Slashdot Log In
NBC Believes They Own Political Discourse
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Apr 28, 2007 02:25 AM
from the they-the-people dept.
from the they-the-people dept.
PoliSciASU writes "MSNBC has established draconian rules regarding the use of the Presidential Primary Debates on the internet. Some examples: '5. No excerpts may be aired after 8:30 pm on Saturday, May 26th. Excerpts may not be archived. Any further use of excerpts is by express permission of MSNBC only. 6. All debate excerpts must be taped directly from MSNBC's cablecast or obtained directly from MSNBC and may not be obtained from other sources, such as satellite or other forms of transmission. No portions of the live event not aired by MSNBC may be used.' Kevin Bondelli talks about why this is 'shameful and wrong'. Voters are missing out on the ability to actually have an engaged conversation about the candidates and their debate performances because of NBC's greed." Alexander Wolfe at InformationWeek and Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine share similar sentiments, and discuss the matter in different ways.
Related Stories
[+]
CNN To Release Debates Under Creative Commons 151 comments
remove office writes "After calls from several prominent bloggers and a couple of presidential candidates, CNN has agreed to release the footage from its upcoming June presidential debates uncopyrighted. Senator Barack Obama was the first candidate to call for all presidential debates to be released under Creative Commons, with fellow Democratic hopeful John Edwards following shortly afterwards. CNN will be the first to do so with their June 3rd and 5th Democratic and Republican debates. MSNBC hosted the first presidential debates recently but refused to release them under Creative Commons, opting instead to post online only commercial-ridden clips in Windows Media format."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Greed? (Score:4, Insightful)
The news media is just a citizen manipulation tool (Score:2, Insightful)
I once lived in a country with a very muzzled press, but everyb
Re:The news media is just a citizen manipulation t (Score:4, Insightful)
It's ironic this incenses people so... these are debates between candidates already vetted by those in control. The powers that be don't care which one gets elected... they own them all!
Re:The news media is just a citizen manipulation t (Score:4, Interesting)
I've often heard the "it doesn't matter which major party I vote for, they're the same" line. Baloney and Fiddlesticks! Just a weak rationalization from those too lazy to exercise their responsibilities as citizens I say.
Do people honestly think that Life on Earth would be the same right now if we had seen a President Gore or President Kerry? Personally I won't give Rupert Murdoch and his fellow corporate media illuminati club that much fnord credit.
"They" care who gets elected as it touches their bottom line in a real way when, say, the governement tells you that you have to, in one case, clean up your residential toxic waste dump, or in the other case it looks the other way by (the illegal) non-enforcement of laws already on the books.
Re:The news media is just a citizen manipulation t (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with your idea is you're working under the assumption that the presidents do wha
Re:The news media is just a citizen manipulation t (Score:5, Insightful)
Off the top of my head, a few examples of major things that would've been different if Bush hadn't become U.S. President:
- We wouldn't be in Iraq (probably still in Afghanistan though). The troops would have had a CinC that had actually seen combat in Vietnam (and would supposedly eager to avoid making the same mistakes).
- The federal budget would've been a helluva lot more balanced (especially if the Congress had remained in Republican hands).
- The U.S. government wouldn't be regarded with contempt by most of the rest of the world, including many of our "allies".
- There probably wouldn't have been such a big emphasis on torture & "extraordinary rendition" as part of our response to 9/11 (see #3 for partial results of that).
- The Supreme Court wouldn't have had a couple more big-business apologist, social-moral-enforcing, excuses for jurists.
- The various federal agencies wouldn't have been populated with a bunch of incompetent neocon political tools.
I'm sure even YOU could think of a couple others if you're willing to put some thought into it rather than a stupid knee-jerk "they're all the same!" response.Kerry could have just stayed in the White House & picked his nose for his entire term, and the country would've been better off than it is now.
third parties (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're not voting third party, you're wasting your vote.
