Would taking Fox News and MSNBC off the air be good for the American people?

No.

Well, heaven forbid we should have media channels that air viewpoints that don’t agree with Senator Rockefeller.

Perhaps Mr. Rockefeller needs to be reminded of the first amendment.

It would not be good to suppress any stations.

No, no it would not.

YES!! Oh, GOD yes. Senator Rockefeller is completely 100% right in my opinion. I think that one of the most unfortunate assault on political discourse has become, unfortunately and ironically, the 24 hour cable news cycle. Because it’s happening all the time, content is repeated. Therefore, we’re not getting new news much of the time – but we’re having the same thing boiled down into sound bites, and then shouted. It becomes easier and easier, thereafter, to confuse characterizations and opinions with the underlying facts (if there are any real valid ones).

HOWEVER, in no way, shape or form should this be done through government action. There is one great way that this can be stopped – stop watching, consumers! Free speech should be as close to unassailable as any right we have, and these stations are protected by it as much as anything else. However, just because they have a right to talk doesn’t mean that we have to listen. If we don’t, they lose their platform.

Senator Rockefeller is completely fair in saying this. He describes it as a “little bug” because it’s clear that using the FCC in this manner would be an assault on the First Amendment. But if it gets the consumers talking in a manner so that they realize the power is much more significantly in their hands to effectuate this kind of change, more power to him.

No. A free society depends on the free interchange of ideas, no matter whether those ideas appear to be biased towards one particular ideology or another. Americans have always given wide latitude to media outlets in this regard, whether you’re talking about leaflets passed out on a street corner or giant cable consortia.

Sen. Rockefeller should also look at the numbers of people who actually watch these networks compared to society as a whole. If you check out the Neilsen ratings for the week of November 1 – when the elections were held – the top rated cable program was a football game on ESPN. Two programs on the Disney Channel also made the top ten, and we’re only talking about cable TV. Entertainment programs on all of the broadcast networks had viewerships at least 3 times that of the top rated news programs. If you don’t count Dancing With the Stars as a political program, politics doesn’t inspire that much interest among TV viewers.

Intellectually, it would be good. But in the real world, it would not be good for a politician to say “Get off the air.” What would be better would be if the two networks viewerships dropped, because people got tired of slanted news.

Not a bit. You don’t solve a problem by piling leaves on top of it.

I don’t think Rockefeller is trying to prohibit these networks, I think he is saying that they might be negatively impacting the political discussion in the country. There is a difference. I think morning Joe is one of the best, most balanced, political shows on tv outside of shows like Meet The Press. Morning Joe is more lighthearted and the hosts do offer their opinions, while a show like Meet The Press, has a moderator who does not offer their opinion and is more of a classic balanced journalism take on things. Morning Joe is MSNBC. However, I don’t like shows like Maddow and Obermann, or Hannity and others on Fox. I do think one sided shows hurt the political conversation, create fear, and have negative impact. Moreover, I do not regard any show or person as balanced if the Republican never agrees with the Democrats and vice a versa. Just being contrary is either just for theatrics or stupidity.

I vote for theatrics.

Would it be good? Sure. Removing the “facts” that Faux news throws out there and the anger they both incite would probably be a good thing.

But its also an incredibly illegal thing.

I would just ask if burning books was a good thing? Seems to me this would amount to about the same thing.

@Summum, @tedd – It’s funny, but I think that the way the statement was phrased sort of shows support for what Sen. Rockefeller is stating. As @JLeslie mentions, it seems very unlikely that Rockefeller is actually advocating granting the FCC such sweeping power – if not for the most basic fact that such an action would be clearly illegal.

But in order to make himself heard over the rabble, the most effective way to get his message out there was to frame it in a manner that was inflammatory.

Were we to do this legally, I agree that I don’t see any difference between this and burning books. Censorship leads to less information or less clear information or bad information. However, consumers hearing this and recognizing that there’s something wrong with the way the news has been commercialized, and that the political debate has fallen victim to the advertising trends as well, may actually begin to demand something better.

@iamthemob probably theatrics on tv, but stupidity among the average people out here in society who buy the theatrics hook, line, and sinker.

It would be perfectly legal for me to go out on the street and preach about how people of Aryan descent are better than minorities to preschool aged children who pass by me…. But our country would be a far better place if I didn’t.

