|
Post by christopher on Dec 17, 2017 15:38:02 GMT -6
Fun discusssion. To me the politicians we have are all character actors. And most of them are incredibly terrible at acting. There's no script... its just characters they need to stick to. If the character they play is Gomer Pyle, well they immediately go into 'what would Gomer Pyle do' on every single issue, and its disgusting. Nobody is above it that I've seen. Not a single one. And the wingnut media outlets point out mistakes and call out the bad acting 24/7, as if we should be enraged. But I think on some (maybe subconscious) level we all understand and know that its acting. I see whats going on here.. The news is like TMZ now,: "can you believe whats going on?! OH MY GOD!" ... which the other side equally counters "OMG! This is the worst thing ever! Can you believe it..." This must be the only way news writers can get jobs now, looking like well dressed background actors themselves, playing role of 'freedom hero', and making click bait social media garbage. The thing we, as a common people who love this country, have to do is sit back a second, and go.... So in the bottom underbelly, what is REALLY going on? I think its a party as far as I can tell. Lots of big jets, expensive meals, drinking etc, hangovers, lots of money flowing all around, lots of clueless lawmakers saying: who the hell knows whats the best course for each and every issue? Let me ask my rich friends, my military buddies, etc. And you have to imagine that really dangerous dudes are constantly in touch with each of these actors, its just a part of the world, so they act very cautiously on everything. Don't break character. So in the end, I can't let myself judge any politician for the stuff they say,...its what they actually *do* that I have to like or dislike. SOoooo.... to bring it all back.. Net Nuetrality? its the news and reporters getting ratings from what I can tell. We are always gonna get screwed by big cable. Was current NN really bringing our cable bills DOWN? REALLY? hahaha
|
|
ctone
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by ctone on Dec 17, 2017 19:44:19 GMT -6
Hillary Clinton traveled all across the South busting newly organized church schools for racism. Nobody is more hated by the KKK or loved by the black community. Make no mistake, the election was really all about racism. Not really, at all. Hillary and Bill Clinton were the worst thing to ever happen to the Black community and really all working class and poor, Americans. Read up on the Mena Arkansas cocaine hub, operating throughout the 80's as the main conduit for powder cocaine soon to be transformed into crack cocaine, primarily destined for Black communities nationwide, all operated in cooperation with papa Bush - so this really isn't a partisan issue at all....but if you take the time to read about the Clinton's record of serial crimes in Arkansas, who they were sponsored by, really you can go back to their college years, the trail of rapes by Bill, and the violent coverups orchestrated by Hillary, Whitewater, the Hep C and Aids prison blood scandel etc .........you will find there is much more to the Clintons than the DNC's whitewash disinfo. Then there's the Clinton's dual presidency, where he (they) signed Nafta and Gatt, gave or continued MFT status to China, all which gutted the American working class and poor, which arguably, disproportionately affected Black communities. And then there's the little mini-genocide in Iraq the Clinton's could claim responsibility for, where Madaline Albright got on national TV and said essentially, it was worth causing 500,000 plus deaths of children in Iraq due to sanctions, though she never really said why the deaths were AOK. Bombing Iraq every time a Clinton scandal started to gain traction in the 90's, resulting in who knows how many deaths ultimately, though with sanctions, it's believed to be in 7 figures, was a repeating theme in the MSM. Let's not forget the bombing of Serbia, the first time a European capital had been bombed since WW2, and in the same conflict, the first time depleted uranium had been used in Europe....... all based on dubious intel for equally dubious reasons. Then there was the Branch Davidian bon fire where a minor gun-violation turned into the immolation of 75 or so people, including woman and children.......and, the federal sentencing guidelines, including 3 strikes, that the Clinton dual-presidency ushered in, which was directly responsible for not only ever ballooning federal incarceration rates and an ever booming prison industry, but set the tone for state and local ever-more extreme sentencing, once again, disproportionately affecting Blacks......and to add insult to injury, the majority of those incarcerated under the new guidelines were there for drug crimes, remember Mena Arkansas? Fast forward to SOS Clinton, and the Clinton legacy continues with the destruction of Syria, resulting in millions of displaced, hundreds of thousands killed and ultimately, for those who care, a complete failure for US foreign policy. Then there was Libya, the most developed and wealthy country in Africa, and