CDZ An idea regarding the American media

[Mac-7]

There are other donut shops for you. You just don't like their donuts.

Nonsense

show me another option that reaches as many people as twitter

there was a thread here yesterday where some lib was rubbing our noses into the crap because trump had been silenced

 

[XponentialChaos]

show me another option that reaches as many people as twitter

They serve donuts. Their store just isn't as big.

Your problem, not mine.

Maybe you guys should put your heads together and build your own donut shop instead of relying on the innovation from Democrats to build big donut shops for you to use. Make your own one and run it however you want.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

That is not nitpicking or semantics on my part. Rather, is an illustration of your monumental failure to understand even the first thing about the very terms you are tossing about.

Semantics.

Have fun with that. Don't care.


The problem here is that you are incapable of viewing the world in terms of principles, but only identity.

The mainstream media has been encouraging this for several decades as it has dumbed down the approach steadily over the years. That is why we are so divided as the identity politics they encourage is divisive by very design.

All you know is what team you are on and the mainstream media has manipulated you into knowing no more than that.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Adding "semantics" to the list of words you do not know.

Neat.

Add "neat" as well.

 

[Mac-7]

Thats not what TR (Teddy Roosevelt) told the nation about Standard Oil

 

[XponentialChaos]

Thats not what TR (Teddy Roosevelt) told the nation about Standard Oil

Let me know when the Supreme Court decides to break up Twitter.

 

[Mac-7]

Let me know when the Supreme Court decides to break up Twitter.

Biden will never do it because Twitter is a beast that serves democrats.

I already know that

so your smug expression of raw power by the leftwing monarchs is not news to me

 

[XponentialChaos]

Biden will never do it because Twitter is a beast that serves democrats.

I said the Supreme Court.

They're the ones who ruled in favor of splitting Standard Oil. Let me know when they rule in favor of splitting Twitter.

 

[Mac-7]

They're the ones who ruled in favor of splitting Standard Oil.

The court did nothing till TR moved to break up Standard Oil

 

[XponentialChaos]

They're the ones who ruled in favor of splitting Standard Oil.

The court did nothing till TR moved to break up Standard Oil

Maybe Trump should have done the same.

Too late now. Sucks for you.

 

[Mac-7]

Maybe Trump should have done the same.

Too late now. Sucks for you.

Thats a typical lib reaction when the logic is against you

just say dems have the power now and screw the little people

 

[boedicca]

This could be a pretty interesting conversation if we can stay calm and focused.

Point 1 - We have a serious and growing problem in this country with a media (across the ideological spectrum) that has (deservedly, in my opinion) lost the trust of the American people. We've all seen and contributed to threads that discuss and catalogue examples of gross bias from both ends of our media.

Point 2 - It's not a stretch to imagine a body that creates, maintains and enforces standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, in such a way as providing guidance to consumers and provides them with more faith that what they are consuming is, indeed, accurate. Before we devolve and divide much further. I don't know about you, but I don't see a bottom to this yet. BUT I'm not fond of the idea of such a body being government-based. For many reasons.

Point 3 - There are two bodies that provide such services in the financial services industry. The first is the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) which is an agency of the US Federal Government. But the second one is FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) that is a private corporation that also policies the industry - but it is the industry's self-regulatory body.

Idea - Could such an industry self-regulatory body work with the press? Theoretically it could (a) maintain and enforce standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, and (b) provide consumers with some kind of roadmap so that they can easily discern fact from opinion. As in, this is an actual news resource, that is an opinion resource.

Look, I'm not going for perfection here. I can already think of some issues with this. I'm looking for (a) some improvement and (b) the hope that such a system would gradually raise standards up to a point at which it was barely needed. THAT would be the goal.

Thoughts? And by the way, if you can think of a problem, perhaps you could also provide a possible solution to discuss. We used to do that, here, in America.

Cliff Notes Version: The OP proposes that the government regulate what the media can publish, which is classic CENSORSHIP.

No thank you. If an individual doesn't trust a media source, he is free to not read, watch or listen to it.

 

[Mac1958]

This could be a pretty interesting conversation if we can stay calm and focused.

