CDZ An idea regarding the American media

fncceo

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
28,104
Reaction score
13,635
Points
1,100
Corporations will always have some sway in our government... It's the nature of capitalism, but this is too much.
This isn't the nature of Capitalism. This is the nature of Politics.

"When buying and selling are legislated, the first thing to be bought and sold and legislators"

-- P.J. O'Rourke
If the government owns all the companies... It's a little hard for a company to buy a politician.

We can't blame business people for buying politicians.
Oh, if it's deemed illegal, you can bet your ass I can.

We have to blame ourselves for electing politicians that require business to buy them in order to stay in business.
That too. But I gave what I think the first step should be.
The first step is to remove the state from the business of business.

Politicians can't sell influence if they have no influence to sell.
 

fncceo

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
28,104
Reaction score
13,635
Points
1,100
Oh, if it's deemed illegal, you can bet your ass I can.
You can hate the game, but you can't hate the playa.

Particularly, when you keep voting for the game to continue.
 

Shelzin

Equal Opportunity Asshole
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
6,156
Reaction score
2,959
Points
198
The first step is to remove the state from the business of business.

Politicians can't sell influence if they have no influence to sell.
If a politician doesn't have influence, they aren't worth a fuck to begin with. What are they there for? Pick up a pay check and that's it?

I absolutely respect the stance that we have corrupt politicians. But I don't think you understand the base problem here, or at the very least we disagree what the base problem is.
 

Shelzin

Equal Opportunity Asshole
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
6,156
Reaction score
2,959
Points
198
Oh, if it's deemed illegal, you can bet your ass I can.
You can hate the game, but you can't hate the playa.
You... Seem to be doing exactly that. o.0

Particularly, when you keep voting for the game to continue.
Oh no... I didn't support a Republican or Democrat for ... A good while now. The last three presidential runs anyway.
 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
22,714
Reaction score
15,944
Points
2,365
Another one who didn't read what I said.

Good thing I wasn't expecting much here.
I read it so I understand that you are not going to be a government watchdog but rather private.

It makes no difference.

Twitter and FaceBook are private companies but they might as well be part of the Dept of Public Censorship if there was such a body.

Your watchdog group will be chosen by the left and will serve the left
 

HaShev

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,649
Reaction score
2,915
Points
265
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? When everyone in the media has a bias (as has always been the case throughout history) who gets to decide which bias is acceptable and which is not?

So called fact-checks are no such thing ... they are simply the application of selective bias on a specific idea.

I have a counter proposal. Let educated people listen to as many different ideas as they can then decide for themselves which they believe is true and which they believe isn't. I trust my own judgement over that of a "standards board" any day of the week.
FCC has broadcast standards and licensing that has not been adhered to in a long time.
In politics the OCE is supposed to be non partisan but has not done their job addressing abuses of power by congress and their corruption, probably because they are corrupted and compromised.
 

fncceo

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
28,104
Reaction score
13,635
Points
1,100
FCC has broadcast standards and licensing that has not been adhered to in a long time.
Does the FCC have the same powers over non-broadcast media such as cable and Internet?
 

Dogmaphobe

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
17,442
Reaction score
8,746
Points
1,295
Location
Or uh gun
If a politician doesn't have influence, they aren't worth a fuck to begin with. What are they there for? Pick up a pay check and that's it?

I absolutely respect the stance that we have corrupt politicians. But I don't think you understand the base problem here, or at the very least we disagree what the base problem is.
A.O.C. is certainly worth a fuck. If I were a younger man, I would go so far as to suggest three or four before the night is through.

The base problem, however, is that our 4th estate is now our 5th column. Our culture has transitioned from the industrial age to the age of information, and our media has seized upon the power they wield in such a way that they now see themselves as the prime movers in shaping culture rather than as principled journalists. They no longer report the news. They craft it.
 

Shelzin

Equal Opportunity Asshole
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
6,156
Reaction score
2,959
Points
198
A.O.C. is certainly worth a fuck. If I were a younger man, I would go so far as to suggest three or four before the night is through.
Yeah... Well... I'm old enough now that I need a bit more than physical attractiveness to get my engine going. Viagra might help, but I doubt it. I can SAY "fuck stupid" and mean it ... But I don't think I can bring myself to actually fuck stupid.

The base problem, however, is that our 4th estate is now our 5th column. Our culture has transitioned from the industrial age to the age of information, and our media has seized upon the power they wield
Our media has been bought out by corporations who isn't interested in actually bringing "news"... That's the base problem as I see it.

they now see themselves as the prime movers in shaping culture rather than as principled journalists. They no longer report the news. They craft it.
Yes. I agree. They are crafting narratives, not reporting news.
 