probably the most successful "leftist" regime, in terms of outcome, stability, quality of life, race relations, freedom, etc..that has yet existed, and really, arguably the last hope Black Africa had, for attaining at some point in the foreseeable future, some level of peaceful development and a better quality of life. Libya, like Syria, was attacked and destroyed for absolutely no good reason, but unlike Syria, Libya was completely destroyed. Today in Libya it's open season on Blacks, whose status has been reduced to something similar to their status in 18th century Georgia, including, as CNN reported recently, open air auctions for black slaves, that's quite some accomplishment there for "liberal" Hillary. The above is just scratching the surface, non-the-less, when candidate Hillary, repeatedly promised, during the campaign to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria, which would have, with some measure of certainty, meant war with Russia, and a possible nuclear exchange, many of us took her at her word, as there is one thing that is absolutely certain about Hillary, and that is she is great at blowing things up, and does not hesitate doing just that when it suits her.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,738
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 17, 2017 19:52:51 GMT -6
In my experience of internet forums, we've been largely civil in this thread and there's even small efforts to listen to and consider opposing points of view. A Big part of that is that the core group here has spent time together in the real world and even if we disagree we have enough respect for each other to act like adults, maybe would could teach our elected officials something?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 17, 2017 20:46:07 GMT -6
Man John, how do you really feel? You're wrong though. I thought Hillary was a psychopath more than 15 years ago. And that was long before Trump had any presidential aspirations. I pretty much think ALL politicians are crooks and con-artists though. But that said, I think someone should call Johnkenn. This thread has gone off the rails, and the political and "other" rule have been in violation for some time now..... That's the last I've got to say on THIS thread.... I think we're going to see more Hillary's in the future, only they will be on the GOP side. The reason? 25years ago the media figured out- first with Rush Limbaugh and then with FOX News- that you could have a completely partisan political networks and make money. So, Hillary is the first example of the news media demonizing an individual for a long, long time. Now, with MSNBC, there is going to be the same long term focus on the liberal side demonizing GOP politicians and policies. People on both sides want confirmation bias and the media is going to capitalize on both sides. Personally, I think our Republic would be much better off with the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, but I think we're well beyond that and-despite both sides of the political spectrum having media outlets stoking people's confirmation bias- we live in an Oligarchy. Yeah, there are social issues to fight over, but both parties are captured by the wealthiest interests in our country who continue to accumulate more of the nations wealth. As technology takes away more and more wealth making opportunities for the little guy, we will become a larger welfare state, with just enough money, food and free entertainment to keep the masses in check. It has already happened and will expand. I'm inclined to agree with most of this, except for the "welfare state" part - it seems to me that what we're actually heading towardfs is a slave state where the people stay docile for fear of losing the little they get to live on in return for working 60 hour weeks.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 17, 2017 20:52:36 GMT -6
The reason? 25years ago the media figured out- first with Rush Limbaugh and then with FOX News- that you could have a completely partisan political networks and make money. So, Hillary is the first example of the news media demonizing an individual for a long, long time. If we're limiting this to US political figures, off the top of my head Henry Kissinger, Barry Goldwater, Dan Quayle, and Newt Gingrich would all disagree that Hillary was the first example of such demonization, though the latter two received the beginnings of such right around the same time Hillary did. Anyway, the perception of such is less to do with partisan politics and more to do with the development of the 24-hour news cycle, which took hold in the late-1980s. I disagree with the 24 hours news cycle part. I think ity has to do with deregulation and the removal of the Fairness doctrine. We really need need to reinstitute both, as well as break up the new media monopolies. Monopolies are evil, that was proven way back in the 19 century. But people now are largely ignorant of history (Thanks, Ronnie) and, as we know, those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. I'm actually really appalled that I'ved lived to see us come to this state (pun intended.)