If you don't vote what you believe, you'll never get what you want.
The people elect the government they deserve.
Two options is only one more than they had in the Soviet Union.
Every November the same party wins: the Politician Party.
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
It amazes me that for all the talk of reform and eliminating corruption in government, no one ever addresses the fundamental issue: lack of choices, which is caused directly by our (plurality) voting method. Give non-Dem/Rep voices a fair and equal chance to discuss and promote the merits of their platform instead of dismissing them outright. This means changing the voting system to something that doesn't predetermine the "leading two". Anything other than this is a charade. A previous poster had it right - "they" don't care who wins, because it's still one of "them". The real danger (in "their" minds) is if an outsider were to get in and shake things up. Yes, the past 6 years have really demonstrated the truth in "not a dime's worth of difference". Who'd've thought that a member of the "party of Reagan" would preside over the largest budget increase in history? Both parties want bigger government, so they can curtail your rights - whether they grab them from the left or the right makes no difference in the end.
Re:The news media is just a citizen manipulation t (Score:2, Interesting)
Dubya is NBC's President? (Score:3, Funny)
Is he related to FUD-ya?
someone gotta say it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Adaptation of existing contractual usage rights... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not here to defend NBC or MSNBC; however, if you look at the industry standard wording for usage of their content is exactly this.
This applies to CNN using content from the debate to any Radio show across america. The exception here is that this debate was not on free air waves, so they are using industry standard usage right sharing policies.
Yes they need to update with the times of Internet and people sharing media, but out of ALL the major news outlets NBC and MSNBC have been some of the most liberal about usage on places from Youtube to grandma's website.
Even Olbermann himself said in the segment prior to the debate that the internet would create the winners and losers of the debate if anything major happened, as it would be shared and up on sites like YouTube before the night was out. So do you really think MSNBC doesn't get it?
Ya, the wording isn't ideal, but if this was a 'major' issue with MSNBC, they would have had places like YouTube yank Olbermann and other shows a long time ago, and they just haven't.
I know we like to get excited about things like this here, but I see smoke not fire.
What is this crap in American Idol's timeslot? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. Votes matter if you live in a swing state and are completely worthless if you don't.
I live in a "blue" state (that's a Democratic-party dominated state for non-US readers). Last election I didn't vote for either Kerry or Bush (but I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Voters are missing out on the ability to... (Score:2, Insightful)
These debates are a waste of space now anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:These debates are a waste of space now anyway (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Good lord, yes. 2000 was my first time watching an American presidential election, and i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But I agree; the level of anti-intellectualism in the US is astounding. To think that we're somehow a first-world country despite that is quite amazing in its own regard.
How is this MSNBC's greed? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they have this extreme level of control that basically means they *paid* for it, somehow, and outbid everyone else.
Or did they just ask all the candidates nicely?
Personally, I think this should be illegal. The output of our political process should be public domain immediately. Tax payers are paying the salaries already of most of these candidates, and funding the rest of the election process. If MSNBC wants to pay the costs of running the debates -- hey, sure, let them put their logo on the podiums or whatever, but the content of the debates themselves should not be permitted to be sold.
Pre-election debates are one of the single best ways for the public to actually get a sense of who they'll be voting for... they aren't perfect, but we at least get some back and forth, and some of the more difficult questions get raised.
I don't know much about how the debates are set up currently, but this just isn't working.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a sports event, you know. I mean, who do you think they "paid" for the rights?
Or did they just ask all the candidates nicely?
Pre
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is, how did the bipartisan debate commission decide who would run the presidential debate? I'm sure MSNBC wasn't the only network interested in doing i
A presidential debate is not a pro sporting event. (Score:5, Interesting)
How does a recording of a debate by our presidential candidates in which there is no other content other than the debate itself and the MSNBC is simply acting as the host and moderator qualify as a creative work that is eligible for copyright?
