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

[Sanguine]

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.   

I partially agree with you: WE must break leftist control of the network system.  Not the federal government, which is NOT on our side unless it benefits them.

[aligncare]

I partially agree with you: WE must break leftist control of the network system.  Not the federal government, which is NOT on our side unless it benefits them.

Yes, but let’s assume we as constitutional conservatives begin making great strides in electing more like minded people to run for office and winning, in essence draining the swamp. Then we can begin the process of changing the existing institutions of liberal indoctrination, the universities and public schools, which are the feeder systems for the leftists. Isn’t that ultimately our goal?

That alone can begin changing culture so that Hollywood and television become less influential. It’s at that point that some balance can be restored to network news.

[Sanguine]

Yes, but let’s assume we as constitutional conservatives begin making great strides in electing more like minded people to run for office and winning, in essence draining the swamp. Then we can begin the process of changing the existing institutions of liberal indoctrination, the universities and public schools, which are the feeder systems for the leftists. Isn’t that ultimately our goal?

That alone can begin changing culture so that Hollywood and television become less influential. It’s at that point that some balance can be restored to network news.

We can start doing that now.  Why do we need to be elected?

[Bigun]

We can start doing that now.  Why do we need to be elected?

I started long ago!  I do not watch their programming or purchase their print products!

[Sanguine]

The left has been extremely successful carrying out their agenda, and much of it outside the government.  Seems only some on the right think they need the government to be successful.

[DiogenesLamp]

I partially agree with you: WE must break leftist control of the network system.  Not the federal government, which is NOT on our side unless it benefits them.

Ideas on how to do it? 

[Sanguine]

Short answer (because I'm heading out the door) study the tactics of the left. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Short answer (because I'm heading out the door) study the tactics of the left.

I'm not sure that's valid.  The left has been using the muscle of Big Government to gt their way, and we're (supposed to be) philosophically opposed to having Government do our dirty work.

[Sanguine]

I'm not sure that's valid.  The left has been using the muscle of Big Government to gt their way, and we're (supposed to be) philosophically opposed to having Government do our dirty work.

Now, that they have BG.  That is fairly recent.

[Cyber Liberty]

Now, that they have BG.  That is fairly recent.

True.  They started with the culture, and worked their way up.

[DiogenesLamp]

Short answer (because I'm heading out the door) study the tactics of the left.

Their tactic is to take over the broadcast system and monopolize it with fabricated Drama that sell leftist talking points.   


But i'm hearing that a lot of people don't like the idea of us doing the same thing.   

[Sanguine]

Their tactic is to take over the broadcast system and monopolize it with fabricated Drama that sell leftist talking points.   


But i'm hearing that a lot of people don't like the idea of us doing the same thing.

I'm not a lot of people and I'm against the idea of using the feds to enforce content. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Their tactic is to take over the broadcast system and monopolize it with fabricated Drama that sell leftist talking points.   


But i'm hearing that a lot of people don't like the idea of us doing the same thing.

Speaking for myself, that's not what I'm saying (although that's apparently what you are hearing).  I've said consistently through this thread I agree, but I don't want Big Government enforcing my idea of equality on the media.  You have equally consistently said that means I don't want to be heard, and that's a distortion of what I've been saying. 

That's why I'd pretty much given up trying to explain it.

[Neverdul]

Their tactic is to take over the broadcast system and monopolize it with fabricated Drama that sell leftist talking points.   But i'm hearing that a lot of people don't like the idea of us doing the same thing.

So you are in favor of monopolizing the media and pushing fabricated drama to sell your points as long as the fabrications and drama sells your POV?

Just as I long ago realized: scratch the surface of a far right authoritarian or alt-right winger and you will find in them a brethren of the far left. Fascists on either side of the Fascists coin are still Fascists.

Government control or censorship of a free press is not any better when it’s our guys doing it. A jack booted thug stomping my neck to suppress my free speech or on my ear to suppress my access to varied opinions whether I agree with them or not, is not better or worse under a leftist than it is under a rightest regime.



and



applies equally.

[Concerned]

I'm not a lot of people and I'm against the idea of using the feds to enforce content.

Speaking for myself, that's not what I'm saying (although that's apparently what you are hearing).  I've said consistently through this thread I agree, but I don't want Big Government enforcing my idea of equality on the media.  You have equally consistently said that means I don't want to be heard, and that's a distortion of what I've been saying. 

That's why I'd pretty much given up trying to explain it.

You'all aren’t alone.  As a conservative, I just can’t imagine desiring the Federal Government to enforce media content, and I still can’t believe that other conservatives do.

[musiclady]

So you are in favor of monopolizing the media and pushing fabricated drama to sell your points as long as the fabrications and drama sells your POV?

Just as I long ago realized: scratch the surface of a far right authoritarian or alt-right winger and you will find in them a brethren of the far left. Fascists on either side of the Fascists coin are still Fascists.