Dogmaphobe

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
17,442
Reaction score
8,746
Points
1,295
Location
Or uh gun
A.O.C. is certainly worth a fuck. If I were a younger man, I would go so far as to suggest three or four before the night is through.
Yeah... Well... I'm old enough now that I need a bit more than physical attractiveness to get my engine going. Viagra might help, but I doubt it. I can SAY "fuck stupid" and mean it ... But I don't think I can bring myself to actually fuck stupid.

The base problem, however, is that our 4th estate is now our 5th column. Our culture has transitioned from the industrial age to the age of information, and our media has seized upon the power they wield
Our media has been bought out by corporations who isn't interested in actually bringing "news"... That's the base problem as I see it.

they now see themselves as the prime movers in shaping culture rather than as principled journalists. They no longer report the news. They craft it.
Yes. I agree. They are crafting narratives, not reporting news.

My body may be 66, but my mind is still 18.
 

MarathonMike

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
23,498
Reaction score
19,501
Points
2,445
Location
The Southwestern Desert
I don't see how regulation will work with bias in the media. How about create a brand new network and call it "Cronkite Evenings News" in honor of the last true newsman in America? Then get a guy who looks, sounds and conducts himself with the dignity and honesty of Walter Cronkite. Run stories that call out politicians from both sides of the aisle. Hand pick the writers to be EXACTLY 50-50 Liberal-Conservative. Then see if there is an appetite for true un-biased news or not.
 

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
44,701
Reaction score
10,879
Points
2,040
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.
I can see that, but a certain extent of the industry that thrives on conspiracies and misinformation would object strongly.

Second thing;. I know this exists on both sides,. But currently those to the left really don't have anything comparable to what's out there on the right. I mean sure, there's some stuff like Palmer report and slate, but there's nothing on the left like rush limbaugh or breitbart.

I'm not saying the left extremes are less extreme, I'm saying they're less followed.
 

Leo123

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
11,736
Reaction score
5,330
Points
400
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.
Make anyone reporting the news first clearly state their political affiliation(s) and register them. An agency could ensure the reliability of the registry by gathering party and voter info to verify.
 

WelfareQueen

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
13,795
Reaction score
8,992
Points
1,265
Location
Uranus
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.
I assume every media outlet is lying. In the current era a fairly safe assumption. We definitely do not need a Maoist board to tell us what is supposedly true or untrue.

What is needed is an end to cancel culture and censorship. Unlike the Left I am not afraid of ideas or speech. I am concerned about shutting out voices the Maoists and Dims do not like.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
74,510
Reaction score
16,242
Points
2,180
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.
I don't think there is a body that can regulate the news networks.

What I think should happen is that a broadcast news network in television should change it's logo to a different color when they are editorializing.

Like I think Lawrence O'Donnell has a show on NBC. From what I've seen, he's just issuing his opinion most of the time...even when he's interviewing a guest. So during his show, during Rachel Maddow's show--if she still has one....you change the MSNBC logo from this:

1611731329113.png
Which is what they have when they are airing straight news, non-commentary, entertainment programming....

To This:

1611731431642.png
When they have opinion programming on the air.

No outside body determines this ...the powers that be at each network do this to show the viewer what they are seeing is the broadcaster's opinion.

If you're foolish enough to watch MSNBC or FOX/OANN/NEWSMAX and think that it is unbiased that's your business. But the least the networks can do is "come clean" about their programming being based on opinions; not facts.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
773
Reaction score
408
Points
883
I have a counter proposal. Let educated people listen to as many different ideas as they can then decide for themselves which they believe is true and which they believe isn't. I trust my own judgement over that of a "standards board" any day of the week.
Like literacy tests? We know those work a lot better than not having them. Civics tests would be even better;you can divide them up between local, state, and federal tests, so you wouldn't have to pass them all to at least vote in one or two or all thee, your choice.

AS for the lack of genuine 'Journalism'. the problems with that belong with the colleges and universities cranking out armies of 'Social Justice Warriors' instead of professional journalists. That was a serious problem decades ago, not just a recent one.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
773
Reaction score
408
Points
883
The media is filled with hacks. This proposed stalin like idea of setting up a regulatory body controlled by the federal govt will be run by hacks.
Media controlled by a corrupt duopoly. What could POSSIBLY go wrong :rolleyes:
Who wants Red Chinese agents like Biden and Pelosi setting up such a thing???
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top