Author Topic:  (Read 2970 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,686
« Reply #125 on: October 12, 2017, 01:37:07 PM »
First.. we only have Trump's word that a story is fake.


We have countless examples of fake stories being fed to us by the media.  "Hands up! Don't Shoot!" 





Third...these so-called fake stories haven't seemed to hurt Trump politically...like I said yesterday with all the bad press and lies circulated by the MSM during the election most people didn't believe them and elected him POTUS.....give the American people some credit to ferret out the truth no matter what it is.


Reagan may have been the "Teflon"  President,   but the fact that rare individuals can emerge and against whom the media's efforts often prove futile does not solve the problem of media lying and censorship for us lesser people.   

We cannot rely on the emergence of "Super Men" to handle the media.   We need a system in place that allows ordinary men to get a fair hearing before the public. 



Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 21,022
« Reply #126 on: October 12, 2017, 01:38:30 PM »
Well, on the Trump threads maybe.   You need to get out more.

When you have a pre-set opinion, you see what you want to see, not necessarily what's there.

@truth_seeker can't stand this forum, and attacks it, and its members regularly.

Take what he says with a grain of salt. 
Character still matters.  It always matters.

May 3, 2016 - the day the Republican party left ME.  I am now without a Party, and quite possibly without a country.  May God have mercy!

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,686
« Reply #127 on: October 12, 2017, 01:39:40 PM »
By that standard there won't be any televised or written *news* published....they are all slanted in one way or another.


They used to be far more intent on maintaining an appearance of objectivity in the past than they are now.   

At least 50 years ago,  they made more of an effort to present the appearance of non-bias. 



Offline RoosGirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,803
« Reply #128 on: October 12, 2017, 01:40:24 PM »
Holding a 27 year old grudge. You really know how to turn a guy on.

I pride myself on my consistency.

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,686
« Reply #129 on: October 12, 2017, 01:41:36 PM »
And every television show, not just the news, will have to go through some filter to make sure it's "fair"


Why does it have to go through a "filter"?   Why can't we simply require they hire their staff in proportion to their representation of the population at large,  same as we do with "Affirmative Action"?   


If they have 40% of their staff as conservatives,   don't you think these people will express the other side of the debate without the need to censor anyone's output? 



Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,631
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
    • The place where argument addicts can go
« Reply #130 on: October 12, 2017, 01:41:50 PM »
And.... let's not forget their "net neutrality" that they've been pushing, as well.

All code-talk for leftist censorship of anything they "deem" inappropriate (not leftie-slanted enough).

Yet a sole Republican President mentions the bias, and all hell breaks loose, with phony expressions of fright and alarm. They sound like the lopsided status-quo is cool with them. The only weapon they wield, is the white flag.
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 21,022
« Reply #131 on: October 12, 2017, 01:43:43 PM »

They used to be far more intent on maintaining an appearance of objectivity in the past than they are now.   

At least 50 years ago,  they made more of an effort to present the appearance of non-bias.

Right.  So you think their pretense of fairness while being heavily biased was better than their blatant bias now?

I don't really see a moral distinction there.  In fact, one could argue that the former is even more insidious, because of how many Americans swallowed their lies (Viet Nam being a prime example).
Character still matters.  It always matters.

May 3, 2016 - the day the Republican party left ME.  I am now without a Party, and quite possibly without a country.  May God have mercy!

Offline etcb

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 51
« Reply #132 on: October 12, 2017, 01:47:37 PM »
Nobody in their right mind wants the President doing this.  However what is the alternative.   If we do not change course this country and our Constitution will cease to exist.
I would contend that many people "in their right mind" do want a restriction on both speech and the press.  They just want that restriction to be on views they disagree with.   You see examples every day on college campuses, on the street, in discussion forums, and many other places where attempts are made to restrict dissemination of ideas or opinions.  That is precisely why the Founders structured the 1st amendment to prohibit Congress as the law making body from using the power of government to restrict certain inherent rights.   

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,686
« Reply #133 on: October 12, 2017, 01:50:55 PM »
Again........ an emotional response to the problem.  The federal government doesn't have the right to force 'fairness' on the media, and when it does, it is leftist defiance of the Constitution.


