Trump threatens to target licenses of 'NBC and the Networks' after nuclear arsenal report

[Bigun]

Trump Tells Reporters About The ‘Real’ Russia Story







“Not a story where they talk about collusion, and there was none, it was a hoax. Your real Russia story is uranium, and how they got all of that uranium. Vast percentage of what we have. That is, to me, one of the big stories of the decade, not just now, of the decade. The problem is that the mainstream media does not want to cover that story because that affects people that they protect. So they don’t like covering that story. But the big story is uranium and how Russia got 20 percent of our uranium, and frankly, it’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace. And it’s a disgrace that the fake news won’t cover it. It’s so sad.

Thank you very much, everybody.”


http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/2017/10/19/trump-tells-reporters-real-russia-story/#sthash.csOPYHMw.CYi4MlRl.dpbs

A disgrace of the first order!  NO doubt about it!

[Cyber Liberty]

Trump Tells Reporters About The ‘Real’ Russia Story







“Not a story where they talk about collusion, and there was none, it was a hoax. Your real Russia story is uranium, and how they got all of that uranium. Vast percentage of what we have. That is, to me, one of the big stories of the decade, not just now, of the decade. The problem is that the mainstream media does not want to cover that story because that affects people that they protect. So they don’t like covering that story. But the big story is uranium and how Russia got 20 percent of our uranium, and frankly, it’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace. And it’s a disgrace that the fake news won’t cover it. It’s so sad.

Thank you very much, everybody.”


http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/2017/10/19/trump-tells-reporters-real-russia-story/#sthash.csOPYHMw.CYi4MlRl.dpbs

He's correct about this one, all the way down to the two "It's a disgraces."

[DiogenesLamp]

He's correct about this one, all the way down to the two "It's a disgraces."

And do you think allowing a system that censors such information will not have bad consequences for us all? 

[Cyber Liberty]

And do you think allowing a system that censors such information will not have bad consequences for us all?

Of course not.  Look, I can see you're fixing to start shoving words in my mouth again, so drop it.

[RoosGirl]

He's correct about this one, all the way down to the two "It's a disgraces."

Word.

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course not.  Look, I can see you're fixing to start shoving words in my mouth again, so drop it.

But your proposal is to do nothing;  To keep the status quo of Liberal controlled censorship of stories. 


Do you have any proposals to do something? 

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

And do you think allowing a system that censors such information will not have bad consequences for us all?

What's the alternative, having government censor the media.

Or, more correctly, liberal career bureaucrats using their government backed authority to censor conservative media.

The media has always been biased.  The Founders certainly knew this, and yet felt that a free press was essential.  A fat and lazy (because they had become successful and complacent) citizenry decided they could trust Cronkite, but that's no reason we should allow[1] gov't control over the media, especially at a time when the power of consolidated media has a chance to be circumvented by the internet.

[1] That's how it's supposed to work, BTW.  It's not up to gov't to allow businesses to do stuff, it's up to us to allow the government to do stuff.

[roamer_1]

What's the alternative, having government censor the media.

Or, more correctly, liberal career bureaucrats using their government backed authority to censor conservative media.

The media has always been biased.  The Founders certainly knew this, and yet felt that a free press was essential.  A fat and lazy (because they had become successful and complacent) citizenry decided they could trust Cronkite, but that's no reason we should allow[1] gov't control over the media, especially at a time when the power of consolidated media has a chance to be circumvented by the internet.

[1] That's how it's supposed to work, BTW.  It's not up to gov't to allow businesses to do stuff, it's up to us to allow the government to do stuff.

EXCELLENT.

 

[Bigun]

What's the alternative, having government censor the media.

Or, more correctly, liberal career bureaucrats using their government backed authority to censor conservative media.

The media has always been biased.  The Founders certainly knew this, and yet felt that a free press was essential.  A fat and lazy (because they had become successful and complacent) citizenry decided they could trust Cronkite, but that's no reason we should allow[1] gov't control over the media, especially at a time when the power of consolidated media has a chance to be circumvented by the internet.

[1] That's how it's supposed to work, BTW.  It's not up to gov't to allow businesses to do stuff, it's up to us to allow the government to do stuff.

Try this on for size!  How about we use currently existing anti-trust laws to break up the current media oligarcy?

[DiogenesLamp]

What's the alternative, having government censor the media.

People just cannot help but head straight for that groove,  as if no other solution than government bureaucrats censoring the media comes to mind. 

Or, more correctly, liberal career bureaucrats using their government backed authority to censor conservative media.

Because conservative media (what's that?)  is not totally getting censored right now. 

The media has always been biased.  The Founders certainly knew this, and yet felt that a free press was essential. 

When the dominate way of reaching the public was a piece of paper,  freedom of the "press"  was essential.  It could also not be dominated by anyone.  Anyone with a "press" could print and distribute to all of the people as much as they like. 

But comparing a "press"  to a Trillion dollar infrastructure brain washing machine is just naive.   For one thing,  video works so much better to bypass the rational part of the mind,  where as printed word is more likely to engage cognitive facilities. 

For another,   the Video system reaches hundreds of millions of people each week,  but it's a monopoly (created by Government) to which conservatives don't have access.

A fat and lazy (because they had become successful and complacent) citizenry decided they could trust Cronkite, but that's no reason we should allow[1] gov't control over the media, especially at a time when the power of consolidated media has a chance to be circumvented by the internet.

The internet is heading in the direction of being controlled too.   If you put all your eggs in that basket,  don't be surprised when they all get broken. 

[DiogenesLamp]

EXCELLENT.

 

Rah! Rah!  We are all against censorship and in favor of "freedom of the press".   