In addition, is not the debate itself newsworthy and therefore not an entertainment event that could be restricted as to who may record it or later show it.
Re:A presidential debate is not a pro sporting eve (Score:2)
It's inte
Re: (Score:2)
I have t
"I have a dream" speech copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_of_Martin_Luth er_King%2C_Jr.%2C_Inc._v._CBS%2C_Inc [wikipedia.org].
Isn't this covered under Public Domain? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
complain to the DNC (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect that the conditions for the democratic primaries are decided by some committee in the DNC. So, the people to complain to in this case are in the DNC. If the next debates are held and released under the same restrictions, then you have your answer: the DNC either doesn't care or prefers it this way. Same for the RNC.
I have a sneaky suspicion that the DNC and RNC prefer the debate videos to be tightly controlled. The idea of hundreds of debate clips showing up on YouTube and being analyzed and discussed almost certainly scare the political control freaks in those organizations, and this way, they think they have at least some means by which they could stamp out unflattering uses of that video content.
Politicians, rejoice! (Score:3, Informative)
Oh please (Score:5, Informative)
In the industry, this is called an "embargo", and it is absolutely typical. MSNBC owns their broadcast of the debate (under copyright law, they're the "creator" of the "creative work"), and these embargoes establish the degree to which they're willing to share their footage with other media outlets, for the sole reason that they depend on others sharing their work with MSNBC under similar terms. That it is a political news event is irrelevant -- similar terms would be used for coverage of breaking news, sports events, etc.
If anything, it's notable that MSNBC is willing to allow use by websites at all. A few years ago, there would be no such terms discussed, or there'd be a simple "no posting online".
If the terms were "take all you want and do what you want with it", the prevailing thinking is that anyone could broadcast or post the event in its entirety, without paying a dime, which would be a severe disincentive to MSNBC's production of it in the first place, which in turn would mean that all the MSNBC staffers and freelancers would be out of a job.
Full disclosure: I worked for CNN for 3.5 years.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. And moreover, Network B is usually only allowed to use the footage from Network A for 24 hours after the end of the game. That's why when you see footage weeks or months later, it's usually from NFL Films and not from the other networks.
Let me fix that for you (Score:3, Insightful)
There you go.
Now if theirs is the only coverage that exists, then I humbly suggest that that is the real issue here. Important, planned events should be recorded by multiple independent parties; allowing anything else is just plain wrong.
Well..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Debates are a farce anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
Good and Bad (Score:3, Interesting)
However, the values or policy behind the First Amendment run up against those of the IP Clause in this instance.
There are two competing policies at issue here.
1. The goal of a fully informed voting public.
2. The goal of incentivising the production and distribution of political information.
The "marketplace of ideas" and "good government" theories are recurrent in First Amendment jurisprudence. Requiring dissemination would add information to the marketplace of ideas and provide for good government through a well informed electorate. Two other policy factors are relevant, political speech is the most protected form under the First Amendment and monopolies on political information should be highly scrutinized. The policy side seems to be weighted in favor of unrestricted distribution.
The precedent would tend to view the copyright act as a facially neutral generally applicable law with only incidental effects and therefore, regardless of the political nature, valid. For example, in Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. a Republican campaign worker provided documents relating to criminal charges against a Democratic candidate. Cohen did so under a contract for confidentiality. When the Tribune found out the Democrat's charge was merely for participation in a political protest, the paper published the fact that Cohen provided the information. Cohen sued and won. The Supreme Court upheld the award over a First Amendment challenge because the theory of Minnesota law Cohen won on was generally applicable. The point is, the information at issue was very relevant to the political process but could be regulated regardless. (note that Cohen is a press clause case as opposed to a free speech case). The same is true of copyright law, it is only an incidental regulation and is generally applicable because it does not target political speech.
Ultimately, if the NBC video showed up on YouTube, an argument could be made that it should not be protected by copyright. The argument would boil down to the policy of promoting political news coverage versus the need for disemination of that coverage. Applying copyright law here is both good and bad (don't forget Slashdotters the GPL is a copyright).
