Our Treasonous Media Is a Clear and Present Danger

[Smokin Joe]

@rodamala
@CatherineofAragon

ABSOLUTELY TRUE!

People like to point to Thomas Jefferson's well known dislike of the press but he was equally disgusted with the people and their love of gossip and lies.

These clowns who claim to be in some kind of war on the media are lying, their war is against the 1st amendment. They constantly squeal about anonymous or unnamed sources but that anonymity has long been upheld as a source of free speech for the press and the people.

Just a few years ago in Michigan, conservatives fought off a liberal attempt to classify, license and regulate blogs vs "legitimate" media. Now I'm not so sure those same conservatives wouldn't lead the charge.

Well, between the MSM, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and the like, Lies and gossip are pretty well covered, only they move at the speed of light, and don't need a crowd at the back fence.

[Smokin Joe]

I have developed a theory over the last two years.   


They do this to maintain the existing North Eastern power structure and dominance over the rest of the Country.   


The nation is mostly run by a power corridor that extends from Washington D.C. to Boston.    These are the connected "establishment"  people who have undue influence on Federal policy,  and often to the detriment of the rest of us.   


As Free Reed so eloquently put it,   " New York is the heart of the beast,  the Ivies are it's nursery and Washington is it's store front. "


I think the North East gained power over the rest of the nation in 1861,  and have never relinquished it since.   Our public policies revolve around what these power brokers want,  and they own the media.

Just look at where the textbooks are published, and you will have answered your question. The Department of Education just helped homogenize the message.

[Smokin Joe]

I believe the current media to be usurpers and have set themselves as a de facto fourth branch of government. Irrespective of having no authority vested to them by our Constitution, their power comes through influence over the knot headed sheeple and their ability to destroy careers and lives of those politicians who do not toe the line.

Yep!

[Rivergirl]

Put years of effort into the republican party in our town. Worked hard, managed campaigns, wrote letters to the local paper, spoke at meetings, educated my own children, and never missed an opportunity to speak out to make a civil point. 
Never felt the need for a 'leader' to know right from wrong but was proud of Reagan and both Presidents Bush.   Was mortified at Clinton's behavior in the oval office, and felt that we would barely survive Obama.
Little did I know things could and did get a lot worse.

[Silver Pines]

@CatherineofAragon nope you didn't miss anything.

@txradioguy

Thank you.  I didn't think so. but hey...

[DiogenesLamp]

Put years of effort into the republican party in our town. Worked hard, managed campaigns, wrote letters to the local paper, spoke at meetings, educated my own children, and never missed an opportunity to speak out to make a civil point. 
Never felt the need for a 'leader' to know right from wrong but was proud of Reagan and both Presidents Bush.   Was mortified at Clinton's behavior in the oval office, and felt that we would barely survive Obama.
Little did I know things could and did get a lot worse.

And so we are once again trying to make "Trump"  the focus of conversation here.    This thread is not about Trump.    It is about the threat that one party control of the airwaves represents to the American system of governance. 

[Oceander]

Why are you so intent on stifling free speech.  Posting on this site is an example of free speech and yet you condemn it.

I'm not the one arguing for the use of government force to stifle the speech of my political opponents here.  You are.  I'm arguing for the grownups version, wherein if one doesn't like the message being published by somebody else, one is expected to set up ones own press and publish ones own countervailing message.

[Oceander]

Note to Board: the airwaves ain't that important anymore. The internet is, and that doesn't require an FCC license or millions of dollars to get your voice out there. 

An overweening emphasis on airwaves is a sign one is still stuck in the last century.

[Emjay]

Excellent vid.  She's a pistol, isn't she.

I just downloaded the video for posterity....lol.

She is a pistol and I totally resemble her.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm not the one arguing for the use of government force to stifle the speech of my political opponents here.
You are. 

No we are not.   We are arguing that something (and it might be the government)   needs to be done to stop the existing media system from censoring news and manipulating stories for political gain. 