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 17, 2017 20:59:31 GMT -6
Whaaaaaaa....did somebody hijack Bob's account?? It might have been racism for you Bob, but there were a million more important issues for the rest of us. Like sexism, a concerted drive to establish a permanent oligarchy, the whole Wall Street fraud thing, pure and simple greed of the 1%, etc?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 17, 2017 21:05:53 GMT -6
Hillary Clinton traveled all across the South busting newly organized church schools for racism. Nobody is more hated by the KKK or loved by the black community. Make no mistake, the election was really all about racism. Not really, at all. Hillary and Bill Clinton were the worst thing to ever happen to the Black community and really all working class and poor, Americans. Read up on the Mena Arkansas cocaine hub, operating throughout the 80's as the main conduit for powder cocaine soon to be transformed into crack cocaine, primarily destined for Black communities nationwide, all operated in cooperation with papa Bush - so this really isn't a partisan issue at all....but if you take the time to read about the Clinton's record of serial crimes in Arkansas, who they were sponsored by, really you can go back to their college years, the trail of rapes by Bill, and the violent coverups orchestrated by Hillary, Whitewater, the Hep C and Aids prison blood scandel etc .........you will find there is much more to the Clintons than the DNC's whitewash disinfo. Then there's the Clinton's dual presidency, where he (they) signed Nafta and Gatt, gave or continued MFT status to China, all which gutted the American working class and poor, which arguably, disproportionately affected Black communities. And then there's the little mini-genocide in Iraq the Clinton's could claim responsibility for, where Madaline Albright got on national TV and said essentially, it was worth causing 500,000 plus deaths of children in Iraq due to sanctions, though she never really said why the deaths were AOK. Bombing Iraq every time a Clinton scandal started to gain traction in the 90's, resulting in who knows how many deaths ultimately, though with sanctions, it's believed to be in 7 figures, was a repeating theme in the MSM. Let's not forget the bombing of Serbia, the first time a European capital had been bombed since WW2, and in the same conflict, the first time depleted uranium had been used in Europe....... all based on dubious intel for equally dubious reasons. Then there was the Branch Davidian bon fire where a minor gun-violation turned into the immolation of 75 or so people, including woman and children.......and, the federal sentencing guidelines, including 3 strikes, that the Clinton dual-presidency ushered in, which was directly responsible for not only ever ballooning federal incarceration rates and an ever booming prison industry, but set the tone for state and local ever-more extreme sentencing, once again, disproportionately affecting Blacks......and to add insult to injury, the majority of those incarcerated under the new guidelines were there for drug crimes, remember Mena Arkansas? Fast forward to SOS Clinton, and the Clinton legacy continues with the destruction of Syria, resulting in millions of displaced, hundreds of thousands killed and ultimately, for those who care, a complete failure for US foreign policy. Then there was Libya, the most developed and wealthy country in Africa, and probably the most successful "leftist" regime, in terms of outcome, stability, quality of life, race relations, freedom, etc..that has yet existed, and really, arguably the last hope Black Africa had, for attaining at some point in the foreseeable future, some level of peaceful development and a better quality of life. Libya, like Syria, was attacked and destroyed for absolutely no good reason, but unlike Syria, Libya was completely destroyed. Today in Libya it's open season on Blacks, whose status has been reduced to something similar to their status in 18th century Georgia, including, as CNN reported recently, open air auctions for black slaves, that's quite some accomplishment there for "liberal" Hillary. The above is just scratching the surface, non-the-less, when candidate Hillary, repeatedly promised, during the campaign to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria, which would have, with some measure of certainty, meant war with Russia, and a possible nuclear exchange, many of us took her at her word, as there is one thing that is absolutely certain about Hillary, and that is she is great at blowing things up, and does not hesitate doing just that when it suits her. Why are you blaming the Clintons for the policies Reagan set in motion?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 17, 2017 21:07:30 GMT -6
In my experience of internet forums, we've been largely civil in this thread and there's even small efforts to listen to and consider opposing points of view. A Big part of that is that the core group here has spent time together in the real world and even if we disagree we have enough respect for each other to act like adults, maybe would could teach our elected officials something? We probably could - if our elected officials were teachable and not bought and paid for.
