CDZ An idea regarding the American media

[Pogo]

Wanna see the math?

I got all that, as I pointed out in my post.

and by your reasoning biden is on the low 20s also

Actually by the same math he got about 34%. 33.9 to be exact.

My original point was the incredulity that even 25% of the electorate could hold their nose with enough force to do that.

In Biden's case it was an easy choice, since he was by definition the most likely alternative that would extract Rump from his golden toilet seat. So his 81 million votes does not represent some degree of preference over O'bama, over Reagan, over whoever. It represents how many of us wanted Rump to get the fuck out.

 

[Erinwltr]

Pogo!

 

[dblack]

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.

Who sets the standard and arbitrates it?

Exactly. This is why we can never let government make the call when it comes to "journalistic integrity".

But prominent leaders, on both the left and the right, are calling for just that. It would be a horrible mistake.

 

[Shelzin]

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.

Who sets the standard and arbitrates it?

Exactly. This is why we can never let government make the call when it comes to "journalistic integrity".

But prominent leaders, on both the left and the right, are calling for just that. It would be a horrible mistake.

ANY government. Right now the companies that own the media have monetary interests in other countries. As such, the Chinese government has pull on the media we consume. I personally don't have a problem with that, so long as it's known and told to the consumer by the media company itself.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

1st Amendment rules out your pipe dream. End of discussion.

 

[Mac-7]

No. How did you get that from my post?

You convicted yourself

The SEC does not make suggestion

It has legal powers

 

[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.

1st Amendment rules out your pipe dream. End of discussion.

And you completely misunderstood what I said. That's okay.

 

[Mac1958]

You convicted yourself
The SEC does not make suggestion
It has legal powers

The comparison I made in the OP was to FINRA, not the SEC.

Self regulation, not government regulation.

But thanks anyway.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

There could be something that differentiates between real media and not real media. But what would the criteria be?

 

[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.

There could be something that differentiates between real media and not real media. But what would the criteria be?

Drilling down on this a bit and comparing it to FINRA, there can be certain journalistic, professional, educational standards that would be required to call yourself a "news source" or some new kind of designation. Quality and quantity of sourcing, perhaps. Experience. Completeness.

Maybe if an organization or journalist has specific designations that must be maintained, that would be helpful. Complaints at a certain level would be catalogued. Continuing education requirements, such as 10 hours per year of this or that. Then these organizations and people could say they're an "ABC" like the financial services industry has "CFP".

Just tossing out ideas. But I do see areas where what FINRA does and what this would do could be similar.

 

[sartre play]

Easy, just take news programs back to a few hours a day. And watch the anger dissipate by 50%. Instead of keeping the pot stirred 24 seven just to make more money.

 

[LibertyKid]

IMO, we the people should be able to police the Media. Hold them accountable. Start posting and addressing their absolute bias on all social media platforms.

Shortly after Covid hit, Yahoo took down the ability to post comments on their articles they published. They initially had a little blurb stating they wanted to create a safe environment and would re-instate comments. They have not and the blurb stating they would, is now gone too.

But why did Yahoo remove comments? Sure, there are always idiots that comment absolute trash. But there were always comments pointing to articles that would show the other side of story or other facts that were conveniently left out.

 

[ClaireH]

IMO, we the people should be able to police the Media. Hold them accountable. Start posting and addressing their absolute bias on all social media platforms.

Shortly after Covid hit, Yahoo took down the ability to post comments on their articles they published. They initially had a little blurb stating they wanted to create a safe environment and would re-instate comments. They have not and the blurb stating they would, is now gone too.

But why did Yahoo remove comments? Sure, there are always idiots that comment absolute trash. But there were always comments pointing to articles that would show the other side of story or other facts that were conveniently left out.

Exceptionally on target. More and more evidence will continue to play out as the liberal media (around 91% of all US media -last I checked- owned by 6-8 wealthy liberals living in NY) continues to narrow public attention, confuse public attention, and to call in advance all national elections.

Your solution is the right one, as far as answering what can be done about it. The people have always had to power to change things over time and to improve their lives and their communities. It's past time to step it up, go beyond just looking at our own cities or towns and focus on state actions and inactions. What's going on it the state courts for instance? Are district judges doing a good job keeping their state safe and what measures are up for vote in the floor in congress?

Voters can "call it" as it should be and was intended (mostly-considering the electoral college factor) by our founding fathers. Media heads should not, yet there actions over the past couple of decades (about the beginning of 24/7 news shows) are consumed by doing just that. If our democratic process has anything to say about corrupt, those media heads trying to play politics by intentionally misleading and misdirecting the public, will be consumed by their own doing.

Way to go being all about what can be done! Personal responsibility shines through your whole post-thanks! That alone has pumped me up enough to do yard work now~ lol

 

[dblack]

IMO, we the people should be able to police the Media. Hold them accountable. Start posting and addressing their absolute bias on all social media platforms.

Shortly after Covid hit, Yahoo took down the ability to post comments on their articles they published. They initially had a little blurb stating they wanted to create a safe environment and would re-instate comments. They have not and the blurb stating they would, is now gone too.

But why did Yahoo remove comments? Sure, there are always idiots that comment absolute trash. But there were always comments pointing to articles that would show the other side of story or other facts that were conveniently left out.