Point 1 - We have a serious and growing problem in this country with a media (across the ideological spectrum) that has (deservedly, in my opinion) lost the trust of the American people. We've all seen and contributed to threads that discuss and catalogue examples of gross bias from both ends of our media.

Point 2 - It's not a stretch to imagine a body that creates, maintains and enforces standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, in such a way as providing guidance to consumers and provides them with more faith that what they are consuming is, indeed, accurate. Before we devolve and divide much further. I don't know about you, but I don't see a bottom to this yet. BUT I'm not fond of the idea of such a body being government-based. For many reasons.

Point 3 - There are two bodies that provide such services in the financial services industry. The first is the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) which is an agency of the US Federal Government. But the second one is FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) that is a private corporation that also policies the industry - but it is the industry's self-regulatory body.

Idea - Could such an industry self-regulatory body work with the press? Theoretically it could (a) maintain and enforce standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, and (b) provide consumers with some kind of roadmap so that they can easily discern fact from opinion. As in, this is an actual news resource, that is an opinion resource.

Look, I'm not going for perfection here. I can already think of some issues with this. I'm looking for (a) some improvement and (b) the hope that such a system would gradually raise standards up to a point at which it was barely needed. THAT would be the goal.

Thoughts? And by the way, if you can think of a problem, perhaps you could also provide a possible solution to discuss. We used to do that, here, in America.

Cliff Notes Version: The OP proposes that the government regulate what the media can publish, which is classic CENSORSHIP.

No thank you. If an individual doesn't trust a media source, he is free to not read, watch or listen to it.

No, the OP says in the post you quoted it would be a "self-regulatory body" and points out several times in the thread that he wants no government involvement.

Good gawd, you people.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Thats a typical lib reaction when the logic is against you

The logic says that you're making a comparison to a company that was broken up by the Supreme Court and encouraged by the President at the time. Well neither the Supreme Court nor Trump have pursued splitting up these companies. Until this happens, it's a dumb comparison.

Alternate solution: Quit whining and just go to a different donut shop.

 

[boedicca]

This could be a pretty interesting conversation if we can stay calm and focused.

Point 1 - We have a serious and growing problem in this country with a media (across the ideological spectrum) that has (deservedly, in my opinion) lost the trust of the American people. We've all seen and contributed to threads that discuss and catalogue examples of gross bias from both ends of our media.

Point 2 - It's not a stretch to imagine a body that creates, maintains and enforces standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, in such a way as providing guidance to consumers and provides them with more faith that what they are consuming is, indeed, accurate. Before we devolve and divide much further. I don't know about you, but I don't see a bottom to this yet. BUT I'm not fond of the idea of such a body being government-based. For many reasons.

Point 3 - There are two bodies that provide such services in the financial services industry. The first is the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) which is an agency of the US Federal Government. But the second one is FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) that is a private corporation that also policies the industry - but it is the industry's self-regulatory body.

Idea - Could such an industry self-regulatory body work with the press? Theoretically it could (a) maintain and enforce standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, and (b) provide consumers with some kind of roadmap so that they can easily discern fact from opinion. As in, this is an actual news resource, that is an opinion resource.

Look, I'm not going for perfection here. I can already think of some issues with this. I'm looking for (a) some improvement and (b) the hope that such a system would gradually raise standards up to a point at which it was barely needed. THAT would be the goal.

Thoughts? And by the way, if you can think of a problem, perhaps you could also provide a possible solution to discuss. We used to do that, here, in America.

Cliff Notes Version: The OP proposes that the government regulate what the media can publish, which is classic CENSORSHIP.

No thank you. If an individual doesn't trust a media source, he is free to not read, watch or listen to it.

No, the OP says in the post you quoted it would be a "self-regulatory body" and points out several times in the thread that he wants no government involvement.

Good gawd, you people.

Uh, DUDE, FINRA is regulated by the SEC. It is not free from government regulation. Hence, your push to regulate free speech will result in the inevitable cronyism between the "regulated" and the bureaucrats to rig the game in favor of the Fascist Dem Progs.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This could be a pretty interesting conversation if we can stay calm and focused.