|
|
ctone
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by ctone on Dec 17, 2017 21:52:29 GMT -6
Not really, at all. Hillary and Bill Clinton were the worst thing to ever happen to the Black community and really all working class and poor, Americans. Read up on the Mena Arkansas cocaine hub, operating throughout the 80's as the main conduit for powder cocaine soon to be transformed into crack cocaine, primarily destined for Black communities nationwide, all operated in cooperation with papa Bush - so this really isn't a partisan issue at all....but if you take the time to read about the Clinton's record of serial crimes in Arkansas, who they were sponsored by, really you can go back to their college years, the trail of rapes by Bill, and the violent coverups orchestrated by Hillary, Whitewater, the Hep C and Aids prison blood scandel etc .........you will find there is much more to the Clintons than the DNC's whitewash disinfo. Then there's the Clinton's dual presidency, where he (they) signed Nafta and Gatt, gave or continued MFT status to China, all which gutted the American working class and poor, which arguably, disproportionately affected Black communities. And then there's the little mini-genocide in Iraq the Clinton's could claim responsibility for, where Madaline Albright got on national TV and said essentially, it was worth causing 500,000 plus deaths of children in Iraq due to sanctions, though she never really said why the deaths were AOK. Bombing Iraq every time a Clinton scandal started to gain traction in the 90's, resulting in who knows how many deaths ultimately, though with sanctions, it's believed to be in 7 figures, was a repeating theme in the MSM. Let's not forget the bombing of Serbia, the first time a European capital had been bombed since WW2, and in the same conflict, the first time depleted uranium had been used in Europe....... all based on dubious intel for equally dubious reasons. Then there was the Branch Davidian bon fire where a minor gun-violation turned into the immolation of 75 or so people, including woman and children.......and, the federal sentencing guidelines, including 3 strikes, that the Clinton dual-presidency ushered in, which was directly responsible for not only ever ballooning federal incarceration rates and an ever booming prison industry, but set the tone for state and local ever-more extreme sentencing, once again, disproportionately affecting Blacks......and to add insult to injury, the majority of those incarcerated under the new guidelines were there for drug crimes, remember Mena Arkansas? Fast forward to SOS Clinton, and the Clinton legacy continues with the destruction of Syria, resulting in millions of displaced, hundreds of thousands killed and ultimately, for those who care, a complete failure for US foreign policy. Then there was Libya, the most developed and wealthy country in Africa, and probably the most successful "leftist" regime, in terms of outcome, stability, quality of life, race relations, freedom, etc..that has yet existed, and really, arguably the last hope Black Africa had, for attaining at some point in the foreseeable future, some level of peaceful development and a better quality of life. Libya, like Syria, was attacked and destroyed for absolutely no good reason, but unlike Syria, Libya was completely destroyed. Today in Libya it's open season on Blacks, whose status has been reduced to something similar to their status in 18th century Georgia, including, as CNN reported recently, open air auctions for black slaves, that's quite some accomplishment there for "liberal" Hillary. The above is just scratching the surface, non-the-less, when candidate Hillary, repeatedly promised, during the campaign to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria, which would have, with some measure of certainty, meant war with Russia, and a possible nuclear exchange, many of us took her at her word, as there is one thing that is absolutely certain about Hillary, and that is she is great at blowing things up, and does not hesitate doing just that when it suits her. Why are you blaming the Clintons for the policies Reagan set in motion? Reagan was handled by papa Bush, who handled his, as he stated, "adopted son", Clinton. For the sake of accuracy, Reagan didn't initiate much of anything, which however, doesn't absolve him from responsibility, legally or morally. Regardless, you can chase some real or imagined causal chain in whatever direction you wish, it certainly didn't stop at Bush senior, that however, does not absolve the lower functionaries, the public faces who actually put pen to paper, like the Clintons, or Reagan, of moral responsibility. Perhaps, it only appears they have no responsibility, as we haven't a fully functioning judicial system .......lack of formal prosecution does not mean lack of guilt. Read more: realgearonline.com/thread/8033/net-neutrality?page=9&scrollTo=149299#ixzz51a5yuorK
|
|
|
Post by m03 on Dec 17, 2017 22:59:38 GMT -6
I disagree with the 24 hours news cycle part. I think ity has to do with deregulation and the removal of the Fairness doctrine. We really needf need to reinstitute both The Fairness doctrine is badly misunderstood. It was a tool used to both ensure that the status quo was maintained, and to suppress minority political viewpoints from ever being aired in mass media. The FCC could retaliate to the presentation of any subject covered in a way that it felt might not be compliant, which caused broadcasters to be less likely to present politically controversial topics. The President appoints the FCC commissioners, so consider what that might mean under a Trump presidency, with a party in power that isn't going to stand in his way. The Fairness Doctrine was a tool for the political establishment to leverage in order to silence political dissent under the appearance of fairness in broadcasting. You really don't want it to be reinstated.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 18, 2017 11:20:16 GMT -6
