The Press is Unduly Influencing Politics

[Marion Morrison]

This is not about what is, but what ought to be. First Amendment ensures a free press. This is an implicit check on the government. Like all checks, the goal is to prevent power from becoming concentrated. Concentrated power can facilitate tyranny, and that will not be tolerated. But there is no effective check on the press, which leaves them vulnerable to corruption and being commandeered by a particular political faction.

The problem is that the press is not independent from the political process today. Their number one motivation, clearly, is money. There is not necessarily anything wrong with a profit motive, and it is certainly preferable to government subsides. However, the major media companies are owned by huge conglomerates of organizations and it is very easy for them to conceal conflicts that compromise their independence.

Moreover, the profit motive is of such high priority in today's chosen media business model that the motivation is to produce story after story to fill the short, recurring news cycles. For example, there is the fake news where the alleged facts in the story are false. This is when the media reports that the Atlanta Falcons beat New England in this year's Super Bowl. Such a story is fake. But then there is also "fake news" in which the reported facts may be true, but the spin is fake. Therefore, it does not even approach the threshold necessary to deem it news or newsworthy. An example of "fake news" is that the nation was rooting for Atlanta to win the Super Bowl because Tom Brady is a friend of Trump, and that Trump supporters feel vindicated by the Patriots' Super Bowl win. Neither of these two stories are newsworthy. What's worse is that the media will fill news cycles with "fake news" involving actual newsworthy individuals. This is when it gets dangerous.

Finally, news organizations can themselves be biased. No sane person can watch CNN or MSNBC and not conclude that there is a leftist, anti-Trump bias. Over 20 years ago I took a poly sci course on media in college as an undergrad. The professor was a leftist pig. The overriding theme taught in that class was that the media is anti-establishment, meaning that they will be tough on everyone in power. It was a good point, I thought. But then watching the media slam Bush, then get wet over Obama, then furiously attack Trump, leads me to conclude that while the media may have some institutional anti-establishment bias, they can clearly have political bias too.

The media has taken sides. They have chosen to be anti-Trump and pro-Democrat. This is unacceptable and outside of the bounds of the constitution. You cannot have a free press if the Gov regulates it, OR if the media chooses sides.

Where are the checks on the press? There are none. The FCC cannot legally regulate political content. Free market principles do not apply because the major broadcast organizations have a virtual monopoly. Social media and online sources have made a big difference. Kudos for this. But the big broadcast media grosses GOBS and GOBS of revenue. The free market cannot be an effective check on the big boys.

There is nothing indicating that the content of the media cannot be regulated. Doing so is not necessarily inconsistent with a "free press". All we need is an effective check on media power to keep them accountable to the people. For example, maybe we create an FCC-like, independent and bipartisan panel to monitor content and assign a bias rating to each licensed media outlet. The bias rating is published so that people can make an informed decision on where they get their news and information. The president can appoint the panel members, subject to Senate approval, and the panel should have to provide and annual public accounting to Congress. Further, the panel should have a mandate to rate every licensed media organization and to provide a written factual basis for their rating. The panel cannot shut down or punish anyone. They merely make a factually based rating and publish it. Call is "FIB"... Facts in Broadcasting. The FIB Panel issues its annual "FIB Ratings."

Something has got to be done because today's broadcast media's business model, bias, and love affair with "Fake News" is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.

The level of your bias is astounding here. Different media organizations do lean one way or the other, and some lean more than others...however, painting the entire media as being anti-Trump and pro-Democrat is absurd. Fox News absolutely dominates TV news ratings...which remains the primary source of information for voters...and you would be hard pressed to say Fox is anti-Trump or pro-Democrat. Furthermore the persistence of online media has led to a slew of alternate news sites, many of which are frequently peddled on these forums, which are even more biased than you seem to be.

With that being said, a non-governmental regulatory agency, funded by the people and not the government would be helpful. I agree with the basic premise that there are big news organizations out there that just publish verifiably false information. Fox News perhaps being the most egregious of all the big media corporations. However, it would also help to force a level of truth and objectivity on other information sources, like Brietbart or the various Facebook "News" aggregator sites. These things publish wholesomely untrue "information" more often than not and really do need to be shut down or regulated.

Fox news is the same old AP articles with a hair of right spin on it.