Government control or censorship of a free press is not any better when it’s our guys doing it. A jack booted thug stomping my neck to suppress my free speech or on my ear to suppress my access to varied opinions whether I agree with them or not, is not better or worse under a leftist than it is under a rightest regime.



and



applies equally.

I'm stealing that!   

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm not a lot of people and I'm against the idea of using the feds to enforce content.

You and others keep saying "Feds"  and "content",  as if you have no better ideas on how to accomplish it.   Come to think of it,   since I have been asking for ideas,  nobody seems to come up with any other than "Feds" and "content."   


I personally don't care how it's done,  but both political parties need to have access to the system,  not one. 

Any proposal that does not allow for my side to use the system to the same extent the other side does is a dead proposal so far as I'm concerned. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Speaking for myself, that's not what I'm saying (although that's apparently what you are hearing).  I've said consistently through this thread I agree, but I don't want Big Government enforcing my idea of equality on the media.

Well your point would be easier to grasp if you would say how it should be accomplished.   All anyone seems to think of is "big government." 


How about someone putting forth some ideas that don't reduce to "big government"? 

[Sanguine]

Well your point would be easier to grasp if you would say how it should be accomplished.   All anyone seems to think of is "big government." 


How about someone putting forth some ideas that don't reduce to "big government"?

I did and you seem to have skipped right over it.

[DiogenesLamp]

So you are in favor of monopolizing the media and pushing fabricated drama to sell your points as long as the fabrications and drama sells your POV?

Why do you have to put "me"  into it?  Why do you have to make it personally about me?   

How about we just take over the d@mn thing and let the Heritage  Foundation run it?  Would that be okay with you?  The point is that it needs to be taken away from the people who currently run it because they are using it to try to kill or enslave us.   

Just as I long ago realized: scratch the surface of a far right authoritarian or alt-right winger and you will find in them a brethren of the far left. Fascists on either side of the Fascists coin are still Fascists.

And there are so many people who are so desperate to "signal"  to everyone that they are oh so proper at opposing all forms of evil,  that they begin to see it everywhere they look. 

Thank God you are not like we Publicans.   

Government control or censorship of a free press is not any better when it’s our guys doing it.

And once more,  no one is suggesting that the government control the press.  I am perfectly happy if we take it over without the government being involved.    The point here is that the "press"  is not free,  and so instead of being their "b*tch",   we ought to be trying to make them into ours.   


You know how you get government control?  You wax moral about how much you oppose it while you allow it to happen through the party of government!   

We are at a point now where you can't see daylight between the media and the Deep State.   



I ignored the rest of your pompous crap.  It's just more of you telling us how very moral you are.  In the meantime we have a war to fight.   

[Neverdul]

Why do you have to put "me"  into it?  Why do you have to make it personally about me?   

How about we just take over the d@mn thing and let the Heritage  Foundation run it?  Would that be okay with you?  The point is that it needs to be taken away from the people who currently run it because they are using it to try to kill or enslave us.   






And there are so many people who are so desperate to "signal"  to everyone that they are oh so proper at opposing all forms of evil,  that they begin to see it everywhere they look. 

Thank God you are not like we Publicans.   







And once more,  no one is suggesting that the government control the press.  I am perfectly happy if we take it over without the government being involved.    The point here is that the "press"  is not free,  and so instead of being their "b*tch",   we ought to be trying to make them into ours.   


You know how you get government control?  You wax moral about how much you oppose it while you allow it to happen through the party of government!   

We are at a point now where you can't see daylight between the media and the Deep State.   



I ignored the rest of your pompous crap.  It's just more of you telling us how very moral you are.  In the meantime we have a war to fight.

The only pompous crap and self defined morality here are your posts @DiogenesLamp. You are so thick in to the bushes of self hypocrisy and paranoia that you can't see the blades of grass from the bushes nor the forest for the trees. You would rather cut the tree of Liberty down to its very roots with the ax that brings fascism as long as it is your brand of fascism, rather than see the slippery slope you are one.

"All trees are kept equal, by hatchet, ax and saw." But in your world just as in the leftists ideal world, some trees (or pigs) are more equal than others.

But carry on with your brand of self righteous fascism and mudslinging at anyone who dares to point it out.   

[aligncare]

True.  They started with the culture, and worked their way up.

Which was the point I was making.

[Smokin Joe]

You'all aren’t alone.  As a conservative, I just can’t imagine desiring the Federal Government to enforce media content, and I still can’t believe that other conservatives do.

Exactly. In all other things we want the ability only to compete in a fair marketplace. So, let's compete. Our ideas are better, and our stories can be just as tear-jerking or euphoric as anything the left produces, only based on sound and moral principles.

[Cyber Liberty]

Which was the point I was making.