@JLeslie – Agreed.

@tedd – It would be better if you didn’t, perhaps…but not if you couldn’t. I’ve said it before, the person you portray is exactly how I like my hate – public, crazy, and clearly stupid.

Although they are both very biased, they still pump some information out. I think people should be more capable of being able to filter out the bias and just get the facts and change the channel.

@tedd I believe what you meant to say was ”In my opinion our country would be a far better place if I didn’t”.

While I would tend to share the opinion that we are better off not having someone shouting such nonsense to preschool children, I believe we are a far greater nation for acknowledging the right to do so.

I believe it was Patrick Henry that said something like: I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

No, because in the first place it would set a dangerous precedent.

I don’t want Congress to have “an easy time at their job”. It should be far more difficult than it already is. They need a hell of a lot more barking at, not less.

@CyanoticWasp – I don’t think that the message was “our job should be easier.” It seems to be more along the lines of “because of all the noise, these media outlets are making us focus on the frivolous as much as the important.”

Barking is just speaking without listening, for the most part. I’d rather the issues be discussed by one hundred individual Senators, rather than one side of the aisle against the other.

You’re a starry-eyed idealist, aren’t you, @iamthemob? I’m not being critical or judgmental in saying that, but we haven’t had thoughtful discussions among one hundred individual Senators since we’ve had a hundred Senators at a time… and for quite some time before that. Maybe there was a time once or twice when we had less than thirty senators—maybe!—but not within the past hundred and fifty years or more.

I was only responding to the quoted text from @Cruiser when he used Rockefeller’s words.

Party trumps conscience for most of them, and always will. I’m giving the benefit of a large doubt by assuming that some of them even have the conscience.

@CyanoticWasp – I’m an idealist, but I wouldn’t say starry-eyed. ;-) I just despise partisanship, and the kind of hype media that the 24 hour cable cycle puts out helps to engender just that.

And I think you’re being idealistic yourself when you say that we did have it at even 150 years ago. I think that if it were ever happening, it passed with the founding fathers.

We also agree in the “party trumps conscience” area. I feel like it’s exemplified in the truism “politics as usual.”

I feel like systematic reform is necessary in order to get us even close to what we need. Personally, I think that the partisan nature of the government as well as the focus in the federal government on loyalty to a constituency has created the most profoundly destructive characteristic of our democracy – career politicians. Politics should not be a career – it should be a service. I’m not advocating a “throw the bums out” mentality, but rather that it shouldn’t be desirable for the bums to stay in for too long.

Yes.

Yes of course, if you think that is because it is overtly right wing, it isn’t. i recently saw an Al Jazeera interview whereupon the interviewer was so partisan and hotly engaged in the interview it ended in a noisy farce. No, we need disciplined objective news coverage and interviews. America desperately needs BBC or Channel 4 (British channel 4) style news coverage and impartial reporting.

Thanks to everyone who has presented some really good opinions on this debate if you can call it that. My opinion is Sen. Rockefeller is looking a bit foolish and presumptuous with his barking dog comment and complaints over FOX and MSNBC. Clearly if he would focus on his job and create and pass legislation that transcends partisan demands like he was elected to do, FOX and MSNBC would have zero fodder to fans the flames over.
What a moron <<another Cruiser opinion

There’s just the smallll matter of the First Amendment to the Constitution, you know. Then again, “having faith in our government” is about as ridiculous a statement as I have ever heard!

I think that you are equating two completely different things. Fox is based on what sells and they are willing to do or say anything as long as the advertising dollars keep rolling in. Hence the journalism is the same caliber as that of the National Inquirer. Have good looking women say anything as long as people keep watching.

NBC sees itself as a real network. The want to make money but want to hold their journalist to a higher standard. That’s why the suspended Olbermann although what he did was normal business at Fox.

I say keep both. People have as much right to hear stupid as intelligent. It seems that there are very very many stupid Americans. Hence, Fox will have a viewership for a long time. I just hope some people are intelligent enough to watch BBC or CBC to get some of the real news.

There is so much happening in this world as far as news goes that it would be impossible for a news source to not be considered slanted in some way. There is a very thin line here when you consider using the term “slanted”. People should have their choice in news so my answer here would be no.

“Faith in their government!” OMG! What utter BULLSHIT!