The issue with Fox is the same as the issue with the left-leaning media like MSNBC or CNN...it isn't just their spin (which can be far more than "with a hair")...it is the fact that they will leave out information that doesn't fulfill their narrative. My father is retired and watches Fox News...pretty much every minute he isn't sleeping...so, in theory, he should be far more informed about things than I am. However, whenever I bring up a point to back up my viewpoints...he'll say he's never heard about it. Now, he is old, but the most likely scenario here is that his sole media source, Fox News, simply doesn't give airtime to information that works against their narrative.

Again, this is the same on both sides of the line. It is why I would agree that we need a bit more regulation as the amount we currently maintain is not enough to keep people properly informed. We live more in an age of disinformation rather than information since people are allowed to shelter themselves in echo chambers that only tells them a reinforcing side of the story to back their viewpoints.

An NGO is not the answer. There are provisions in the FCC. All that would have to be done is roll back one rule.


I can't recall what it is right now.

 

[danielpalos]

This is not about what is, but what ought to be. First Amendment ensures a free press. This is an implicit check on the government. Like all checks, the goal is to prevent power from becoming concentrated. Concentrated power can facilitate tyranny, and that will not be tolerated. But there is no effective check on the press, which leaves them vulnerable to corruption and being commandeered by a particular political faction.

The problem is that the press is not independent from the political process today. Their number one motivation, clearly, is money. There is not necessarily anything wrong with a profit motive, and it is certainly preferable to government subsides. However, the major media companies are owned by huge conglomerates of organizations and it is very easy for them to conceal conflicts that compromise their independence.

Moreover, the profit motive is of such high priority in today's chosen media business model that the motivation is to produce story after story to fill the short, recurring news cycles. For example, there is the fake news where the alleged facts in the story are false. This is when the media reports that the Atlanta Falcons beat New England in this year's Super Bowl. Such a story is fake. But then there is also "fake news" in which the reported facts may be true, but the spin is fake. Therefore, it does not even approach the threshold necessary to deem it news or newsworthy. An example of "fake news" is that the nation was rooting for Atlanta to win the Super Bowl because Tom Brady is a friend of Trump, and that Trump supporters feel vindicated by the Patriots' Super Bowl win. Neither of these two stories are newsworthy. What's worse is that the media will fill news cycles with "fake news" involving actual newsworthy individuals. This is when it gets dangerous.

Finally, news organizations can themselves be biased. No sane person can watch CNN or MSNBC and not conclude that there is a leftist, anti-Trump bias. Over 20 years ago I took a poly sci course on media in college as an undergrad. The professor was a leftist pig. The overriding theme taught in that class was that the media is anti-establishment, meaning that they will be tough on everyone in power. It was a good point, I thought. But then watching the media slam Bush, then get wet over Obama, then furiously attack Trump, leads me to conclude that while the media may have some institutional anti-establishment bias, they can clearly have political bias too.

The media has taken sides. They have chosen to be anti-Trump and pro-Democrat. This is unacceptable and outside of the bounds of the constitution. You cannot have a free press if the Gov regulates it, OR if the media chooses sides.

Where are the checks on the press? There are none. The FCC cannot legally regulate political content. Free market principles do not apply because the major broadcast organizations have a virtual monopoly. Social media and online sources have made a big difference. Kudos for this. But the big broadcast media grosses GOBS and GOBS of revenue. The free market cannot be an effective check on the big boys.

There is nothing indicating that the content of the media cannot be regulated. Doing so is not necessarily inconsistent with a "free press". All we need is an effective check on media power to keep them accountable to the people. For example, maybe we create an FCC-like, independent and bipartisan panel to monitor content and assign a bias rating to each licensed media outlet. The bias rating is published so that people can make an informed decision on where they get their news and information. The president can appoint the panel members, subject to Senate approval, and the panel should have to provide and annual public accounting to Congress. Further, the panel should have a mandate to rate every licensed media organization and to provide a written factual basis for their rating. The panel cannot shut down or punish anyone. They merely make a factually based rating and publish it. Call is "FIB"... Facts in Broadcasting. The FIB Panel issues its annual "FIB Ratings."

Something has got to be done because today's broadcast media's business model, bias, and love affair with "Fake News" is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.

dude; Hearst purchased a newspaper to get himself into office. just rich guys with gold, wanting to make some rules, on a potentially, for-profit basis.

Yeah... Danielpalos, just move along.

nothing but diversion?

