HEY FINALLY, we know who to complain to about news:

[Pallas180]

The House Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over the broadcast industry.


Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chairman of the committee, has rejected suggestions that his committee or one of its subcommittees look into the matter. While Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., asked Wednesday for a congressional investigation, Barton said late that night that it was inappropriate. The House Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over the broadcast industry.

"A news organization's responsibility is to facts and truth, but the oversight of network news generally is a matter best sorted out by the viewing public and the news media," he said. "I do not personally believe these documents are legitimate, and it seems clear that the press and the two presidential campaigns are properly dealing with that issue."

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004091702560002591218&dt=20040917025600&w=RTR&coview=

[A_Possum]

1. I despise Joe Barton

with every fiber of my being, but one must give the devil his due. He is rejecting this ridiculous interference with the freedom of the press, as granted to us by--remember this document, Chris?--the Bill of Rights.

[kestrel91316]

2. Oh right, ROFLMAO.............................

like we are going to get ANYWHERE complaining to the REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED House of Representatives. Uh huh.

[Eloriel]

3. Uh, you're forgetting one small detail, and it's not GOP control

THere isn't anything that I can think of that Congress can do about "the news" no matter how many complaints they might get. Remember the First Amendment?

Just to refresh your memory:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the goernment for a redress of grievance.


When there were Congressional hearings after the 2000 election regarding the press's handling of election night, several of the bigwigs testifying pointed out that they were doing so voluntarily, BUT that there were First Amendment issues that everyone needed to be very careful about.

However, I've thought about the problem along these lines (and I have no idea if it would fly but I'd sure like to see someone try). We are NOT being served by the press these days, and a free flow of information (accurate, truthful information) is essential to a democracy. Here's how Abraham Lincoln put it:

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts. -- Abraham Lincoln

Given the fact that our Founders gave the press special protection, and given the fact that the press surely must have a concomitant RESPONSIBILITY (which is WHY they were given special protection), it seems to me there could be a Constitutional case to be made that the press isn't fulfilling their half of the deal.

What might be required is to target one or more news outlets (I'm thinking some cable, some network, maybe some newspaper conglomerates or the NYT and WP), and compile a long, long list of their failings -- blatant spin masquerading as reporting, flat out inaccuracies when the turth WAS known or knowable (think Gore campaign: internet, Love Canal, think Clinton "scandals" that were never adequately and fairly covered, and SO many other during the last 4 years of the Bush admin), failures to even dig for information (press conferences and the like where good, hard-hitting questions aren't even asked), etc. It would be tricky, probably, and the need to compile data probably exhausting, but I don't know why it couldn't work. But then I'm not a Constitutional legal scholar, either.