CDZ An idea regarding the American media

fncceo

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
28,076
Reaction score
13,598
Points
1,100
Like literacy tests?
No tests at all.

Many people receive all sorts of educations from academic, to religious, to street. People will measure what they are fed by the media with the calipers of their own experience and perception.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
720
Reaction score
383
Points
883
Like literacy tests?
No tests at all.

Many people receive all sorts of educations from academic, to religious, to street. People will measure what they are fed by the media with the calipers of their own experience and perception.
But unbiased civics tests are easily made up and easy to get consensus on. Should people who don't have a clue as to how Congress works be allowed to vote? same with those who have no idea what their Mayor's job or their City Councils' legal functions are or what state Governors do, that sort of thing. And, since one would have to have some degree of literacy to read and understand the questions and answer them, , two birds with one stone. Those that need education can have it provided by any local school system, via adult courses provided free, as part of the school system's funding and corporate obligations.
 
Last edited:

fncceo

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
28,076
Reaction score
13,598
Points
1,100
But unbiased civics tests are easily made up and easy to get consensus on. Should people who don't have a clue as to how Congress works be allowed to vote? same with those who have no idea what their Mayor's job or their City Councils' legal functions are or what state Governors do, that sort of thing.
Who gets to choose who has a clue and who doesn't? There is no such thing as unbiased politics and that's a good thing. If you want political and social conformity, suggest joining a bee hive.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
720
Reaction score
383
Points
883
But unbiased civics tests are easily made up and easy to get consensus on. Should people who don't have a clue as to how Congress works be allowed to vote? same with those who have no idea what their Mayor's job or their City Councils' legal functions are or what state Governors do, that sort of thing.
Who gets to choose who has a clue and who doesn't? There is no such thing as unbiased politics and that's a good thing. If you want political and social conformity, suggest joining a bee hive.
Lots of strawmen, indicating you probably couldn't pass a basic civics test, since you think it has something to do with 'conformity' or something instead of demonstrating a basic common knowledge.

Do you also feel uncomfortable trying to chew gum and walk at the same Time? It's not like these tests would be hard.
 

fncceo

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
28,076
Reaction score
13,598
Points
1,100
Lots of strawmen, indicating you probably couldn't pass a basic civics test, since you think it has something to do with 'conformity' or something instead of demonstrating a basic common knowledge.

Do you also feel uncomfortable trying to chew gum and walk at the same Time? It's not like these tests would be hard.
Well, we can't all be a superior intellect like yourself. Does that mean we should be disenfranchised?
 
OP
Mac1958

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
81,010
Reaction score
25,384
Points
2,280
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
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.
Certainly what's happening on the right is far more destructive and (what word to use, maybe "fantastical") right now, and that's the impetus for the idea. They are simply and eagerly accepting all lies and all fantasy and all conspiracies as "facts" and THEN they are expanding on THAT.
 
OP
Mac1958

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
81,010
Reaction score
25,384
Points
2,280
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
FCC has broadcast standards and licensing that has not been adhered to in a long time.
I wouldn't want the feds involved in this at all. I'd want to industry itself to fund and operate it. To be responsible to the public for it. ONE body that can be held accountable.

A self-regulatory body creates, maintains and enforces standards to protect its own value, its own credibility. Right now our "media" has little of that.

I'm not after perfection with this. I'm just looking for a way for our media to at least be credible again. We need to create a bottom here, quickly.
 
Last edited:

Shelzin

Equal Opportunity Asshole
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
6,115
Reaction score
2,933
Points
198
I wouldn't want the feds involved in this at all. I'd want to industry itself to fund and operate it. To be responsible to the public for it. ONE body that can be held accountable.

A self-regulatory body creates, maintains and enforces standards to protect its own value, its own credibility. Right now our "media" has little of that.

I'm not after perfection with this. I'm just looking for a way for our media to at least be credible again. We need to create a bottom here, quickly.
Yeah... That's already been tried with video games... See the ESRB system. If you don't know, feel free to look into that to get an idea on just how well it works.

Or if you like... Facebooks fact checking if you want a more direct comparison... It's... THIRD party.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
720
Reaction score
383
Points
883
Well, we can't all be a superior intellect like yourself. Does that mean we should be disenfranchised?
Yes. Why not? You obviously don't care enough about the country to bother with learning what it is you're actually voting for, so why should your vote count as much as those who do the work?
 
OP
Mac1958

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
81,010
Reaction score
25,384
Points
2,280
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
I wouldn't want the feds involved in this at all. I'd want to industry itself to fund and operate it. To be responsible to the public for it. ONE body that can be held accountable.

A self-regulatory body creates, maintains and enforces standards to protect its own value, its own credibility. Right now our "media" has little of that.

I'm not after perfection with this. I'm just looking for a way for our media to at least be credible again. We need to create a bottom here, quickly.
Yeah... That's already been tried with video games... See the ESRB system. If you don't know, feel free to look into that to get an idea on just how well it works.

Or if you like... Facebooks fact checking if you want a more direct comparison... It's... THIRD party.
If you're satisfied with the way things are going, great. I'm not.
 