 

[danielpalos]

This is not about what is, but what ought to be. First Amendment ensures a free press. This is an implicit check on the government. Like all checks, the goal is to prevent power from becoming concentrated. Concentrated power can facilitate tyranny, and that will not be tolerated. But there is no effective check on the press, which leaves them vulnerable to corruption and being commandeered by a particular political faction.

The problem is that the press is not independent from the political process today. Their number one motivation, clearly, is money. There is not necessarily anything wrong with a profit motive, and it is certainly preferable to government subsides. However, the major media companies are owned by huge conglomerates of organizations and it is very easy for them to conceal conflicts that compromise their independence.

Moreover, the profit motive is of such high priority in today's chosen media business model that the motivation is to produce story after story to fill the short, recurring news cycles. For example, there is the fake news where the alleged facts in the story are false. This is when the media reports that the Atlanta Falcons beat New England in this year's Super Bowl. Such a story is fake. But then there is also "fake news" in which the reported facts may be true, but the spin is fake. Therefore, it does not even approach the threshold necessary to deem it news or newsworthy. An example of "fake news" is that the nation was rooting for Atlanta to win the Super Bowl because Tom Brady is a friend of Trump, and that Trump supporters feel vindicated by the Patriots' Super Bowl win. Neither of these two stories are newsworthy. What's worse is that the media will fill news cycles with "fake news" involving actual newsworthy individuals. This is when it gets dangerous.

Finally, news organizations can themselves be biased. No sane person can watch CNN or MSNBC and not conclude that there is a leftist, anti-Trump bias. Over 20 years ago I took a poly sci course on media in college as an undergrad. The professor was a leftist pig. The overriding theme taught in that class was that the media is anti-establishment, meaning that they will be tough on everyone in power. It was a good point, I thought. But then watching the media slam Bush, then get wet over Obama, then furiously attack Trump, leads me to conclude that while the media may have some institutional anti-establishment bias, they can clearly have political bias too.

The media has taken sides. They have chosen to be anti-Trump and pro-Democrat. This is unacceptable and outside of the bounds of the constitution. You cannot have a free press if the Gov regulates it, OR if the media chooses sides.

Where are the checks on the press? There are none. The FCC cannot legally regulate political content. Free market principles do not apply because the major broadcast organizations have a virtual monopoly. Social media and online sources have made a big difference. Kudos for this. But the big broadcast media grosses GOBS and GOBS of revenue. The free market cannot be an effective check on the big boys.

There is nothing indicating that the content of the media cannot be regulated. Doing so is not necessarily inconsistent with a "free press". All we need is an effective check on media power to keep them accountable to the people. For example, maybe we create an FCC-like, independent and bipartisan panel to monitor content and assign a bias rating to each licensed media outlet. The bias rating is published so that people can make an informed decision on where they get their news and information. The president can appoint the panel members, subject to Senate approval, and the panel should have to provide and annual public accounting to Congress. Further, the panel should have a mandate to rate every licensed media organization and to provide a written factual basis for their rating. The panel cannot shut down or punish anyone. They merely make a factually based rating and publish it. Call is "FIB"... Facts in Broadcasting. The FIB Panel issues its annual "FIB Ratings."

Something has got to be done because today's broadcast media's business model, bias, and love affair with "Fake News" is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.

MSM was unable to deliver the presidency to Clinton. They have failed miserably and have become increasingly irrelevant through their own actions.

Not that many people consider them anything more than high-profile hacks in today's political environment. Trump's victory is undeniable proof of just that.

Only the right wing prefers Wikileaks to MSM, for wellness of information.

 

[danielpalos]

Wikileaks unduly influence politics.

 

[Meathead]

This is not about what is, but what ought to be. First Amendment ensures a free press. This is an implicit check on the government. Like all checks, the goal is to prevent power from becoming concentrated. Concentrated power can facilitate tyranny, and that will not be tolerated. But there is no effective check on the press, which leaves them vulnerable to corruption and being commandeered by a particular political faction.

The problem is that the press is not independent from the political process today. Their number one motivation, clearly, is money. There is not necessarily anything wrong with a profit motive, and it is certainly preferable to government subsides. However, the major media companies are owned by huge conglomerates of organizations and it is very easy for them to conceal conflicts that compromise their independence.