Since it is only through the control of the airwaves by the Federal government that they have an exclusive monopoly  to use broadcasting channels,  the Federal Government not only has a right to regulate them,  they have a duty to do so in compliance with the public interest. 


I suspect you do not hesitate to acknowledge the Federal Government's right to regulate content such as foul language or pornography from getting on the airwaves,  and if that is so,  then you must accept the entire package,  not just the parts you like.   





You are advocating that the Fed make the bias stop.  That is a liberal solution, and untenable according to the Founders.


I am advocating that the Federal government require them to allow OTHER PEOPLE to use the exclusive monopoly broadcasting channels too,  without having their speech censored by the people in control of it now. 




Where will your emotionalism end?  When the government forces college professors to be "fair?" 


The Government can certainly chose not to provide funds for the attendance of Universities which are unfair.    Or do you object to we taxpayers having to fund these American hating loons?   





When every TV show slanted left (most, to all of them) are censored and made to be "fair" to Republicans?

It can't work.  It shouldn't work.  It's not conservative.  It's not rational.


Make certain they are hiring a correct cross section of the Demographics of the nation,  and the problem of liberal slant on TV shows will disappear.   


Since the cross section of America is not biased,  there will be no effort to put liberal bias into Television shows. 


Offline Weird Tolkienish Figure

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,598
« Reply #134 on: October 12, 2017, 01:52:20 PM »

Why does it have to go through a "filter"?   Why can't we simply require they hire their staff in proportion to their representation of the population at large,  same as we do with "Affirmative Action"?   


If they have 40% of their staff as conservatives,   don't you think these people will express the other side of the debate without the need to censor anyone's output?

So you're in favor of ideological quotas now?   :facepalm2:
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 01:52:39 PM by Weird Tolkienish Figure »
Join BONA: Ballsacks of North America

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,686
« Reply #135 on: October 12, 2017, 02:20:16 PM »
Yep.  The selfsame "Fairness Doctrine" that the dems have been pushing for years.


They were pushing it for talk radio only.   I would gladly swap the influence of talk radio for the influence of network television.   

Online kevindavis

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,023
« Reply #136 on: October 12, 2017, 02:22:46 PM »

They were pushing it for talk radio only.   I would gladly swap the influence of talk radio for the influence of network television.


So basically you don't want a small Government..
"Last but not least, I was a Republican, a Reagan Republican. Still am. Not a Tea Party Republican. Not a Breitbart Republican. Not a talk radio or Fox News Republican. Not an isolationist, protectionist, immigrant-bashing, scapegoating, get-nothing-useful-done Republican. Not, as I am often dismissed by self-declared "real" conservatives, a RINO, Republican in Name Only. I'm a Reagan Republican, a proponent of lower taxes, less government, free markets, free trade, defense readiness, and democratic internationalism."
John McCain

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 29,309
« Reply #137 on: October 12, 2017, 02:24:11 PM »

They were pushing it for talk radio only.   I would gladly swap the influence of talk radio for the influence of network television.

You want the "Fairness" doctrine for TV?   Seriously?  Think what you're saying!
Cui bono?

Walk in Wisdom
See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

But the noble make noble plans, and by noble deeds they stand.

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,686
« Reply #138 on: October 12, 2017, 02:24:36 PM »
Really? You believe that? I used to. Not so much anymore. I've seen too much in the past couple of years.


I am with you there brother.   The hatred spewed against Ted Cruz over at the other site convinced me that many on our side are just as irrational as many on the left.   Now that I think about it,  the hatred against Trump here does as well. 


Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
« Reply #139 on: October 12, 2017, 02:25:20 PM »
You want the "Fairness" doctrine for TV?   Seriously?  Think what you're saying!

@Sanguine
So you're ok with the leftists controlling the media?
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,947
    • Avatar
« Reply #140 on: October 12, 2017, 02:25:47 PM »
There is no constitutional right to a broadcast license. None, zip, zero.

