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

[DiogenesLamp]

Besides the fact that the left never does anything that would enhance the free and open exchange of information, under the euphemism 'Net Neutrality' President Obama was essentially calling for the FCC to reclassify the Internet as a utility making it subject to heavy regulations as if they’re monopolies. This makes the FCC the final authority over Internet pricing, products and services.

If that is what it was going to do,  then that does go too far,   but forcing the internet to be a "common carrier"  without all the rest of that,  seems reasonable to me.   

More governmental control, not less. Definitely not what we want.

Borrowed from this - http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2014/11/11/why-obama-is-wrong-on-net-neutrality.html

We want a negative feedback system.  We don't want a positive feedback system. 

[Sanguine]

Yep!  But try telling anything good about Trump to a NTer.  And, yeah, they claim to applaud him when he does anything good but they never seem to notice anything good.

@Emjay, that's just not correct.  Try this one, for instance:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285806.0/topicseen.html

[aligncare]

Are you changing the subject?  It seems like you're changing the subject.    I thought we were talking about a dumbass twitter rant about the unfair media; the unfair media that should have its "license" confiscated, instead of using existing laws to address any illegality.  I'm sure you understand why it would remind me of a different dumbass twitter rant about why "Crooked Hillary" isn't being investigated.

What I am saying is you made a dumb statement about conservatives and small government. And I proved you wrong about Donald Trump and small government.

[truth_seeker]

It does, doesn’t it.

The only reason I can see why enforcement never happens is Democrat administrations don’t want it enforced because the slanting favors them, and Republicans, well they’re gutless.

Seems to be the case on several topics.

Immigration, being another.

Republicans are simply terrified of the media, casting them as "bad people."

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

And what a coincidence that this backfiring on them has seemingly only started recently,  say in just about the period Trump has been campaigning.   Weird,  huh? 


I remember during Obama,  there was no backfiring on them.  Neither during George W Bush's  or Clinton's presidency was there any backfiring on them,   but just since the era of Trump began,   the media has suddenly been subjected to a lot of backfiring.   

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.

They may be a wounded lion,  but they are still a lion.   They have done great damage since they helped kick Nixon out of the Whitehouse,  (and even earlier)  and perhaps they are dying of old age now,  but for decades they have successfully manipulated elections and the people,  and we should not take any chances that they will recover.   

The reality is if that is done, then the precedent it creates could be used to go after online journalism.

There is no bandwidth issues on the internet that create a natural monopoly of too much spectrum under the control of too few players.  Any monopoly on the internet will be caused by the people who own the infrastructure deliberately censoring views they don't like,  in the manner Goolag,  Fascist book,  and Twitfest have already done.   

 

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.

Force everyone to be "common carriers"  and this becomes impossible.   A Democrat President can rant and rave,   but he won't be allowed to interfere with traffic.   

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.

They are using the behemoths that control the internet now to re institute the same sort of control they now have with the monopoly broadcasting networks. 

Did you see where the hosting company informed "Gab"  that they would not longer provide service for them?   

[RoosGirl]

What I am saying is you made a dumb statement about conservatives and small government. And I proved you wrong about Donald Trump and small government.

Listen, I understand that you're a NeverRoosGirl, but you clearly have misunderstood what I wrote.

[DiogenesLamp]

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!

In the old days,  newspapers used to be clearly affiliated with party,  and it was understood in the larger towns that you would have the Democrat newspaper,  and you would have the Republican newspaper. 

Everyone knew that if you read the Democrat newspaper,  you would get news and editorials told from the perspective of a Democrat editor,  and of course the exact same thing would occur with the Republican paper.   


Since we are just spitballing here,  how about this?   We leave it up to the parties to nominate or certify Journalists to be members in good standing.   The parties already nominate platform committee members,  and members for all sorts of committees,  so why would it be so difficult for party conventions to nominate their representatives to the media?   


Yeah,  it's a little far fetched,  and perhaps this is an unworkable idea,   but how about we think along these lines for awhile.   Make the "Fourth Estate"  more subject to the process of democracy rather than oligarchy.   

[RoosGirl]

@Emjay, that's just not correct.  Try this one, for instance:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285806.0/topicseen.html

I have observed that people of low integrity often renege on promises they make.

[DiogenesLamp]

@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. 

And calling other people "Keyboard warriors"  and maligning their intent is yours.   

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

Yes I have,  and for some reason people like you keep deliberately lying about it and then pretending outrage at your own fake ideas which you have substituted for mine. 

Apparently being clear about what I want doesn't work,  and perhaps I need to try something else,  but I wasn't quite prepared to deal with people who had no ethical qualms about distorting other peoples statements into one of their own personal bugaboos. 

[roamer_1]

Since we are just spitballing here,  how about this?   We leave it up to the parties to nominate or certify Journalists to be members in good standing.   The parties already nominate platform committee members,  and members for all sorts of committees,  so why would it be so difficult for party conventions to nominate their representatives to the media?   

REALLY? That makes the dreadful mistake of concatenating Conservatism with Republicans.
Bad idea.
Do you really want Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham defining what Conservatism is?
OMG, what a bad idea.

[Emjay]

I have to cite one more quote on the topic of fairness.

This one is from Blue Bloods.

One of the kids was complaining at dinner about something going on at school.

"It's not fair," he said.

The Patriach replied,  "No, Sean, sometimes life isn't fair ... but YOU can be."

[roamer_1]

The Patriach replied,  "No, Sean, sometimes life isn't fair ... but YOU can be."

That's right. The minute it is dictated, and indoctrinated, it can no longer be.
FAIRNESS is a myth.
MERIT is a function upon which to base things.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Warning labels on "news" media would be a hoot!   Much of the problem with them is the belief among the public that they are honest and objective.    If they had to run a disclaimer every time they get political,  that would inform the public that they are promoting one side's perspective. 