Moreover, the profit motive is of such high priority in today's chosen media business model that the motivation is to produce story after story to fill the short, recurring news cycles. For example, there is the fake news where the alleged facts in the story are false. This is when the media reports that the Atlanta Falcons beat New England in this year's Super Bowl. Such a story is fake. But then there is also "fake news" in which the reported facts may be true, but the spin is fake. Therefore, it does not even approach the threshold necessary to deem it news or newsworthy. An example of "fake news" is that the nation was rooting for Atlanta to win the Super Bowl because Tom Brady is a friend of Trump, and that Trump supporters feel vindicated by the Patriots' Super Bowl win. Neither of these two stories are newsworthy. What's worse is that the media will fill news cycles with "fake news" involving actual newsworthy individuals. This is when it gets dangerous.

Finally, news organizations can themselves be biased. No sane person can watch CNN or MSNBC and not conclude that there is a leftist, anti-Trump bias. Over 20 years ago I took a poly sci course on media in college as an undergrad. The professor was a leftist pig. The overriding theme taught in that class was that the media is anti-establishment, meaning that they will be tough on everyone in power. It was a good point, I thought. But then watching the media slam Bush, then get wet over Obama, then furiously attack Trump, leads me to conclude that while the media may have some institutional anti-establishment bias, they can clearly have political bias too.

The media has taken sides. They have chosen to be anti-Trump and pro-Democrat. This is unacceptable and outside of the bounds of the constitution. You cannot have a free press if the Gov regulates it, OR if the media chooses sides.

Where are the checks on the press? There are none. The FCC cannot legally regulate political content. Free market principles do not apply because the major broadcast organizations have a virtual monopoly. Social media and online sources have made a big difference. Kudos for this. But the big broadcast media grosses GOBS and GOBS of revenue. The free market cannot be an effective check on the big boys.

There is nothing indicating that the content of the media cannot be regulated. Doing so is not necessarily inconsistent with a "free press". All we need is an effective check on media power to keep them accountable to the people. For example, maybe we create an FCC-like, independent and bipartisan panel to monitor content and assign a bias rating to each licensed media outlet. The bias rating is published so that people can make an informed decision on where they get their news and information. The president can appoint the panel members, subject to Senate approval, and the panel should have to provide and annual public accounting to Congress. Further, the panel should have a mandate to rate every licensed media organization and to provide a written factual basis for their rating. The panel cannot shut down or punish anyone. They merely make a factually based rating and publish it. Call is "FIB"... Facts in Broadcasting. The FIB Panel issues its annual "FIB Ratings."

Something has got to be done because today's broadcast media's business model, bias, and love affair with "Fake News" is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.

MSM was unable to deliver the presidency to Clinton. They have failed miserably and have become increasingly irrelevant through their own actions.

Not that many people consider them anything more than high-profile hacks in today's political environment. Trump's victory is undeniable proof of just that.

Only the right wing prefers Wikileaks to MSM, for wellness of information.

The irony is that Wikileaks is real. The fake news is in MSM. Go figure.

 

[initforme]

TThe press is profit driven...of course it is. In america its all about profit. If you don't lime it you are not a capitalist. The press is comprised of private corporations. They aren't and shouldn't be in it for america...just lime every other corporation. Profit first...country last. That's the nation we are.

 

[Rob37]

-Voters are increasingly taking the
media's side in his fights with
them
. The New York Times has re
peatedly been a target of Trump's attacks, but
voters say they think the Times had more
credibility than them 52/37. Trump
seems to be losing ground in that conflic
t- he was only down 51/42 a week ago.
The Presidency has been so diminished over
the last 3 weeks that voters even say
Saturday Night Live has more credibility than Trump, 48/43.
On another note it was unclear last week
whether Donald Trump really knew who
Frederick Douglass was, and it turns out that puts him in pretty good alignment
with his party base. Only 47% of Trump
voters know that Frederick Douglass is
dead, compared to 78% of Clinton voters who know that. Even though they
evidently need it, Trump voters aren't
very excited about Black History Month.
Only 45% of them have a favorable opinion
of it, to 35% with a negative one. By
contrast it's 81/9 for Clinton voters. An
d in yet another measure of the terrible
economic anxiety gripping Trump voters
though, 46% of them think there should
be a White History Month to 36% opposed
to that concept. They may not get far
with that though, since only 28% of voters
overall are in favor of such a thing to
58% opposed.