Stop Censorship.   Just stop it!   

 

I'm arguing for the grownups version, wherein if one doesn't like the message being published by somebody else, one is expected to set up ones own press and publish ones own countervailing message.

Yell into a well.   It will work as good as your idea.   Your idea isn't "grown up"  it is childish stupidity.   It is "wishing the monsters away".     


Get a network,  or get out of the game.    If you aren't reaching tens of millions of people every day,  you are having no significant effect.   

[Emjay]

Posters here deserve something ... credit?  Dunno, but we can keep arguing forever.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[bigheadfred]

Note to Board: the airwaves ain't that important anymore. The internet is, and that doesn't require an FCC license or millions of dollars to get your voice out there. 

An overweening emphasis on airwaves is a sign one is still stuck in the last century.

My point about asking what viwership numbers are for the networks news shows. I don't watch any tv news shows. I find the views expressed here most salient.

[DiogenesLamp]

Note to Board: the airwaves ain't that important anymore. The internet is, and that doesn't require an FCC license or millions of dollars to get your voice out there. 

The internet is also being slowly strangled to eliminate freedom of speech.   Have you not been paying any attention?   


Google censors speech.   Facebook censors speech.  Twitter censors speech.   Pretty much all the dominant tech industries and platforms are now in the business of censoring speech,  and what is your idea? 


Try to get speech past them on an internet which they are increasingly controlling?   

An overweening emphasis on airwaves is a sign one is still stuck in the last century.

Says the guy who was suggesting a Newspaper might be a way to combat socialist censorship of  speech. 


Get on the airwaves or get out.   Reach tens of millions or don't bother. 

[Suppressed]

People like to point to Thomas Jefferson's well known dislike of the press but he was equally disgusted with the people and their love of gossip and lies.

Thomas Jefferson supported exactly what @Oceander advocated...setting up competition.

[dfwgator]

And who owns a lot of those Internet web sites?   The same conglomerates that own the TV Networks.

[DiogenesLamp]

My point about asking what viwership numbers are for the networks news shows. I don't watch any tv news shows. I find the views expressed here most salient.

You aren't the sort of person that swings elections.    The people who matter in elections are those middle of the road,  don't pay much attention  to politics,  "low information voters."   


You won't find them on a blog,  and it is their opinion which will decide who becomes President,  and as a consequence who will sit on the Federal courts.   


Like it or not,  these are the people that have to be reached,  and you won't reach them on blogs or conservative backwater websites. 

In the evening, an average of 21.6 million people watched one of the three commercial broadcast evening news programs each night on ABC, CBS or NBC. That represents a drop of 752,000 viewers, or 3.4%, from the average the year before, according to PEJ analysis of data from Nielsen Media Research.1

[Emjay]

The internet is also being slowly strangled to eliminate freedom of speech.   Have you not been paying any attention?   


Google censors speech.   Facebook censors speech.  Twitter censors speech.   Pretty much all the dominant tech industries and platforms are now in the business of censoring speech,  and what is your idea? 


Try to get speech past them on an internet which they are increasingly controlling?   

I'm on Facebook and it has become extremely political.  That 'share on Facebook' thing on practically every news story is being so overused that I'm not seeing any cat pictures anymore.

Most of the posts and stories are very conservative and most are supportive of Trump.  So if Facebook is attempting to control the news, they are doing a poor job.

My viewpoint is that the press should be free to print the news from any viewpoint but not to lie.  It should be a little easier for people to sue media for lying.  I know the word 'sue' scares people and can open up a can of worms but the press should not be free to lie.

[Suppressed]

Google controls what you see on the internet.

Really, now.

Funny how I can, and do, go to places not even found on Google searches.

It's almost as if your statement isn't supported.  Besides, are you telling me that the ascendance of Google had nothing to do with its superior technology, and is all just a government plot?

[Suppressed]

Says the guy who was suggesting a Newspaper might be a way to combat socialist censorship of  speech. 

At least @Oceander can read...I'm sure he was able to read that it was more than two decades ago.  He's also advocated Internet outlets.

But you ignored that, @DiogenesLamp .  Almost like you're being one-sided and need censorship!

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm on Facebook and it has become extremely political.  That 'share on Facebook' thing on practically every news story is being so overused that I'm not seeing any cat pictures anymore.

Most of the posts and stories are very conservative and most are supportive of Trump.  So if Facebook is attempting to control the news, they are doing a poor job.

I have read half a dozen articles in the last month detailing how Facistbook was censoring people.  Your mileage may vary. 

My viewpoint is that the press should be free to print the news from any viewpoint but not to lie.  It should be a little easier for people to sue media for lying.  I know the word 'sue' scares people and can open up a can of worms but the press should not be free to lie.

They are doing most of their damage by *NOT*  reporting on stories damaging to Democrats and Democrat policies and office holders.    Have you ever heard of this thing called "Name that party"?   It is a running joke on dozens of conservative websites that anytime you see a news story of wrong doing by an office holder,   if the party affiliation isn't mentioned,  it's virtually guaranteed to be a Democrat. 

Republican office holders always have their party affiliation reported when they are caught doing something wrong,  but with Democrats we all have to play "Name that Party!"


The media refused to report on the Ugly Ugly past of Bill Clinton when he was running for President.  They refused to report on the Ugly Ugly past of Obama when he was running for President,  and they refused to do any serious reporting on the Obama scandals which were legion.   


The media does more damage by censoring the news than they do by making up fake stories.   It is the CENSORSHIP  which is the most serious problem with the media. 

[bigheadfred]

You aren't the sort of person that swings elections.    The people who matter in elections are those middle of the road,  don't pay much attention  to politics,  "low information voters."   


You won't find them on a blog,  and it is their opinion which will decide who becomes President,  and as a consequence who will sit on the Federal courts.   


Like it or not,  these are the people that have to be reached,  and you won't reach them on blogs or conservative backwater websites. 

Thanks for the info.

The decline in viewership numbers tells me that a new network isn't going to last long.  I don't know who you are trying to reach with what. With the last election people couldn't be bothered long enough with the truth to get a couple of candidates worth voting for. Blasting the anadorned, uncensored truth to millions of people in this country isn't going to change anything. They don't care that much.

[Suppressed]

They are doing most of their damage by *NOT*  reporting on stories damaging to Democrats and Democrat policies and office holders.

And yet, how few conservatives back efforts to develop a conservative media network like The Blaze.

[Suppressed]

The decline in viewership numbers tells me that a new network isn't going to last long.  I don't know who you are trying to reach with what. With the last election people couldn't be bothered long enough with the truth to get a couple of candidates worth voting for. Blasting the anadorned, uncensored truth to millions of people in this country isn't going to change anything. They don't care that much.

A lot of the younger voters are getting their information online.

[Silver Pines]

Get on the airwaves or get out.   Reach tens of millions or don't bother.

I don't think you realize that young adults don't watch TV.  At all.  They stream or they get their content online.  Those "tens of millions" are going to go away and there will be no one to replace them.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thanks for the info.

The decline in viewership numbers tells me that a new network isn't going to last long. 

A projection based on a few data points?   I would not have such confidence without a lot more detailed study  than that.  Even if your analysis ultimately turns out to be correct,  they can still do much damage before they eventually expire,  or do you think we won't have to deal with them in 2018 and 2020?   

I don't know who you are trying to reach with what. With the last election people couldn't be bothered long enough with the truth to get a couple of candidates worth voting for. Blasting the anadorned, uncensored truth to millions of people in this country isn't going to change anything. They don't care that much.

How would we know if they would care or not?  How can we know about something that hasn't happened before?   

The entire advertising industry is based on the belief that constant exposure and repetition will eventually motivate people to go in a specific direction.   


What works for dog food,   also works for politics.    Had the 1992 media been ran by arch conservatives,  Bill Clinton would never have won the Presidency.