Exceptionally on target. More and more evidence will continue to play out as the liberal media (around 91% of all US media -last I checked- owned by 6-8 wealthy liberals living in NY) continues to narrow public attention, confuse public attention, and to call in advance all national elections.

Your solution is the right one, as far as answering what can be done about it. The people have always had to power to change things over time and to improve their lives and their communities. It's past time to step it up, go beyond just looking at our own cities or towns and focus on state actions and inactions. What's going on it the state courts for instance? Are district judges doing a good job keeping their state safe and what measures are up for vote in the floor in congress?

Voters can "call it" as it should be and was intended (mostly-considering the electoral college factor) by our founding fathers. Media heads should not, yet there actions over the past couple of decades (about the beginning of 24/7 news shows) are consumed by doing just that. If our democratic process has anything to say about corrupt, those media heads trying to play politics by intentionally misleading and misdirecting the public, will be consumed by their own doing.

Way to go being all about what can be done! Personal responsibility shines through your whole post-thanks! That alone has pumped me up enough to do yard work now~ lol

Yet you've both been entirely vague on "what can be done". What does "we the people" policing the media look like to you? If you're talking exposés and boycotts, I'm right there with you. If, on the other hand, you want to pass laws and send the police in to crack heads, no - it doesn't work that way here. That's what the First Amendment is all about.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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

Nobody needs your self righteous lectures

 

[ClaireH]

IMO, we the people should be able to police the Media. Hold them accountable. Start posting and addressing their absolute bias on all social media platforms.

Shortly after Covid hit, Yahoo took down the ability to post comments on their articles they published. They initially had a little blurb stating they wanted to create a safe environment and would re-instate comments. They have not and the blurb stating they would, is now gone too.

But why did Yahoo remove comments? Sure, there are always idiots that comment absolute trash. But there were always comments pointing to articles that would show the other side of story or other facts that were conveniently left out.

Exceptionally on target. More and more evidence will continue to play out as the liberal media (around 91% of all US media -last I checked- owned by 6-8 wealthy liberals living in NY) continues to narrow public attention, confuse public attention, and to call in advance all national elections.

Your solution is the right one, as far as answering what can be done about it. The people have always had to power to change things over time and to improve their lives and their communities. It's past time to step it up, go beyond just looking at our own cities or towns and focus on state actions and inactions. What's going on it the state courts for instance? Are district judges doing a good job keeping their state safe and what measures are up for vote in the floor in congress?

Voters can "call it" as it should be and was intended (mostly-considering the electoral college factor) by our founding fathers. Media heads should not, yet there actions over the past couple of decades (about the beginning of 24/7 news shows) are consumed by doing just that. If our democratic process has anything to say about corrupt, those media heads trying to play politics by intentionally misleading and misdirecting the public, will be consumed by their own doing.

Way to go being all about what can be done! Personal responsibility shines through your whole post-thanks! That alone has pumped me up enough to do yard work now~ lol

Yet you've both been entirely vague on "what can be done". What does "we the people" policing the media look like to you? If you're talking exposés and boycotts, I'm right there with you. If, on the other hand, you want to pass laws and send the police in to crack heads, no - it doesn't work that way here. That's what the First Amendment is all about.

You’re right to ask for specifics DBlack regarding effective measures to achieve positive outcomes and not just use general terms like “we the people”. I still like that phrase though, way better than “we the useless, greedy bastages who only care about making a buck off some dead US sap”. Way better, yes?

I know where you’re going with this. That protecting our freedoms requires placing it above security concerns, with the old adage that losing freedoms in the name of ensuring security is not good, and I agree. I don’t buy in to “so let’s not do anything” to protect freedoms assessment when security has been thrown to the dogs. At the same time, I don’t support increasing the powers of federal government in any form other than enhanced jail time and maximum fines for fentanyl pushers/profiteers, cartel turf wars within the states, and all crimes relative to children: sex and human traffickers and their financers, kidnappings, child and elder abuse, and human trafficking. The federal government is asleep at the wheel on all issues. All walks of political divisions need to come together to force action… being effectively proactive to resolve these inhumane issues is not what is happening. Only bit by bit do we hear of progress and it’s not good enough.

What I consider a good community is a safe community where personal choice is not only encouraged but the expectation is fulfilled. As a former idealist, I have evolved enough to know (although I’m still on the beginner’s slope in all areas of interest
regardless of hours spent daily trying to know more about something and I’ll still most likely be on the beginner slope when I die) that there is indeed a price for freedom. There should not be a price, but there is because the world is far from any type of utopian scenario, contains many individuals who lack evidence of scruples, and greed continues to be rewarded as you know. The corrupt subsets will continue on without worries. For example, Chinese money profiteers pushing fentanyl drug lines in the US for major profits via Mexican drug cartels is one element that’s not going anywhere. They have dug in deep, now using more Chinese underground funding. The call for a “war on drugs” is a total farce, however, this “3rd phase” with fentanyl is way worse because it can be produced year-round for a lot less than heroin, yields buchu profit, and reportedly only three grains of the sandy product will put the average person into a coma. Mexican cartels are fully aware of this fact, although a batch of their recent product was seized, tested, and it was determined that one out of four doses would’ve killed the average fentanyl addict/user.

I’m an average American who wants to live my life in peace, prosperity from my own effort, and personal contentment. Americans need to come together to remove these human tragedies from the equation.

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[YoursTruly]

We someone to fact check the media like facebook does.