I disagree with the 24 hours news cycle part. I think ity has to do with deregulation and the removal of the Fairness doctrine. We really needf need to reinstitute both The Fairness doctrine is badly misunderstood. It was a tool used to both ensure that the status quo was maintained, and to suppress minority political viewpoints from ever being aired in mass media. The FCC could retaliate to the presentation of any subject covered in a way that it felt might not be compliant, which caused broadcasters to be less likely to present politically controversial topics. The President appoints the FCC commissioners, so consider what that might mean under a Trump presidency, with a party in power that isn't going to stand in his way. The Fairness Doctrine was a tool for the political establishment to leverage in order to silence political dissent under the appearance of fairness in broadcasting. You really don't want it to be reinstated. The fairness doctrine prevented the presentation of unsubstantiated propaganda, editorial opinion, and outright falsehood as "news". Editorial opinion couldf still be presented as long as it was clearly identified as such. News outlets had to institute fact checking to ensure accuracy of news. Consequently any slant imposed on news coverage was generally by omission. You couldn't broadcast untruths, you could only refuse to cover issues you didn't agree with. Your assertion that "It was a tool used to both ensure that the status quo was maintained, and to suppress minority political viewpoints from ever being aired in mass media. The FCC could retaliate to the presentation of any subject covered in a way that it felt might not be compliant, which caused broadcasters to be less likely to present politically controversial topics. " is simply incorrect, and probably reflects a lack of age or experience, as during the '50s and '60 the were certainly minority political viewpoints aired in the mass media on a very regular basis, in particular those related to the civil rights movement and the Vietnam war. If the FC had retaliated against the coverage of minority views on those subjects coverage would have been very, very different and history itself would likely have taken a much different path in both cases. However the FCC did NOT suppress minority political viewpoints as long as they were accurately presented. Howerver in the present situation putative "news organizations" which are nothing more than propaganda organizations for political factions, sometimes extreme, are allowed to broadcast any falsehoods and unsubstantiated allegations they desire and claim that it's the truth. The Fairness Doctrine was a check to guard against the unfettered dissemination of blatant propaganda, something that is sorely needed in the present day.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 18, 2017 11:32:32 GMT -6
For the sake of accuracy, Reagan didn't initiate much of anything, which however, doesn't absolve him from responsibility, legally or morally. What Reagan did mostly was affect policy by initiating deregulation of many of of the checks and balances that had been set in place to guard against abuse and predatory practices by out of control business entities, to protect against abusive and anticompetitive monopolies, as well as instituting defunding of various educational programs. Reagan didn't initiate much in the way of new, constructive programs, what he did initiate was the destruction of safeguards, effectively taking a giant step onto the slippery slope down which we are now sliding at breakneck speed. His policy was essentially to facilitate a return to the age of the 19th century robber barons.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 18, 2017 11:53:06 GMT -6
I disagree with the 24 hours news cycle part. I think ity has to do with deregulation and the removal of the Fairness doctrine. We really needf need to reinstitute both The Fairness doctrine is badly misunderstood. It was a tool used to both ensure that the status quo was maintained, and to suppress minority political viewpoints from ever being aired in mass media. The FCC could retaliate to the presentation of any subject covered in a way that it felt might not be compliant, which caused broadcasters to be less likely to present politically controversial topics. The President appoints the FCC commissioners, so consider what that might mean under a Trump presidency, with a party in power that isn't going to stand in his way. The Fairness Doctrine was a tool for the political establishment to leverage in order to silence political dissent under the appearance of fairness in broadcasting. You really don't want it to be reinstated. Absolutely. Almost all of government regulations are put in place by those taking lobby money, in order to maintain the status-quo and keep the monopolies going. It's unfortunate that they can so easily motivate certain groups to become guard dogs for them by using a little fear and playing to the emotional nature of those groups looking for ways to signal their virtue.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 18, 2017 12:43:30 GMT -6
Many regulations have been put in place to protect oligarchs but plenty were also enacted after gross abuses of power that resulted in a great many injustices, harm, and deaths to individuals. Today many people seem to take the good regulations for granted.
The Fairness Doctrine simply required that both sides of every story be given.
|
|
|
Post by m03 on Dec 18, 2017 13:16:20 GMT -6
Many regulations have been put in place to protect oligarchs but plenty were also enacted after gross abuses of power that resulted in a great many injustices, harm, and deaths to individuals. Today many people seem to take the good regulations for granted. The Fairness Doctrine simply required that both sides of every story be given. It was a bit more complicated than that. Consider this: If we reinstate it, then Trump gets to decide what are considered to be the opposing sides of a story, by way of his FCC appointees. Trump also gets to decide what issues are of paramount importance that broadcasters are forced by law to cover. The Fairness Doctrine is a violation of free speech. It was only considered constitutional in an era when broadcasting and telecommunications was extremely limited, and was already considered to be obsolete by the late-1960s to early-1970s (check out the related Supreme Court cases from that era). It sounds nice so long as people you agree with are in power...when an extremist authoritarian gains power instead, it's issues become a lot more obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 18, 2017 14:15:58 GMT -6
The government decided nothing under the Fairness Doctrine. It gave people the right to object when they believed a news story misrepresented the facts.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 18, 2017 14:33:31 GMT -6
The only real reason for a fairness doctrine was because of the scarcity of available alternate views. In an era with basically a handful of news outlets, all with licenses issued by the government, a check could perhaps make sense.
Quick sidebar: let's talk about three types of civilized societies - type 1, 2, 3.
Type 3 is a Karl Popper style "open society". Ideas compete on the basis of their utility and how well they resemble reality. They compete on the quality of the idea. Good ideas outcompete bad. In type 3, we can't regulate what people will say, and we can't guarantee that everyone will agree, but we can guarantee that the best ideas and thoughts will be available to those who want them. There will still be bad ideas and superstitions and subjective positions and so on, but generally people have an accurate perception of reality available. If you want a book with a good view on a subject, buy one. If you want a bad or strange or alternative view, you can find that too -- but you need to find authors with bad or strange or alternative biases like yours.
Type 1 is the opposite. It's a loyal society. Thoughts are coordinated by the government completely; public opinion is a state apparatus. The state picks good thoughts and bad, and punishes bad or rewards good. Bad and good are only based on the survival of the state (bad hurts the state, good helps it). The state provides official information organs, like religion or the press or universities, and they provide good thoughts; the state also eliminates competing sources of ideas. The state can hurt bad thought producers passively (not protecting them) or actively (exiling or killing them). Not everyone is a believer of the official position, but no one with any kind of brain dissents; to do so is quirky at best, or suicidal at worst. People in type one societies see reality through the provided lens, not necessarily as it is. Type 1 societies are the most common in human history (see: Rome, Communist states, Nazism, modern China, North Korea, Elizabethan England, etc...).
But what is a type 2? A type 2 is a consensus society. In a type one ideas compete; in a type 3 the state controls the idea. In a type 2, the consensus controls the state. This is clearly different from the outside observer, but for the freethinker in society the user experience is about the same as a type 1. You can have an idea outside the Overton window; there's no law against it. But if you want to have a job, be accepted, etc. you had better keep it to yourself. Thoughts are coordinated by the consensus. In a type 1 state the state controls ideas to control the mob... in a type 2 state, the mob controls ideas to control the state.