Yes, you have.  From the start.

[DCPatriot]

Which was the point I was making.

 

[DiogenesLamp]

You'all aren’t alone.  As a conservative, I just can’t imagine desiring the Federal Government to enforce media content, and I still can’t believe that other conservatives do.

Here we go again.   Stop putting your words in our mouths and then claiming we said them.  Exactly 0 people have suggested that we should allow the Federal Government to control content.   To whom do you refer as "I still can't believe that other conservatives do." ? 

[DiogenesLamp]

I did and you seem to have skipped right over it.

I just looked through four pages of your messages and I didn't see it.  I assume your suggestion is older than that,  and I must have missed it.   


If you could reiterate any ideas on how to deal with this problem,  I would like to hear them.   

[Bigun]

I did and you seem to have skipped right over it.

I did as well and only one person responded.

[DiogenesLamp]

You would rather cut the tree of Liberty down to its very roots with the ax that brings fascism as long as it is your brand of fascism, rather than see the slippery slope you are one.

Because the tree of Liberty is doing just fine right now, isn't it?   Obama was an aberration,  and anyone could have beaten Hillary. 

So you call "fighting back"  "fascism"?   What isn't fascism?  Lying on your side curled up in a fetal position while they elect more socialists?   


Are you just dense?   

You worry more about imaginary future despotism while you meekly accept the real thing creeping into our lives right now.   


Trump is a temporary pause in the march towards real fascism,  and accepting the status quo is going to get us there faster than fighting back.   

[Concerned]

Here we go again.   Stop putting your words in our mouths and then claiming we said them.  Exactly 0 people have suggested that we should allow the Federal Government to control content.   To whom do you refer as "I still can't believe that other conservatives do." ?

Well, throughout this entire thread there's been plenty of discussion around the President's threat to revoke licenses of NBC over what he asserts is "fake news".  Several in this thread have indicated some level of support for that.  I'm against it.  This seems clear enough. 

I'm not going to get into a protracted debate with you about semantics.   

[DiogenesLamp]

Exactly. In all other things we want the ability only to compete in a fair marketplace. So, let's compete. Our ideas are better, and our stories can be just as tear-jerking or euphoric as anything the left produces, only based on sound and moral principles.

The problem with established monopolies is that they stop competition.   Suppose you were a multi millionaire with talent and you could afford to make a wonderful conservative sitcom.  How would you get it on the air?   

How would you reach the people?  How many billions would it take to build a network capable of reaching as many people as do the other networks? 


Remember when Glenn Beck tried to buy a satellite channel?   Rather than sell it to him, I think they sold it to al Jazera. 


How do you break a monopoly that is intent on keeping you out of business?   

[Bigun]

I will say this.  If the oil industry were consolidated to the point the broadcast media currently is the trust busters would be out in full force!

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, throughout this entire thread there's been plenty of discussion around the President's threat to revoke licenses of NBC over what he asserts is "fake news". 

Sounds reasonable to me.  They are in fact in violation of the terms of their licenses by constantly broadcasting blatant propaganda.   What the Federal Government giveth,  the Federal Government can taketh away.   


They can always go back to the "press".   

[RoosGirl]

Sounds reasonable to me.  They are in fact in violation of the terms of their licenses by constantly broadcasting blatant propaganda.   What the Federal Government giveth,  the Federal Government can taketh away.   


They can always go back to the "press".

I know I pointed this out 50 years ago when this thread started, but the story that Trump is railing about per this article actually is true.

[Concerned]

I know I pointed this out 50 years ago when this thread started, but the story that Trump is railing about per this article actually is true.

   And here we go again.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Exactly 0 people have suggested that we should allow the Federal Government to control content.   

LOL.  Exactly ONE person has been demanding Government control of content.

[RoosGirl]

  And here we go again.   

Maybe 700 posts later someone will listen to me.   

[DiogenesLamp]

I know I pointed this out 50 years ago when this thread started, but the story that Trump is railing about per this article actually is true.

Funny,  several days ago I read an article that said it was in fact false,   and it included comments from someone who should know.  General Kelly,  I think.   

I'll see if I can find it. 

[DiogenesLamp]

LOL.  Exactly ONE person has been demanding Government control of content.

And who is that?  I must have missed it. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Maybe 700 posts later someone will listen to me.   

You'll have to do a better job.  This is a competitive market. 

[RoosGirl]

Funny,  several days ago I read an article that said it was in fact false,   and it included comments from someone who should know.  General Kelly,  I think.   

I'll see if I can find it.

Look at the beginning of this thread.  I posted a link to an interview Trump did (with Reuters I think?) and basically said what he said he didn't say.

[RoosGirl]

You'll have to do a better job.  This is a competitive market.

You can lead a horse...