[Free Vulcan]

And what a coincidence that this backfiring on them has seemingly only started recently,  say in just about the period Trump has been campaigning.   Weird,  huh?

Trump is arguably the first since Gingrich to fight back, and when that happens we defeat them. When we don't we lose, like W did in '06. Reality is Dems have only controlled the WH and Congress at the same time 4 years of the last 25 and the GOP hasn't been much of an adversary for most of that.

I remember during Obama,  there was no backfiring on them.  Neither during George W Bush's  or Clinton's presidency was there any backfiring on them,   but just since the era of Trump began,   the media has suddenly been subjected to a lot of backfiring.

   

Clinton and Obama both lost their congressional majorities they started with. Bush lost his because he put up no fight whatsoever, and still held it 6 years.

They may be a wounded lion,  but they are still a lion.   They have done great damage since they helped kick Nixon out of the Whitehouse,  (and even earlier)  and perhaps they are dying of old age now,  but for decades they have successfully manipulated elections and the people,  and we should not take any chances that they will recover.

 

True, but I'm not willing to do anything that's going to be a future precedent that will apply to all media.

There is no bandwidth issues on the internet that create a natural monopoly of too much spectrum under the control of too few players.  Any monopoly on the internet will be caused by the people who own the infrastructure deliberately censoring views they don't like,  in the manner Goolag,  Fascist book,  and Twitfest have already done.   

Their censorship hasn't seemed to help their cause. While they are big players, the internet is just too big for them to control it. Their political effect is pretty muted.






They are using the behemoths that control the internet now to re institute the same sort of control they now have with the monopoly broadcasting networks. 

Did you see where the hosting company informed "Gab"  that they would not longer provide service for them?

[DiogenesLamp]

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?  ^-^

They don't seem to think the weapon is already created and being used against them right now.

Cute isn't it?   

[DiogenesLamp]

Just bake the damned cake!

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

I don't want "creativity"  in the news.  I want droll boring recitation of facts that don't get interpreted "creatively"  by left wing partisans with a world view they are trying to sell.   


"Creativity" in the news makes it not news,  it makes it "Propaganda."   "News"  does not require "creativity."   


I also don't want "creativity"  in deciding that certain news injurious to the party of government isn't fit to broadcast.   I want news that has a potential of informing the public on salient issues to be put before them without "creatively"  censoring the content.   

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

When the baker has to get a government license for a monopolized cake baking industry,   I will argue we need to let everyone bake cakes.     

Everyone with a license is part of a cartel that promotes only one type of cake.   There is no potential to go to any other broadcaster for a different type of cake,  you will only get the Liberal approved cake,  and you won't get any other.   

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Well thank you.   I think,  I philosophize,  and I solve problems.   I'm glad to see my input is appreciated.   

[DiogenesLamp]

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. 

Government created the problem  by creating the monopoly.   If the government were not already involved,  we could simply broadcast on the same channels and override their signals,  but the government would stop us if we did that. 


The *NECESSITY*  is communicating with the public.    I don't care how that *NECESSITY*  is accomplished.


   A man desperate to feed his family will steal bread.    It may be illegal,  but necessity compels a man to do what he must. 


As I said,  I don't care if we drop an asteroid on the media broadcasting system.   What I care about is destroying the existing monopoly,  and any weapon that can be brought to bear against it ought to be used. 


The media corps are the "Air Force"  for the Democrat party,  and until we stop them from bombing and strafing us,  we are never going to win the war. 

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

The government already uses the power to enforce the existing unfairness.   But people are okay with that for some strange reason. 

[aligncare]

Listen, I understand that you're a NeverRoosGirl, but you clearly have misunderstood what I wrote.

My apologies. Alas, I quoted the wrong post. I’ll try it again later.

[Cyber Liberty]

Government created the problem  by creating the monopoly.   If the government were not already involved,  we could simply broadcast on the same channels and override their signals,  but the government would stop us if we did that. 


The *NECESSITY*  is communicating with the public.    I don't care how that *NECESSITY*  is accomplished.


   A man desperate to feed his family will steal bread.    It may be illegal,  but necessity compels a man to do what he must. 


As I said,  I don't care if we drop an asteroid on the media broadcasting system.   What I care about is destroying the existing monopoly,  and any weapon that can be brought to bear against it ought to be used. 


The media corps are the "Air Force"  for the Democrat party,  and until we stop them from bombing and strafing us,  we are never going to win the war.

I had something to say, but upon reading this I've decided it would be lost on you.

[roamer_1]

The government already uses the power to enforce the existing unfairness.   But people are okay with that for some strange reason.

Conservatives are not.

[Frank Cannon]

Listen, I understand that you're a NeverRoosGirl...

Is that a new club? Can I join up?

[DiogenesLamp]

However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news: the FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.”

The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of such rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene. For additional information about news distortion, see Broadcast Journalism Complaints.

Yes,  I knew that was in there because i've read broadcast law for professional reasons.   It is exactly like the NFL having a rule that says players must stand for the anthem,  and then not enforcing it. 


The FCC hasn't enforced any of the rules because the corporations that run these are so big and powerful and they can and do hire expensive lawyers to run interference.   The FCC can't touch them without the public will and the executive will to back them up. 


A point I hadn't yet brought up about why Trump's tweet about pulling their license might have other positive benefits is because it has the potential to make them clean up their game without anyone actually having to do anything other than saying: 


"I'm watching you." 

[Cyber Liberty]

Is that a new club? Can I join up?

I thought you were already chapter President....