Unfortunately what we have now is Censorship and nothing equivalent to "freedom of the press." 


The  "press"  is entirely in the hands of one party control.   

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Try this on for size!  How about we use currently existing anti-trust laws to break up the current media oligarcy?

I'm glad you mentioned "oligarchy" and not "monopoly".  I'm not surprised given your posting history, but it's still nice to see folks identify the difference (especially on this thread).

That said, are they breaking any anti-trust laws today?  If so, yeah, enforce the law.

However, IMO, the situation is this.  There are a small(ish) number of media outlets that dominate the market, and they are pretty much all leftist.  We conservatives let them get that way (we were probably too busy with jobs and stuff).  But there's nothing, that I can see, stopping us from fixing the problem using only the free market.

[roamer_1]

Unfortunately what we have now is Censorship and nothing equivalent to "freedom of the press." 
The  "press"  is entirely in the hands of one party control.   

I will differ from you in this. The very fact that I post these words is proof enough that while censorship is active (and almost always is), it is not insurmountable.

[txradioguy]

What's the alternative, having government censor the media.

Or, more correctly, liberal career bureaucrats using their government backed authority to censor conservative media.

The media has always been biased.  The Founders certainly knew this, and yet felt that a free press was essential.  A fat and lazy (because they had become successful and complacent) citizenry decided they could trust Cronkite, but that's no reason we should allow[1] gov't control over the media, especially at a time when the power of consolidated media has a chance to be circumvented by the internet.

[1] That's how it's supposed to work, BTW.  It's not up to gov't to allow businesses to do stuff, it's up to us to allow the government to do stuff.

 

[DB]

Funny how some want more government to stop the abuse by government...

[DiogenesLamp]

I will differ from you in this. The very fact that I post these words is proof enough that while censorship is active (and almost always is), it is not insurmountable.

Perhaps 10 people will see your words today.  Perhaps 100 in a week.  Do you know how many people will hear George Stephanopolis tomorrow?  Perhaps 10 million. 


If you think this is how you influence the public,  you don't know how to play this game called "politics." 

You are a lightning bug to their lightning.  So long as you are content to stay a lightning bug,  they will always win.   

[roamer_1]

Perhaps 10 people will see your words today.  Perhaps 100 in a week.  Do you know how many people will hear George Stephanopolis tomorrow?  Perhaps 10 million. 

And 20m will hear Limbaugh. There is far, far more diversity in source and political alignment than there has ever been before.

The internet leveled the field and will continue to, as long as it remains free.

[Bigun]

I'm glad you mentioned "oligarchy" and not "monopoly".  I'm not surprised given your posting history, but it's still nice to see folks identify the difference (especially on this thread).

That said, are they breaking any anti-trust laws today?  If so, yeah, enforce the law.

However, IMO, the situation is this.  There are a small(ish) number of media outlets that dominate the market, and they are pretty much all leftist.  We conservatives let them get that way (we were probably too busy with jobs and stuff).  But there's nothing, that I can see, stopping us from fixing the problem using only the free market.

@InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

Thanks for the kind words!

I suppose it depends on who's looking whether or not any anti-trust laws are being broken.  If the oligarchy is carrying YOUR water why would you even look?

[Neverdul]

What's the alternative, having government censor the media.

Or, more correctly, liberal career bureaucrats using their government backed authority to censor conservative media.

The media has always been biased.  The Founders certainly knew this, and yet felt that a free press was essential.  A fat and lazy (because they had become successful and complacent) citizenry decided they could trust Cronkite, but that's no reason we should allow[1] gov't control over the media, especially at a time when the power of consolidated media has a chance to be circumvented by the internet.

[1] That's how it's supposed to work, BTW.  It's not up to gov't to allow businesses to do stuff, it's up to us to allow the government to do stuff.

 

[DiogenesLamp]

And 20m will hear Limbaugh.

The 20 million you don't need to reach.   Do you know where are the people whom you do need to reach? 


They are on television,  where you  aren't.    They are George Stephanopolis' sheep. 

[aligncare]

There are things that government in association with civic groups can do to address media bias that doesn’t involve abridging speech, pulling licenses or issuing draconian regulations.

Everything from buying commercial advertising time for the purpose of educating about the issue, to using already existing FCC requirements to air community public service announcements.

I’m sure there’s some middle ground somewhere.

[Sanguine]

The 20 million you don't need to reach.   Do you know where are the people whom you do need to reach? 


They are on television,  where you  aren't.    They are George Stephanopolis' sheep.

Yes, but the 20 million would need to be reached if they hadn't been already. 

[Bigun]

Yes, but the 20 million would need to be reached if they hadn't been already.

I have heard Rush himself say MANY times that people listen to him because he validates what they already think and I would say that he is right about that!

[DiogenesLamp]

This gif is more appropriate to what you are doing.






  Think like a rational person,  not a seal.   Nobody is suggesting a government take over of media,  it's just that's what all of you people keep wanting to hear coming out of our mouths.   


No government control of the media.  Get it?   

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, but the 20 million would need to be reached if they hadn't been already.

The people who need to hear our side,  and who need to hear news detrimental to the Democrats are the people who watch Television.   

What we have now is a system where the Democrats who run the networks routinely censor news that is damaging to Democrats.  (Like what is going on in Venezuela, for example.)   So long as we continue allowing Democrats to have total control of the network infrastructure,   they will continue censoring news that is damaging to Democrats,  and the public will therefore not be informed. 


We must break Democrat control of the network system.   We must gain at least equal access to the network system.   


I personally think that after 60 years of Democrat control of the Network system,  we ought to be entitled to 60 years of exclusive control ourselves,   but I will settle for ending absolute Democrat control over the system.