The real question is, is there any Constitutional permission for the federal government to restrict broadcasting, or can anyone just put up a giant jammer?
+++++++++
“In the outside world, I'm a simple geologist. But in here .... I am Falcor, Defender of the Alliance” --Randy Marsh

“The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, and to suffice for our own happiness.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“He's so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent.” --Foghorn Leghorn

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 29,309
« Reply #141 on: October 12, 2017, 02:26:01 PM »
@Sanguine
So you're ok with the leftists controlling the media?

No, why do you ask?
Cui bono?

Walk in Wisdom
See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

But the noble make noble plans, and by noble deeds they stand.

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,686
« Reply #142 on: October 12, 2017, 02:26:48 PM »
Why can Ed Sheeran or Bruno Mars speak to millions and I can only speak to a few?  I guess we need censorship of popular music, too.  After all, smaller acts just can't get heard.  It's just not fair!!




The difference between "News"  and "Music"  is that Music does not disguise the fact that it is entertainment.   "News"  deliberately disguises the fact that it is propaganda. 

There is this concept called "consent of the governed".   

If you mislead the governed to get their consent,  is it really valid?   


Offline Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,947
    • Avatar
« Reply #143 on: October 12, 2017, 02:28:09 PM »
Why does it have to go through a "filter"?   Why can't we simply require they hire their staff in proportion to their representation of the population at large,  same as we do with "Affirmative Action"?   

Ah, that great Conservative principle...Affirmative Action!

 22222frying pan :chairbang:   *****rollingeyes*****
+++++++++
“In the outside world, I'm a simple geologist. But in here .... I am Falcor, Defender of the Alliance” --Randy Marsh

“The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, and to suffice for our own happiness.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“He's so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent.” --Foghorn Leghorn

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,686
« Reply #144 on: October 12, 2017, 02:31:13 PM »
Right.  So you think their pretense of fairness while being heavily biased was better than their blatant bias now?


I disagree that they were "heavily-biased".   They were biased,  but not nearly to the degree they are biased now. 




I don't really see a moral distinction there.  In fact, one could argue that the former is even more insidious, because of how many Americans swallowed their lies (Viet Nam being a prime example).


Viet Nam is an example where they were heavily biased.   Yes,  the media deliberately spread propaganda on the issue of Vietnam,  and it cost the United States and the people of Vietnam terribly for their lies. 


Much suffering and much future disaster was the consequence of the lies they told. 


Offline Suppressed

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,947
    • Avatar
« Reply #145 on: October 12, 2017, 02:32:50 PM »
+++++++++
“In the outside world, I'm a simple geologist. But in here .... I am Falcor, Defender of the Alliance” --Randy Marsh

“The most effectual means of being secure against pain is to retire within ourselves, and to suffice for our own happiness.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“He's so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent.” --Foghorn Leghorn

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
« Reply #146 on: October 12, 2017, 02:32:52 PM »
No, why do you ask?

@Sanguine
I figured you must be since you bash any ideas to try and counter it.

Except of course the one about spending a billion dollars to create a new network.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,686
« Reply #147 on: October 12, 2017, 02:37:34 PM »
So you're in favor of ideological quotas now?   :facepalm2:


If you would keep up,  it is an example of a suggestion in which a filter is not necessary.  It was provided to prove the point that the task can be done without the Federal Government censoring any content.


If you had been keeping up,  you would have known that I have solicited ideas from everyone on how to deal with the problem.   

My methodology is always the same.   I consider my options,  then I chose the one I think is best.   If you want to provide some options,  I'm all ears.   


Instead of face palming,  perhaps you can do something more useful like think of ideas on how to deal with this problem?


(Other than doing nothing.   In some circles they use the word "cuck"  to describe this methodology.) 

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,686
« Reply #148 on: October 12, 2017, 02:39:02 PM »

So basically you don't want a small Government..


So basically you want a Fascist government of Homosexuals and Abortion providers ran from New York and San Fransisco. 



See,  two can play this game.   

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,686
« Reply #149 on: October 12, 2017, 02:41:31 PM »
You want the "Fairness" doctrine for TV?   Seriously?  Think what you're saying!


Compared to what we have now,  what is the downside?   We get "equal time" non censored access to the broadcasting infrastructure,  and that is supposed to be bad somehow? 

How is it that bad? 



Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf