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

[Frank Cannon]

Gotta link for this?

You don't need a link for it. The info is everywhere. The cable newsers are constantly pushing their numbers.

This week Hannity averaged about 3.2 million viewers with a bump to 3.6 for Trump on Wednesday. WWE got 3.6 million viewers last week.

[DiogenesLamp]

But no, that isn't what will happen, even as other equality testing means never have worked.

What equality testing means?   I've said over and over again that to allow the government to play editor on content is colossally foolish.   

So far the only proposal I have suggested is that it prevent discrimination against hiring of conservatives in the media corporations. 

The government would not regulate content.  The government would not enforce equality of content.  They would simply require equal application of the law as stated in the 14th amendment. 

I think the fact of having conservatives in the production process would create balance inherently,  because if Liberals tried to get away with the sh*t they currently do,  the Conservatives would object to it,  and it would therefore not air.   By the same token,  news stories that conservatives believe should be shown,  would be shown,  because they would be in position to make such determinations. 

Unintended consequences.

With a system that is already 99% over on the enemy's side.  Any disruptions,  any "unintended consequences"  will degrade what exists now.   I count that as a good thing.   

Fed deciding the defining parameters of what is called 'Conservative'. AND WHAT ISN'T. Who is, and who isn't.

That is the concept you people keep trying to force on us and claim it's "our"  idea.   No,  that is *NOT*  what we want,  and it is not what any of us has proposed.   You just keep asserting that's what we want,  and it isn't.   

The FED designing Conservative content - Be very careful what you wish for.

I don't wish for that.   I know it's what a lot of you want to believe about us,   but it is incorrect,  and if you would bother to actually understand what we are saying,  you would realize your cliched arguments are not what we are advocating. 

You are handing your own ass into the hands of the very people who hate you.
Yeah.. that'll work out fine.

That's what we have now.   Degrading the status quo can only improve the situation. 

[Emjay]

I have also been saying that for quite awhile.  Get the News "services"  out of New York,  and get the "entertainment services"  out of Los Angeles,  and a lot of the problem with bias would simply go away. 


I have also advocated moving the capitol from Washington DC to someplace in the middle of Kansas, preferably a wheat field or something.

Good idea.  Why should all our news come from the mecca of liberalism where those people feed on each other's idiocy in  an incestuous feast.  They all cocktail party together and reinforce the party line and make each other feel pretty, oh, so pretty.

As for California and Hollywood, the Weinstein mess clearly indicates what a cesspool that area has become.  The few good people there are literally afraid to speak out and with good reason.  If you aren't in the club, you aren't hired.

[Free Vulcan]

I don't mind an "equal access on the television monopoly"  weapon pointed back at me. 


Right now they have 95% access or more.   Increasing their access down to 30 or 40% sounds like a fair scheme to me.

But, what has that monopoly got them? Their histronics have completely worked against them, look at CNN if there's any doubt. Every time the MSM opens their mouths, they make the Dems an even smaller bicoastal party.

 I have the exact same sentiment as you toward the MSM, and there'd be nothing I'd rather do than slap them down, but they are on their way out the door. Fewer and fewer people get their news from them and more and more from the internet. The govt going after them now would be like going after the buggy whip industry after the Model T was already in production.

The reality is if that is done, then the precedent it creates could be used to go after online journalism. The first Democrat President we have will then go after every right wing publication out there. It creates a virus that will spread to another totally different media platform once it gets a foot hold.

To me the last thing we want to do is go after the dying horse the liberals have hitched themselves to. Don't give them a lifeline as they flush themselves.

[roamer_1]

So far the only proposal I have suggested is that it prevent discrimination against hiring of conservatives in the media corporations. 

That requires a precise definition of what 'Conservatism' is and isn't... Because you need to know what a Conservative is in order to ensure they get the special treatment.

WHO IS GOING TO PROVIDE THAT DEFINITION?
And within that definition COMES the definition of Conservative content, and all the rest.
And within that definition, what are the chances that actual Conservatism gets to be Conservatism?
Slim to none. Them log cabin boys would get the gig, and everyone will celebrate the liberals being SO inclusive!

The government would not regulate content.  The government would not enforce equality of content.  They would simply require equal application of the law as stated in the 14th amendment.

How?
 

I think the fact of having conservatives in the production process would create balance inherently,  because if Liberals tried to get away with the sh*t they currently do,  the Conservatives would object to it,  and it would therefore not air.   By the same token,  news stories that conservatives believe should be shown,  would be shown,  because they would be in position to make such determinations. 

LOL! no. That isn't how that works.

With a system that is already 99% over on the enemy's side.  Any disruptions,  any "unintended consequences"  will degrade what exists now.   I count that as a good thing.   

That is precisely what makes consequences unintended... when you proscribe intention.

That is the concept you people keep trying to force on us and claim it's "our"  idea.   No,  that is *NOT*  what we want,  and it is not what any of us has proposed.   You just keep asserting that's what we want,  and it isn't.   

No, I ascribe nothing more to you than what you describe... But I am far seeing, almost to a fault. What you want is incidental. What you'll get is what matters.

I don't wish for that.   I know it's what a lot of you want to believe about us,   but it is incorrect,  and if you would bother to actually understand what we are saying,  you would realize your cliched arguments are not what we are advocating. 

I understand it perfectly.
I also understand about camel's noses.

That's what we have now.   Degrading the status quo can only improve the situation.

Precisely wrong.

[DiogenesLamp]

Wouldn't forcing the networks to issue a prominent disclaimer at the beginning of each broadcast undercutting their pretense to objectivity obtain the same ultimate objective without running afoul of the 1A? The FTC requires the same thing in ads, packaging and labeling already.

I have long wished the FEC would force them to label their news casters with their party's affiliation.   


But such a thing would never happen,  and if it did,  all the news liars would simply register "Independent"  while still voting and promoting Democrat. 

Forcing the news organizations, including FNC, to admit their product doesn't necessarily reflect the entire truth up front would be all that would be needed, IMO.

I would love that,   and it might even work if such a thing could be done,   but I do not believe any such thing  could be done,  or that they wouldn't take immediate steps to negate it.   

[Silver Pines]

Stop deliberately misstating our position.   Nobody is trying to shut up the press,  we are trying to get equal time on their monopoly controlled channels.   


Does my ability to talk make you  be quiet?  No?  So stop asserting something that is 100% false and a disgusting accusation to boot!   





I will be happy with our side getting equal time and access under a Democrat administration too.   Who knows?  If the public can hear our side,  then perhaps there won't be any more Democrat Presidents for awhile,   and when there eventually is,  perhaps he will be far more conservative than the kookbat leftests we have been getting so far.

@DiogenesLamp

I realize that flying high on outrage is your fuel,  but it doesn't work with me.  Get it?  I'll call you out every time I see fit. 

You made clear what you want.  So you can just stop.

Yes,  pulling their licenses is exactly the appropriate thing to threaten these bastards with.   I would be threatening Federal prosecutions if it were up to me.   I'd have the FEC all over them, I'd have the EEOC all over them,   I would be having the Justice Department bringing anti-trust lawsuits against them,   I would be using whatever power I could bring to bear in an effort to cut their financial throats. 


These are our enemies,  and they have been our enemies since at least the Nixon/Kennedy election,  and probably a lot longer than that.   

We need to stick a knife in them anywhere we can.

[Emjay]

But, what has that monopoly got them? Their histronics have completely worked against them, look at CNN if there's any doubt. Every time the MSM opens their mouths, they make the Dems an even smaller bicoastal party.

 I have the exact same sentiment as you toward the MSM, and there'd be nothing I'd rather do than slap them down, but they are on their way out the door. Fewer and fewer people get their news from them and more and more from the internet. The govt going after them now would be like going after the buggy whip industry after the Model T was already in production.

The reality is if that is done, then the precedent it creates could be used to go after online journalism. The first Democrat President we have will then go after every right wing publication out there. It creates a virus that will spread to another totally different media platform once it gets a foot hold.

To me the last thing we want to do is go after the dying horse the liberals have hitched themselves to. Don't give them a lifeline as they flush themselves.

Let's stop fearing the next democrat president and deal with our current situation.  The media IS losing power and audience but, remember, their domination was complete, and slowly losing some of it does not mean they are not a clear and present danger.

Their influence permeates our thoughts in ways we don't even realize.  Entertainment movies and TV shows push their agenda, sometimes in subliminal ways and sometimes with outright propaganda.

I'm not sure of exactly what we can do to stop them but I'm in favor of whatever can be done.

[Silver Pines]

Yeah, big joke. If Sean’s such a joke why is his TV show crushing the competition?

Every now and again it’s good to pull back and question your own assumptions. Let some fresh air in. Of course, it doesn’t always work if you’re rooted in NeverTrump land.

@aligncare

Trump fans love Hannity.  I think Steve Deace referred to them as "the cursing grandmothers."

What assumptions are you talking about?  The nutty Twitter rants I've seen with my own eyes?  His completely abandonment of the Constitution in favor of licking Trump's boots?

It's pretty fresh over here.  Smells like flowers, in fact.

[skeeter]

I have long wished the FEC would force them to label their news casters with their party's affiliation.   


But such a thing would never happen,  and if it did,  all the news liars would simply register "Independent"  while still voting and promoting Democrat. 






I would love that,   and it might even work if such a thing could be done,   but I do not believe any such thing  could be done,  or that they wouldn't take immediate steps to negate it.

Well its being done in dozens of other areas by law in the name of truth in advertising.

There need be no criteria for the disclaimer. The base assumption should be everyone and every network is biased by nature and should not lead consumers to believe that what they are receiving is objective, complete truth as they have been pretending to do for decades.

[aligncare]

What equality testing means?   I've said over and over again that to allow the government to play editor on content is colossally foolish.   

So far the only proposal I have suggested is that it prevent discrimination against hiring of conservatives in the media corporations. 

The government would not regulate content.  The government would not enforce equality of content.  They would simply require equal application of the law as stated in the 14th amendment. 

I think the fact of having conservatives in the production process would create balance inherently,  because if Liberals tried to get away with the sh*t they currently do,  the Conservatives would object to it,  and it would therefore not air.   By the same token,  news stories that conservatives believe should be shown,  would be shown,  because they would be in position to make such determinations. 




With a system that is already 99% over on the enemy's side.  Any disruptions,  any "unintended consequences"  will degrade what exists now.   I count that as a good thing.   




That is the concept you people keep trying to force on us and claim it's "our"  idea.   No,  that is *NOT*  what we want,  and it is not what any of us has proposed.   You just keep asserting that's what we want,  and it isn't.   





I don't wish for that.   I know it's what a lot of you want to believe about us,   but it is incorrect,  and if you would bother to actually understand what we are saying,  you would realize your cliched arguments are not what we are advocating. 





That's what we have now.   Degrading the status quo can only improve the situation.

And here we see a perfect example why Sean Hannity repeats himself so much. Political positions are like house-sized boulders. It takes repeated runs at it with heavy equipment to dislodge it.

[Cyber Liberty]

@aligncare

Trump fans love Hannity.  I think Steve Deace referred to them as "the cursing grandmothers."

What assumptions are you talking about?  The nutty Twitter rants I've seen with my own eyes?  His completely abandonment of the Constitution in favor of licking Trump's boots?

It's pretty fresh over here.  Smells like flowers, in fact.

They seem to think the weapon they want to create and wield will never be turned against them the instant a Democrat comes to power.  Cute of them, isn't it?  ^-^

[RoosGirl]

@DiogenesLamp

I realize that flying high on outrage is your fuel,  but it doesn't work with me.  Get it?  I'll call you out every time I see fit. 

You made clear what you want.  So you can just stop.

Yes,  pulling their licenses is exactly the appropriate thing to threaten these bastards with.   I would be threatening Federal prosecutions if it were up to me.   I'd have the FEC all over them, I'd have the EEOC all over them,   I would be having the Justice Department bringing anti-trust lawsuits against them,   I would be using whatever power I could bring to bear in an effort to cut their financial throats. 


These are our enemies,  and they have been our enemies since at least the Nixon/Kennedy election,  and probably a lot longer than that.   

We need to stick a knife in them anywhere we can.

@CatherineofAragon

You know, it seems like POTUS could at least direct some investigations into illegal activities by the networks if he thought something was actually going on that was illegal.  I mean, the only reason I can think of threaten someone with losing their "license" is because they've done something illegal and not just because they've done something you don't like.  Maybe he'll do that when the Hillary investigation concludes.

[Cyber Liberty]

@CatherineofAragon

You know, it seems like POTUS could at least direct some investigations into illegal activities by the networks if he thought something was actually going on that was illegal.  I mean, the only reason I can think of threaten someone with losing their "license" is because they've done something illegal and not just because they've done something you don't like.  Maybe he'll do that when the Hillary investigation concludes.

[aligncare]

@aligncare

Trump fans love Hannity.  I think Steve Deace referred to them as "the cursing grandmothers."

What assumptions are you talking about?  The nutty Twitter rants I've seen with my own eyes?  His completely abandonment of the Constitution in favor of licking Trump's boots?

It's pretty fresh over here.  Smells like flowers, in fact.

Ah. Which explains why you hate Hannity

[Free Vulcan]

Let's stop fearing the next democrat president and deal with our current situation.  The media IS losing power and audience but, remember, their domination was complete, and slowly losing some of it does not mean they are not a clear and present danger.

Their influence permeates our thoughts in ways we don't even realize.  Entertainment movies and TV shows push their agenda, sometimes in subliminal ways and sometimes with outright propaganda.

I'm not sure of exactly what we can do to stop them but I'm in favor of whatever can be done.

But it's having zero political effect. I will argue that they are conservatives best friend because their increasing radicalism is driving people away from them and to the other side. Let's use that momentum as political ju jitsu.

The national GOP really needs to focus efforts on cleaning it's own house and getting particularly Senators that will get the agenda passed. Three reforms - 1) welfare, 2) immigration, and 3) national right-to-work and we'd gut the Dems entire machinery.

[Smokin Joe]

It is exactly wrong,  just as I pointed out in my previous message.   


My ability to speak on this forum does not silence you or anyone else.   The ability of conservatives to get equal time on the Television broadcasting monopoly will not cause Liberals to be silenced.   It will cause those people who have been silenced under the current system to finally have an equal voice!

Just bake the damned cake!

You would impose your ideals on some one else's creativity.

Either the Libmedia has the right to put what they want on their stations, the baker can refuse to bake the cake or not.

The bottom line is that when you (or anyone else) starts choosing who has the right to their own stuff and when the government can force them to say or do something they don't like, then there are no effing Rights for ANYONE.

I may not like their 'message'. I hate their lies. I am disgusted by their contempt for me and mine and all we stand for, but

I REFUSE TO VIOLATE THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF RIGHTS BY SUPPORTING FORCING THEM TO LET ME USE THEIR STUFF TO SAY WHAT I WANT TO HEAR---BECAUSE DOING SO WILL ENTITLE THEM TO DO THE SAME TO ME WITH ANYTHING I HAVE AND NO ONE WILL HAVE ANY RIGHTS.

If we want Conservative media, it is up to us to fill that niche. If the country wants it, it will be wildly successful and immensely profitable. (Imagine a place where actresses would not be molested just so they can work.)

[Emjay]

And here we see a perfect example why Sean Hannity repeats himself so much. Political positions are like house-sized boulders. It takes repeated runs at it with heavy equipment to dislodge it.

And people like Sean Hannity.  He's not my cup of cocoa but he meets the needs of a LOT of people and not just grandmas.

The country is conservative.  If we could eliminate New York and California ... or just California, the country is very conservative.  The election of Trump should prove that to anybody.

I wish Fox News would have stayed more conservative.  I think their audience would grow but there's some odd show biz dynamics going on over there.

[Emjay]

Just bake the damned cake!

You would impose your ideals on some one else's creativity.

Either the Libmedia has the right to put what they want on their stations, the baker can refuse to bake the cake or not.

The bottom line is that when you (or anyone else) starts choosing who has the right to their own stuff and when the government can force them to say or do something they don't like, then there are no effing Rights for ANYONE.

I may not like their 'message'. I hate their lies. I am disgusted by their contempt for me and mine and all we stand for, but

I REFUSE TO VIOLATE THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF RIGHTS BY SUPPORTING FORCING THEM TO LET ME USE THEIR STUFF TO SAY WHAT I WANT TO HEAR---BECAUSE DOING SO WILL ENTITLE THEM TO DO THE SAME TO ME WITH ANYTHING I HAVE AND NO ONE WILL HAVE ANY RIGHTS.

If we want Conservative media, it is up to us to fill that niche. If the country wants it, it will be wildly successful and immensely profitable. (Imagine a place where actresses would not be molested just so they can work.)

I believe @DiogenesLamp is simply asking for fairness.  I think too many people have been abused, particularly in the last 8 years before Trump by oppressive government.

And I think too many people are afraid of what that kind of government can do.  It only can if we let it.

I'm more in favor of a truth doctrine.  Let all slanted stories about Trump have to meet a truth standard.  We can define truth. 

For example, it's true that Trump ordered immediate aid for Puerto Rico.  It's true that the bitch of a mayor decided it would be to her political advantage to attack him unfairly.  It's true that Trump responded in a way that too many of us call un-Presidential.  But ... how else would his side have come out?  The MSM would never have come to his defense.

And, now, when he declares a home truth ... that we cannot help them forever, he is portrayed as heartless.

[Emjay]

@CatherineofAragon

You know, it seems like POTUS could at least direct some investigations into illegal activities by the networks if he thought something was actually going on that was illegal.  I mean, the only reason I can think of threaten someone with losing their "license" is because they've done something illegal and not just because they've done something you don't like.  Maybe he'll do that when the Hillary investigation concludes.

I'm glad @DiogenesLamp is here.  He does not feed on outrage.  He is measured and articulate and makes good points. 

He is a much-needed voice for conservatism on this forum.

[Cyber Liberty]

I believe @DiogenesLamp is simply asking for fairness.  I think too many people have been abused, particularly in the last 8 years before Trump by oppressive government.

And I think too many people are afraid of what that kind of government can do.  It only can if we let it.

I'm more in favor of a truth doctrine.  Let all slanted stories about Trump have to meet a truth standard.  We can define truth. 

For example, it's true that Trump ordered immediate aid for Puerto Rico.  It's true that the bitch of a mayor decided it would be to her political advantage to attack him unfairly.  It's true that Trump responded in a way that too many of us call un-Presidential.  But ... how else would his side have come out?  The MSM would never have come to his defense.

And, now, when he declares a home truth ... that we cannot help them forever, he is portrayed as heartless.

I'm all for fairness, too, and we certainly don't have it.

What I'm against is using the blunt instrument of Government Regulation to bring it about.  The Government will change sides against us in an instant when the next Democrat takes control of the Executive, and the unfairness we now decry will become worse when it's the law of the land.  Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of a renewed "Fairness Doctrine."  They've used it to silence our side before, and they'll do it again at the drop of a microphone.

We must find another way.

[Bigun]

What's needed in the NEWS business is the equivalent of UBER and LYFT!

Don't take any licenses away! Just make them worthless with competition!

[RoosGirl]

I'm glad @DiogenesLamp is here.  He does not feed on outrage.  He is measured and articulate and makes good points. 

He is a much-needed voice for conservatism on this forum.

WTH? This is a conservative forum?  No wonder I've been beating my head against the wall.

[roamer_1]

I believe @DiogenesLamp is simply asking for fairness. 

That's the point.
It isn't about fairness.
It can't be about fairness.
Dreaming that it is, is simply drinking the liberal koolaid.
Shit ain't fair. Get used to it.
And giving the federal government even more power to enforce even more 'fairness' is antithetical to Conservative principles.
End_of_story.

[Free Vulcan]

What's needed in the NEWS business is the equivalent of UBER and LYFT!

Don't take any licenses away! Just make them worthless with competition!

I don't understand why it isn't happening. Online media is ripe and ready to take over broadcast/cable. Some enterprising genius just needs to create the platform, then write the new rules.