Obviously a type 1 open society is the ideal. Ideas should compete on the basis of their merit, not on groupthink or as their value to the information or security apparatchik.
A fairness doctrine has no place in an open society. It can only be an enforcement tool of a type 1 society (which is what m03 fears and is outlining) OR it can be a de-facto tool to endorse the consensus view of a type 2 society. Either way alternative viewpoints get squashed.
As an alternative hypothesis...What you're really arguing against is the freedom of people to consume propaganda. If partisan editorialization is so prevalent these days (under the monicker of news or otherwise) the reason is simple: because there is a demand for it.
If we live in a type 1, open society - which we don't, but if - then we should never worry about propaganda taking hold. Ideas compete on their merit; good ideas will win out.
So either what is taught as consensus view - like the front page of the NYT and WaPo, and what is taught in universities all over the country - is the best available interpretation of reality because we're in an open society...OR it's practically the only available view because we live in a type 2 society (as it's not illegal to dissent or publish "bad" ideas in this country). At any rate the fairness doctrine either empowers the state or the mob. An open society has no need for it.
|
|
ctone
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by ctone on Dec 18, 2017 14:47:33 GMT -6
For the sake of accuracy, Reagan didn't initiate much of anything, which however, doesn't absolve him from responsibility, legally or morally. What Reagan did mostly was affect policy by initiating deregulation of many of of the checks and balances that had been set in place to guard against abuse and predatory practices by out of control business entities, to protect against abusive and anticompetitive monopolies, as well as instituting defunding of various educational programs. Reagan didn't initiate much in the way of new, constructive programs, what he did initiate was the destruction of safeguards, effectively taking a giant step onto the slippery slope down which we are now sliding at breakneck speed. His policy was essentially to facilitate a return to the age of the 19th century robber barons. Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Bush 2, none of them had the free reign or power to initiate policy, either constructive or destructive. They couldn't freely act out of their own conscience, assuming they still had one, they were all the products of years of grooming, submission, control and handling, and all were kept on short leashes, which, as we saw from the failed assassination attempt on Reagan, could be pulled at any time. The catastrophic de-regulation etc. you mentioned, is all true, though, that policy had little to do with front man Reagan....it could have been Mickey Mouse "in charge", and the same policies would have been instituted. Now, whether the public would have been as mesmerized and compliant under a Micky Mouse regime, as they generally were under Reagan, or whether we'd be talking about the Micky Mouse doctrine, instead of the so-called "Reagan doctrine", who knows, in the end, the same policies would have been set in place. Given Saudi Arabia's recent elevation of robots to human status, don't be surprised if robots, or cartoon characters, or robotized versions of cartoon characters are eventually allowed to run for office.....instead of arguing over whether analog or digital recordings sound better, we'll all be fired up arguing over whether analog or digital - human or robotic creatures are better. This may sound like a joke and it sort of is, but Google, and co.....are working feverishly on this rot, singularity, AI etc.....
|
|
|
Post by donr on Dec 18, 2017 15:43:19 GMT -6
I think we are objecting every day that news stories are unfair, without the government deciding what's fair and what ain't. We do it ourselves.
|
|
ctone
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by ctone on Dec 18, 2017 16:27:06 GMT -6
The fairness doctrine was put there to give the public the illusion of fairness...as the proscribed parameters of debate were already defined and adhered to by the PTB....so the govt. acts as moderator within narrowly defined parameters, any opinion, or material outside those parameters, where the truth usually resides, was still not allowed in the public arena, fairness doctrine or not.... then the internet came along, and they're trying to control that free discourse arena just as hard as they can.....