[Bigun]

Here's a perfect example! 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/07/media-fails-in-coverage-of-sen-menendez-corruption-trial/?utm_source=site-share

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

The problem with established monopolies is that they stop competition.   Suppose you were a multi millionaire with talent and you could afford to make a wonderful conservative sitcom.  How would you get it on the air?   

How would you reach the people?  How many billions would it take to build a network capable of reaching as many people as do the other networks? 


Remember when Glenn Beck tried to buy a satellite channel?   Rather than sell it to him, I think they sold it to al Jazera. 


How do you break a monopoly that is intent on keeping you out of business?

Media is not a monopoly, not matter how many times you say it.

A monopoly has:

1) A single entity with control of most of or all of the market.  The fact that the many, many different entities who own/run these businesses have similar political views does not qualify here.

2) Significant barriers to entry.  There are hundreds of networks, and nothing stopping folks from creating their own.  There's Youtube, you can create your own web page.  Printing is easy enough.  Outside MAYBE broadcast, since there is a limited number of frequencies (and broadcast is harder to argue now that analog is dead), media does not present significant barriers to entry.

[aligncare]

Here's a perfect example! 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/07/media-fails-in-coverage-of-sen-menendez-corruption-trial/?utm_source=site-share

Prime example of the power of media to ignore. What Menendez trial?

[DiogenesLamp]

Look at the beginning of this thread.  I posted a link to an interview Trump did (with Reuters I think?) and basically said what he said he didn't say.

I looked at the article you posted.  No where did I see anything suggesting Trump wanted our nuclear arsenal to be 10 times bigger than it is.   

I even did a word search on the article for "10"  and also for "ten".  "10" comes up once as in "10 years",  and "ten"  doesn't come up at all. 



In other words,  he didn't say what NBC claimed he said.  

It appears NBC fabricated that claim. 

I'm also not actually sure how you can claim the NBC article is proved by the reuters article.  It would seem to in fact prove the exact opposite.   

[RoosGirl]

I looked at the article you posted.  No where did I see anything suggesting Trump wanted our nuclear arsenal to be 10 times bigger than it is.   

I even did a word search on the article for "10"  and also for "ten".  "10" comes up once as in "10 years",  and "ten"  doesn't come up at all. 



In other words,  he didn't say what NBC claimed he said.  

It appears NBC fabricated that claim. 

I'm also not actually sure how you can claim the NBC article is proved by the reuters article.  It would seem to in fact prove the exact opposite.

I thought I made it clear when I posted it before that he didn't say the "ten times", but said that it should be increased.

[DiogenesLamp]

Media is not a monopoly, not matter how many times you say it.

A monopoly has:

1) A single entity with control of most of or all of the market.  The fact that the many, many different entities who own/run these businesses have similar political views does not qualify here.

So you we are going to split hairs on the definition are we?   Does Oligarchy sound better to you?  I don't really care what you call it,  it is an enemy force, and it needs to be stopped. 

"Monopoly" is simple,  easy to understand,  and gets the point across. 

2) Significant barriers to entry.  There are hundreds of networks, and nothing stopping folks from creating their own. 

Billions of dollars is a pretty big "nothing".  Just stop it.  It is irrational to believe some investment "angel"  is going to come up with 100 billion dollars to build a competing infrastructure. 


Just stop it. 

There's Youtube,

You are making my case for me.  Youtube has become heavily censored and conservative videos have been demonitized and even removed. 

you can create your own web page.

We are going to slay the Goliaths of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and FOX with a web page?  That's just asinine. 

  Printing is easy enough.

And too pointless to be mentioned.  Even the regular print newspapers are dying,  and they don't reach anything like George Stephanopolis. 

  Outside MAYBE broadcast, since there is a limited number of frequencies (and broadcast is harder to argue now that analog is dead), media does not present significant barriers to entry.

Sure,  just loan me 100 billion and we'll fix this problem.   That's obviously no barrier to entry,  is it?   

[DiogenesLamp]

Prime example of the power of media to ignore. What Menendez trial?

What Hillary/Russia/Uranium/kickback/Sent Spies back to Russia before FBI could question them?/Clinton Foundation scandal?   

What Hollywood pedophile scandal?   

Obviously it is beneficial to the nation to allow left wing censorship in media to prevent the public from knowing about these things.   


Heaven forbid,  if we try to do anything to stop it,  why we might get *CENSORSHIP* or something!   

[DiogenesLamp]

I thought I made it clear when I posted it before that he didn't say the "ten times", but said that it should be increased.

Well I think that is a significant difference.  In fact,  an order of magnitude difference.  "10 times"  sounds like an insane lunatic.   "Increased"  sounds reasonable.   

NBC's effort was to portray him as a lunatic,  and they badly distorted the truth to create that appearance.   

Why would you want to go along with this portrayal of him?  Do you hate him that much that you would cast aside objectivity?