Wtf was the point of all THAT, Luddly old buddy?

 

[Rob37]

This is not about what is, but what ought to be. First Amendment ensures a free press. This is an implicit check on the government. Like all checks, the goal is to prevent power from becoming concentrated. Concentrated power can facilitate tyranny, and that will not be tolerated. But there is no effective check on the press, which leaves them vulnerable to corruption and being commandeered by a particular political faction.

The problem is that the press is not independent from the political process today. Their number one motivation, clearly, is money. There is not necessarily anything wrong with a profit motive, and it is certainly preferable to government subsides. However, the major media companies are owned by huge conglomerates of organizations and it is very easy for them to conceal conflicts that compromise their independence.

Moreover, the profit motive is of such high priority in today's chosen media business model that the motivation is to produce story after story to fill the short, recurring news cycles. For example, there is the fake news where the alleged facts in the story are false. This is when the media reports that the Atlanta Falcons beat New England in this year's Super Bowl. Such a story is fake. But then there is also "fake news" in which the reported facts may be true, but the spin is fake. Therefore, it does not even approach the threshold necessary to deem it news or newsworthy. An example of "fake news" is that the nation was rooting for Atlanta to win the Super Bowl because Tom Brady is a friend of Trump, and that Trump supporters feel vindicated by the Patriots' Super Bowl win. Neither of these two stories are newsworthy. What's worse is that the media will fill news cycles with "fake news" involving actual newsworthy individuals. This is when it gets dangerous.

Finally, news organizations can themselves be biased. No sane person can watch CNN or MSNBC and not conclude that there is a leftist, anti-Trump bias. Over 20 years ago I took a poly sci course on media in college as an undergrad. The professor was a leftist pig. The overriding theme taught in that class was that the media is anti-establishment, meaning that they will be tough on everyone in power. It was a good point, I thought. But then watching the media slam Bush, then get wet over Obama, then furiously attack Trump, leads me to conclude that while the media may have some institutional anti-establishment bias, they can clearly have political bias too.

The media has taken sides. They have chosen to be anti-Trump and pro-Democrat. This is unacceptable and outside of the bounds of the constitution. You cannot have a free press if the Gov regulates it, OR if the media chooses sides.

Where are the checks on the press? There are none. The FCC cannot legally regulate political content. Free market principles do not apply because the major broadcast organizations have a virtual monopoly. Social media and online sources have made a big difference. Kudos for this. But the big broadcast media grosses GOBS and GOBS of revenue. The free market cannot be an effective check on the big boys.

There is nothing indicating that the content of the media cannot be regulated. Doing so is not necessarily inconsistent with a "free press". All we need is an effective check on media power to keep them accountable to the people. For example, maybe we create an FCC-like, independent and bipartisan panel to monitor content and assign a bias rating to each licensed media outlet. The bias rating is published so that people can make an informed decision on where they get their news and information. The president can appoint the panel members, subject to Senate approval, and the panel should have to provide and annual public accounting to Congress. Further, the panel should have a mandate to rate every licensed media organization and to provide a written factual basis for their rating. The panel cannot shut down or punish anyone. They merely make a factually based rating and publish it. Call is "FIB"... Facts in Broadcasting. The FIB Panel issues its annual "FIB Ratings."

Something has got to be done because today's broadcast media's business model, bias, and love affair with "Fake News" is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.

The level of your bias is astounding here. Different media organizations do lean one way or the other, and some lean more than others...however, painting the entire media as being anti-Trump and pro-Democrat is absurd. Fox News absolutely dominates TV news ratings...which remains the primary source of information for voters...and you would be hard pressed to say Fox is anti-Trump or pro-Democrat. Furthermore the persistence of online media has led to a slew of alternate news sites, many of which are frequently peddled on these forums, which are even more biased than you seem to be.

With that being said, a non-governmental regulatory agency, funded by the people and not the government would be helpful. I agree with the basic premise that there are big news organizations out there that just publish verifiably false information. Fox News perhaps being the most egregious of all the big media corporations. However, it would also help to force a level of truth and objectivity on other information sources, like Brietbart or the various Facebook "News" aggregator sites. These things publish wholesomely untrue "information" more often than not and really do need to be shut down or regulated.

They all ought to be subject to the same standards.

 

[Rob37]

The OP thinks that CNN is fake news and that Trump is truthful.