Exclusivity? Stated, where? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than assuming they are, how about we go with the assumption they're not? At that point:
If you want to record your own damn footage, go ahead.
MSNBC are being helpful and sharing the footage they paid for a camera crew to go to, they paid for the equipment to record, they paid to make available. All they're saying is, "If you want to use the footage that we went to all of this expense for, please credit us and don't broadcast it against the slot we intend to use to make that money back and hopefully, in an entirely American way, make a profit from too."
Is it really wrong to ask for credit for something you put money in to the creation of?
Is it really wrong to say, "Hey, you're welcome to share - just not at the one time we're hoping to leverage our investment."?
Is it really wrong to say, "Please take the original stream rather than post compression or rebroadcast in a way that might interfere with those rebroadcasters' policies."?
If you get over the assumption that they have some kind of monopoly - and it appears to just be an assumption - the company giving away their work with minimal practical restrictions, whilst letting you still record your own version if you don't like them, is hardly the most heinous crime known to man.
Of course it's always more fun to assume the worst. But then you know what they say about "assume"
why not modify copyright law? (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a simple solution to excessive restriction by broadcasters of the presidential debates and such: change copyright law. Remember, copyright is not some sort of natural right - it is a privilege granted by legislation under a constitutional provision that explicitly gives as its purpose the public benefit. If broadcasters, political parties, and the like use copyright in a way that is against the public interest, let's take away the privilege.
What I suggest is that copyright law be amended to exempt certain categories of political speech. Perhaps the exemption should be broader, but for present purposes, let's say that copyright will not apply to any speech or writing (e.g. position paper) by a candidate for public office made during his or her campaign. The broadcasters and publishers will still cover these events - they will lose only residual royalties, which are hardly necessary to support their business.
Re:Fair Use (Score:5, Funny)
Grrr. Fair Use! [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fair Use (Score:4, Informative)
Who is it going to be? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who is it going to be? (Score:4, Insightful)
At the same time, though, they really should be. The whole election process should be a public event. We should, if we wanted to, be able to look at exactly what's going on. We should know exactly who contributed to whom, we should have access to every recorded public appearances made by the candidates (political or otherwise, even if they're just sitting idly behind someone else making a speech). We should be able to know exactly who is involved with the ballots, who the people at the polling booths are, who they hand the ballot boxes to, where they go, who counts them, etc. We should definitely know what's going on inside the electronic voting machines.
What I want to know is not why all these things are being closed off, that's pretty obvious, people in power want to retain that power, they have a much easier time of it if people weren't watching their every move. No, what I want to know is why people aren't as outraged as they should be. Why has political dissent become labeled as "Anti-American"? Isn't that just about the most American thing you can do? Isn't that one of the founding principles? Isn't that how this country came to be in the first place? Why is it that people will get up and yell at their TVs when so-and-so is voted off the island or team A scores a touchdown but when they hear that yet another of our rights has been taken away all we hear is "sure, if it keeps us safe!" Are these people really willing to live in a police state with armed troops driving tanks down the street with orders to shoot anyone not wearing the proper clothes or out after curfew just so that they might be a little bit safer? Why is it that people will complain that things should be done about all this but aren't willing to get up and start it? (this particular one I'm currently guilty of)
What happened to us? Did they put something in the water supplies that make us more docile? Is it subliminal messaging on TVs? Perhaps it's the 60Hz AC that permeates the country? Maybe HAARP really does work and they've pointed it at us. I don't know what it is, but there's got to be some common link here, it can't be that we've all suddenly and independently lost interest in everything worthwhile.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The reason that the "debates" (since they don't really qualify as such) are no longer run by the League of Women Voters is that the League wouldn't give in to the ridiculous conditions that the parties wanted to impose. In 1988 the League terminated its s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)