Point 1 - We have a serious and growing problem in this country with a media (across the ideological spectrum) that has (deservedly, in my opinion) lost the trust of the American people. We've all seen and contributed to threads that discuss and catalogue examples of gross bias from both ends of our media.

Point 2 - It's not a stretch to imagine a body that creates, maintains and enforces standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, in such a way as providing guidance to consumers and provides them with more faith that what they are consuming is, indeed, accurate. Before we devolve and divide much further. I don't know about you, but I don't see a bottom to this yet. BUT I'm not fond of the idea of such a body being government-based. For many reasons.

Point 3 - There are two bodies that provide such services in the financial services industry. The first is the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) which is an agency of the US Federal Government. But the second one is FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) that is a private corporation that also policies the industry - but it is the industry's self-regulatory body.

Idea - Could such an industry self-regulatory body work with the press? Theoretically it could (a) maintain and enforce standards of journalistic integrity and accuracy, and (b) provide consumers with some kind of roadmap so that they can easily discern fact from opinion. As in, this is an actual news resource, that is an opinion resource.

Look, I'm not going for perfection here. I can already think of some issues with this. I'm looking for (a) some improvement and (b) the hope that such a system would gradually raise standards up to a point at which it was barely needed. THAT would be the goal.

Thoughts? And by the way, if you can think of a problem, perhaps you could also provide a possible solution to discuss. We used to do that, here, in America.

Cliff Notes Version: The OP proposes that the government regulate what the media can publish, which is classic CENSORSHIP.

No thank you. If an individual doesn't trust a media source, he is free to not read, watch or listen to it.

No, the OP says in the post you quoted it would be a "self-regulatory body" and points out several times in the thread that he wants no government involvement.

Good gawd, you people.

A self regulatory body?

Just like that skulk of foxes is self regulating vis a vis the oversight of the chicken coup, you mean.

 

[ClaireH]

there are other donut shops for the cops to go to

But there are no other comparable FaceBoook or Twitter

Go to Parler or Myspace. Might be cheaper knock-offs but you have other options.

Or maybe you can stop being so dependent on the innovation of the liberals you despise and create your own competitive social media site.

I admit to bristling a bit reading "dependent on the innovation of the liberals" but I'll let that one slide...consider yourself lucky! lol

For me as an independent, I have never used Twitter (although people have sent me jokes on occasion from a user); I signed up for FB upon inception when extended family was using it to send pics but later discovered I was unable to delete my account after one of their breaches a few years ago, and recently decided to delete TikTok.

I might check out newer alternatives but I'm looking for a big-time competitor to come on the market that's just as powerful as FB and Twitter in bulk. Hurrah! I will no longer be dependent on entities that I don't even use, but just in case I get the urge! Now, that will be a day to celebrate if, say, Elon Musk decides to act in the name of personal freedoms and the right to all information!

 

[XponentialChaos]

there are other donut shops for the cops to go to

But there are no other comparable FaceBoook or Twitter

Go to Parler or Myspace. Might be cheaper knock-offs but you have other options.

Or maybe you can stop being so dependent on the innovation of the liberals you despise and create your own competitive social media site.

I admit to bristling a bit reading "dependent on the innovation of the liberals" but I'll let that one slide...consider yourself lucky! lol

For me, a non-Dem, I have never used Twitter (although people have sent me jokes on occasion from a user); I signed up for FB upon inception when extended family was using it to send pics but later discovered I was unable to delete my account after one of their breaches a few years ago, and recently decided to delete TikTok.

I might check out newer alternatives but I'm looking for a big-time competitor to come on the market that's just as powerful as FB and Twitter in bulk. Hurrah! I will no longer be dependent on entities that I don't even use, but just in case I get the urge! Now, that will be a day to celebrate if, say, Elon Musk decides to act in the name of personal freedoms and the right to all information!

Haha, sorry about the bristling. I sincerely hope that you are able to find a competitor that you are happy with.

Personally, I have both a Twitter and a Facebook account and I rarely use either. If I felt morally outraged at what either were doing, I would just delete my accounts and it wouldn't even be a big loss. I think it's silly that people will continue to use these services and complain endlessly about how immoral they are.