Keep in mind, Obama legalized in 2013 within the NDAA, the US govt. openly, or covertly, doesn't seem to matter much, propagandizing the US public. They were certainly doing that before, but now, thanks, to Obama, it can be done without any legal jeopardy. So, the govt. can lie at will in the media or anywhere else.....So, the fairness doctrine, even if one believes it operated as claimed, is now, completely irrelevant. Enter, crisis actors, FF, and all the crazy narratives which visibly accelerated over the past five years...
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 18, 2017 16:49:36 GMT -6
What the Fairness Doctrine did was keep broadcasters on their toes so they wouldn't risk losing their licenses over violations. Those of us I know who are old enough to have experienced broadcasting under it would welcome it back in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 19, 2017 11:21:15 GMT -6
I think we are objecting every day that news stories are unfair, without the government deciding what's fair and what ain't. We do it ourselves. "Unfaid"? I don't think that "fair" really has much place in the news, as it's a totally subjective thing, and subjectivity has no place in news reporting. What's important in the news is TRUTH, and that's something that's frequently lacking, especially in the broascasting of one particular entity. What the government has the ability to do - and the obligation to do (in a free democracy) is mandate fact checking in a process that is transparent and subject to impartial oversight. This is something that we notably do not have at present. Some news organizations make a serious effort to be factual and impartial (although individuals may have obvious opinions, those are generally expressed as such, apart from core content), but other organizations function primarily as propaganda machines governed by allegiance to an agenda and truth be damned. It has become quite clear that a great many people are unable to differentiate between the two, and that many believe that both types of organization are equally unfactual and partisan and essentiall regard the whole thing as something akin to a sort of sports competition or perhaps a TV reality show. This situation is patently unhealthy and can only lead to an increasingly fragmented, delusional society that is ripe for manipulation by powerful, unscupulous individuals and organizations. We need legally mandated fact checking in news reporting along with legally mandated separation of news reporting and editorial interpretation and opinion. And we need it NOW! (fat chance....)
|
|
|
Post by iamasound on Dec 19, 2017 12:08:14 GMT -6
As it has been and must be until it all money is outlawed being donated to persons running for office, and money will bleed dead anyone trying to change that.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Dec 19, 2017 12:22:23 GMT -6
John, in what universe do you see the gov't as responsible or truth telling anywhere? In every novel, movie and TV show, the gov't is always NOT telling the truth until the heroes take out the bad guys. Even in stories where the government does something good, the public always has to be kept in the dark until it's all over. Nobody thinks that plot lines where government is duplicitous is unrealistic.
Even fact checkers (Politifact, etc.) have biases. The press, the forth estate, is supposed to fact check the gov't, not the other way around. The truth may well be out there, more so in the internet age, but you need to seek all sources of info to divine it. The biggest bias of the traditional media former gatekeepers, is what they decide NOT to report on. Nothing to see here folks, move along.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 19, 2017 12:56:48 GMT -6
I think we are objecting every day that news stories are unfair, without the government deciding what's fair and what ain't. We do it ourselves. "Unfaid"? I don't think that "fair" really has much place in the news, as it's a totally subjective thing, and subjectivity has no place in news reporting. What's important in the news is TRUTH, and that's something that's frequently lacking, especially in the broascasting of one particular entity. What the government has the ability to do - and the obligation to do (in a free democracy) is mandate fact checking in a process that is transparent and subject to impartial oversight. This is something that we notably do not have at present. Some news organizations make a serious effort to be factual and impartial (although individuals may have obvious opinions, those are generally expressed as such, apart from core content), but other organizations function primarily as propaganda machines governed by allegiance to an agenda and truth be damned. It has become quite clear that a great many people are unable to differentiate between the two, and that many believe that both types of organization are equally unfactual and partisan and essentiall regard the whole thing as something akin to a sort of sports competition or perhaps a TV reality show. This situation is patently unhealthy and can only lead to an increasingly fragmented, delusional society that is ripe for manipulation by powerful, unscupulous individuals and organizations. We need legally mandated fact checking in news reporting along with legally mandated separation of news reporting and editorial interpretation and opinion. And we need it NOW! (fat chance....) We demand an authoritarian government, and we demand it NOW! Kinda scary that you're literally arguing for a Type 1 society, where "truth" is defined by the state.
|
|