they sued media had to prove deliberate malice. This started with politicians and then included celebrities -Hustler Magazine (larry Flint) vs. Falwell (1988) Jerry Falwell was a very righteous Christian man, and televangelist. Flint was the publisher of Hustler Magazine and did a fake ad wrote nasty things about Falwell and about his mother . at bottom said parody not to be taken seriously but Falwell took offense and won at every single level till he got to Supreme Court -“Proof of emotional distress (even with) bad motive” can’t protect public figures from satirical assaults, no matter how “outrageous”—first amendment at work, there are a lot of things that people don’t agree with but doesn’t mean it can’t be said Free Press vs. Fair Trial -What happens when two amendments clash? What takes precedent the first amendment rights to a free press
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/19/2012 for the course MEDIA 102 taught by Professor Miller during the Fall '08 term at Rutgers.

Page1 / 8

Media Final - Media Final November 11, 2011 Will run on...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online