 

[ClaireH]

there are other donut shops for the cops to go to

But there are no other comparable FaceBoook or Twitter

Go to Parler or Myspace. Might be cheaper knock-offs but you have other options.

Or maybe you can stop being so dependent on the innovation of the liberals you despise and create your own competitive social media site.

I admit to bristling a bit reading "dependent on the innovation of the liberals" but I'll let that one slide...consider yourself lucky! lol

For me, a non-Dem, I have never used Twitter (although people have sent me jokes on occasion from a user); I signed up for FB upon inception when extended family was using it to send pics but later discovered I was unable to delete my account after one of their breaches a few years ago, and recently decided to delete TikTok.

I might check out newer alternatives but I'm looking for a big-time competitor to come on the market that's just as powerful as FB and Twitter in bulk. Hurrah! I will no longer be dependent on entities that I don't even use, but just in case I get the urge! Now, that will be a day to celebrate if, say, Elon Musk decides to act in the name of personal freedoms and the right to all information!

Haha, sorry about the bristling. I sincerely hope that you are able to find a competitor that you are happy with.

Personally, I have both a Twitter and a Facebook account and I rarely use either. If I felt morally outraged at what either were doing, I would just delete my accounts and it wouldn't even be a big loss. I think it's silly that people will continue to use these services and complain endlessly about how immoral they are.

Hey, if you find out how to delete your FB account, please relay. I found it to be a non-option, and pretty sure it's still the same. Once you make an FB account, you have it for life..even dead people-their families can't remove it and it remains. What do you think that's about exactly? To make it easier for flaky types, who switch back and forth with decisions? Doubtful....there is another reason and likely due to some numbers thing-we have X number of users....including people who don't use it anymore but we still count them in the mix. Nice.

Ahh, my bristling can come from a commercial...no worries! lol

 

[Dadoalex]

The real problem is those who are completely brainwashed. How do you get them to change the channel, as it were?

The short answer is, "I have no freaking idea".

We've never seen anything like this: A large, entirely separate, fully-functioning, self-contained, closed circuit informational ecosystem. The idea that I offered in the OP tries to address it by creating a body that might (theoretically) return and enforce standards and keep reality & fiction/conspiracy separated. Otherwise, it would be up to the players themselves to change their ways and become responsible. Do you see that happening? I don't. Fantasy and conspiracy are too lucrative.

Uncharted territory. I don't know. But I think this situation is pretty close to becoming an existential threat.

A step in the right direction would be to take their complaints seriously. I'm not talking about the conspiracy nonsense, but if Democrats really want to unite the country (sadly, I think most don't) they'll actually listen to what the Trump supporters are saying and make meaningful policy adjustments to address their concerns. There's no need to cater to their every desire. But there is some common ground and Democrats would do the country an incredible favor if they tried to find it.

The best characterization I've seen, regarding the "silent majority" of Trump voters, is this post by Mike Rowe, the night before the election: Off The Wall: Care to Make another Presidential Prediction?

Read it if you have time, I think it's very insightful. A quote (on why many people voted for Trump):

People who hate Trump almost as much as Biden voters hate Trump, but who hate the “woke culture,” even more. These people are exhausted by nightly images of rioters and looters allowed to run amuck. They’re sick of the incessant virtue signaling from every quarter of society. They’re weary of cancel culture, safe spaces, “mostly peaceful” protests, the 1619 Project, and the countless attacks on free speech, and lectures from what they believe to be a completely biased media. For them, Trump is not a candidate – he’s a giant middle finger to those who would suppress the Hunter Biden story, or re-edit Gone With the Wind, or rewrite Huck Finn, or disrespect our flag, or topple statues of anyone who doesn’t measure up to their enlightened sensibilities. For these people, Trump is the only way to confront the “wokeness” that now defines big media, higher education, corporate America, Hollywood, and professional sports.” It’s the only way to say, “Enough already.”

Get this "woke" crap out of my face. I have no time for talking points.

What complaints?
That they can't own the vagina of every woman?
That they can't legally murder any LGBTQ? person they may meet in the street?
That murdering Black men is not treated like a parking ticket?
That losing an election means you don't get to hold that office?

EXACTLY what grievances am I to give credence to?