Nothing else need be said.

Yeah, well Lone Homo is a leftist douche, so I don't bother to read his excrement.

 

[initforme]

Capitalism is about profit. Any way you can make money you make it. This is the definition of america. Now those of you who preach this don't like it. I smell hypocrite.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Twice on election nite when Jake Tapper was describing what Hilly needed to do to win he said we, not she......

 

[NYcarbineer]

The American Right has put together the biggest media propaganda machine in the history of media and still you get people like the OP complaining.

Which, btw, is part of rightwing propaganda - never stop complaining about a mythical media advantage of the opposition,

no matter how ridiculous that claim is.

 

[initforme]

The press ius private...which you clamor for. The press hard people working and not collecting unemp!oyment which you clamor for. The press makes uber money which you worship. Now its no good. Wow hypocrisy reigns.

 

[Rob37]

The American Right has put together the biggest media propaganda machine in the history of media and still you get people like the OP complaining.

Which, btw, is part of rightwing propaganda - never stop complaining about a mythical media advantage of the opposition,

no matter how ridiculous that claim is.

You are high, Carbineer. The right has Fox and some talk radio, and not all of us are huge fans. Add to that some online stuff. The left has the 3 networks, CNN, MSNBC, talk radio and online stuff. True, Fox has the best ratings. But that is your problem, not ours. Add to that the fact that there is apparently some collusion from time to time between media and the DNC, and the fact that the leftist media outlets are clearly balls to the wall anti-Trump, and you see what is really going on.

Now look what you did. You got me all worked up over some nonsense posted by a degenerate leftist schmuck. Damn you, Carbine! I hope a snake swims up into your toilet bowel from the pipes the next time you are taking a squat and bites you right on the balls.

 

[Reasonable]

Damn that press for fact checking all of Trump's lies. Damn them.
Why do you think the Prez Man/ Child is at war with them?
They're getting in the way of his ascent to his dictatorship whereas all the Trump whores are willing participants.
We dont need no judicial system. We don't need no checks and balances. The Supreme Leader and only him will decide what is true.

As a matter of fact Trump said last week no one should believe ANYTHING unless it comes from the White House.
And you DEPLORABLES have no trouble with that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The American Right has put together the biggest media propaganda machine in the history of media and still you get people like the OP complaining.

Which, btw, is part of rightwing propaganda - never stop complaining about a mythical media advantage of the opposition,

no matter how ridiculous that claim is.

You are high, Carbineer. The right has Fox and some talk radio, and not all of us are huge fans. Add to that some online stuff. The left has the 3 networks, CNN, MSNBC, talk radio and online stuff. True, Fox has the best ratings. But that is your problem, not ours. Add to that the fact that there is apparently some collusion from time to time between media and the DNC, and the fact that the leftist media outlets are clearly balls to the wall anti-Trump, and you see what is really going on.

Now look what you did. You got me all worked up over some nonsense posted by a degenerate leftist schmuck. Damn you, Carbine! I hope a snake swims up into your toilet bowel from the pipes the next time you are taking a squat and bites you right on the balls.

1. The Right almost totally dominates talk radio and has for 20 years.

2. The Right has a far bigger presence on the internet than does the left

3. There are absolutely NO barriers to entry for conservatives to have as many TV channels as they would please.

You are making up nonsense.

 

[Rob37]

The American Right has put together the biggest media propaganda machine in the history of media and still you get people like the OP complaining.

Which, btw, is part of rightwing propaganda - never stop complaining about a mythical media advantage of the opposition,

no matter how ridiculous that claim is.

You are high, Carbineer. The right has Fox and some talk radio, and not all of us are huge fans. Add to that some online stuff. The left has the 3 networks, CNN, MSNBC, talk radio and online stuff. True, Fox has the best ratings. But that is your problem, not ours. Add to that the fact that there is apparently some collusion from time to time between media and the DNC, and the fact that the leftist media outlets are clearly balls to the wall anti-Trump, and you see what is really going on.

Now look what you did. You got me all worked up over some nonsense posted by a degenerate leftist schmuck. Damn you, Carbine! I hope a snake swims up into your toilet bowel from the pipes the next time you are taking a squat and bites you right on the balls.

1. The Right almost totally dominates talk radio and has for 20 years.

2. The Right has a far bigger presence on the internet than does the left

3. There are absolutely NO barriers to entry for conservatives to have as many TV channels as they would please.

You are making up nonsense.

Sounds like someone is Getting weepy. You getting weepy, lil feller?

 

[danielpalos]

This is not about what is, but what ought to be. First Amendment ensures a free press. This is an implicit check on the government. Like all checks, the goal is to prevent power from becoming concentrated. Concentrated power can facilitate tyranny, and that will not be tolerated. But there is no effective check on the press, which leaves them vulnerable to corruption and being commandeered by a particular political faction.

The problem is that the press is not independent from the political process today. Their number one motivation, clearly, is money. There is not necessarily anything wrong with a profit motive, and it is certainly preferable to government subsides. However, the major media companies are owned by huge conglomerates of organizations and it is very easy for them to conceal conflicts that compromise their independence.

Moreover, the profit motive is of such high priority in today's chosen media business model that the motivation is to produce story after story to fill the short, recurring news cycles. For example, there is the fake news where the alleged facts in the story are false. This is when the media reports that the Atlanta Falcons beat New England in this year's Super Bowl. Such a story is fake. But then there is also "fake news" in which the reported facts may be true, but the spin is fake. Therefore, it does not even approach the threshold necessary to deem it news or newsworthy. An example of "fake news" is that the nation was rooting for Atlanta to win the Super Bowl because Tom Brady is a friend of Trump, and that Trump supporters feel vindicated by the Patriots' Super Bowl win. Neither of these two stories are newsworthy. What's worse is that the media will fill news cycles with "fake news" involving actual newsworthy individuals. This is when it gets dangerous.

Finally, news organizations can themselves be biased. No sane person can watch CNN or MSNBC and not conclude that there is a leftist, anti-Trump bias. Over 20 years ago I took a poly sci course on media in college as an undergrad. The professor was a leftist pig. The overriding theme taught in that class was that the media is anti-establishment, meaning that they will be tough on everyone in power. It was a good point, I thought. But then watching the media slam Bush, then get wet over Obama, then furiously attack Trump, leads me to conclude that while the media may have some institutional anti-establishment bias, they can clearly have political bias too.

The media has taken sides. They have chosen to be anti-Trump and pro-Democrat. This is unacceptable and outside of the bounds of the constitution. You cannot have a free press if the Gov regulates it, OR if the media chooses sides.

Where are the checks on the press? There are none. The FCC cannot legally regulate political content. Free market principles do not apply because the major broadcast organizations have a virtual monopoly. Social media and online sources have made a big difference. Kudos for this. But the big broadcast media grosses GOBS and GOBS of revenue. The free market cannot be an effective check on the big boys.

There is nothing indicating that the content of the media cannot be regulated. Doing so is not necessarily inconsistent with a "free press". All we need is an effective check on media power to keep them accountable to the people. For example, maybe we create an FCC-like, independent and bipartisan panel to monitor content and assign a bias rating to each licensed media outlet. The bias rating is published so that people can make an informed decision on where they get their news and information. The president can appoint the panel members, subject to Senate approval, and the panel should have to provide and annual public accounting to Congress. Further, the panel should have a mandate to rate every licensed media organization and to provide a written factual basis for their rating. The panel cannot shut down or punish anyone. They merely make a factually based rating and publish it. Call is "FIB"... Facts in Broadcasting. The FIB Panel issues its annual "FIB Ratings."

Something has got to be done because today's broadcast media's business model, bias, and love affair with "Fake News" is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.

MSM was unable to deliver the presidency to Clinton. They have failed miserably and have become increasingly irrelevant through their own actions.

Not that many people consider them anything more than high-profile hacks in today's political environment. Trump's victory is undeniable proof of just that.

Only the right wing prefers Wikileaks to MSM, for wellness of information.

The irony is that Wikileaks is real. The fake news is in MSM. Go figure.

Just "biased reporting". Where was the wikileak info on Mr. Trump? Paid advertisement was more informative.

 

[blastoff]

If they were unduly influencing, old fat ass would be in the White House today and Willie free to romp with the Energizer Bunny at will.

I feel they came completely out of the media "closet" this past presidential go-round, naked as jaybirds on the Hillary campaign trail, but then it all blew up in everyones' faces. And now that they've been exposed their influence will never be the same and they'll be left serving up pablum to the low information idiots and other losers.