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
44,549
Reaction score
10,802
Points
2,040
But currently those to the left really don't have anything comparable to what's out there on the right.
You don't see a significant Left bias in TV news?
Msnbc leans pretty far left. Cnn commentary does but they are fairly careful to distinguish commentary from news (which fox does not). The big three abc nbc cbs are pretty even keeled.

I realize it doesn't look that way from the perspective of most tRump supporters but that isn't their bias, its yours.
 

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
44,549
Reaction score
10,802
Points
2,040
FCC has broadcast standards and licensing that has not been adhered to in a long time.
I wouldn't want the feds involved in this at all. I'd want to industry itself to fund and operate it. To be responsible to the public for it. ONE body that can be held accountable.

A self-regulatory body creates, maintains and enforces standards to protect its own value, its own credibility. Right now our "media" has little of that.

I'm not after perfection with this. I'm just looking for a way for our media to at least be credible again. We need to create a bottom here, quickly.
I don't see it as possible without federal intervention. Oann, breitbart, newsmaxx, those guys aren't gonna sign on voluntarily.
 
OP
Mac1958

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
81,010
Reaction score
25,384
Points
2,280
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
FCC has broadcast standards and licensing that has not been adhered to in a long time.
I wouldn't want the feds involved in this at all. I'd want to industry itself to fund and operate it. To be responsible to the public for it. ONE body that can be held accountable.

A self-regulatory body creates, maintains and enforces standards to protect its own value, its own credibility. Right now our "media" has little of that.

I'm not after perfection with this. I'm just looking for a way for our media to at least be credible again. We need to create a bottom here, quickly.
I don't see it as possible without federal intervention. Oann, breitbart, newsmaxx, those guys aren't gonna sign on voluntarily.
Well, that's part of the process of starting with a germ of an idea.

Part of being a member of this body might be a designation, such as the CFP in financial planning. Such a designation would infer a higher standard of journalism.
 

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
44,549
Reaction score
10,802
Points
2,040
FCC has broadcast standards and licensing that has not been adhered to in a long time.
I wouldn't want the feds involved in this at all. I'd want to industry itself to fund and operate it. To be responsible to the public for it. ONE body that can be held accountable.

A self-regulatory body creates, maintains and enforces standards to protect its own value, its own credibility. Right now our "media" has little of that.

I'm not after perfection with this. I'm just looking for a way for our media to at least be credible again. We need to create a bottom here, quickly.
I don't see it as possible without federal intervention. Oann, breitbart, newsmaxx, those guys aren't gonna sign on voluntarily.
Well, that's part of the process of starting with a germ of an idea.

Part of being a member of this body might be a designation, such as the CFP in financial planning. Such a designation would infer a higher standard of journalism.
That would take decades to make any real impression. I think we need a quicker solution.
 

BlackSand

Nobody
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
15,316
Reaction score
5,051
Points
380
Location
Wherever I May Roam
Well, we can't all be a superior intellect like yourself. Does that mean we should be disenfranchised?
Yes. Why not? You obviously don't care enough about the country to bother with learning what it is you're actually voting for, so why should your vote count as much as those who do the work?
It's not the media, but I think fncceo was lying about your superior intellect.
Do you have any crackers to serve with that soup ... :dunno:

.
 

Dogmaphobe

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
17,418
Reaction score
8,706
Points
1,295
Location
Or uh gun
Certainly what's happening on the right is far more destructive and (what word to use, maybe "fantastical") right now, and that's the impetus for the idea. They are simply and eagerly accepting all lies and all fantasy and all conspiracies as "facts" and THEN they are expanding on THAT.

This completely contradicts the premise of your thread. You are saying in essence that the democrat controlled mainstream media is the sole arbiter of what is true and what is fantasy and anything else is conspiracy. It sounds like you are simply wanting to take that next step to big brother.

As far as destruction is concerned, BLM and ANTIFA have caused well over a billion dollars in property damage in the last year. Similar actions by the right don't even come close to that. If you are not willing to be honest in your assessments, how do you expect others to be honest?

What this country needs are more people who are NON partisan, and not extreme partisans trying to pose as non partisans while acting as the ultimate arbiter of what others should believe.
 

MarathonMike

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
23,480
Reaction score
19,464
Points
2,445
Location
The Southwestern Desert
Msnbc leans pretty far left. Cnn commentary does but they are fairly careful to distinguish commentary from news (which fox does not). The big three abc nbc cbs are pretty even keeled.

I realize it doesn't look that way from the perspective of most tRump supporters but that isn't their bias, its yours.
Here is an excerpt from a study that examined TV news reporting on Trump v Biden during 2020. As always with any study, there is the possibility that the author is biased. But these numbers are consistent with other analysis I have read on Liberal bias in TV news.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

.............I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it.

A new MRC analysis of all evening news coverage of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in June and July found these networks chose to aim most of their attention and nearly all of their negative coverage on Trump, so Biden escaped any scrutiny of his left-wing policy positions, past job performance or character.


From June 1 through July 31, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts focused 512 minutes of airtime on the President, or nine times more than the 58 minutes allotted to Biden. (This excludes coverage of the Trump administration in general when not associated with the President himself.) This is an even wider gap than the spring, when Trump received seven times more coverage than Biden (523 minutes vs. 75 minutes).


The extra airtime devoted to Trump consisted almost entirely of anchors and reporters criticizing the President. During these two months, our analysts documented 668 evaluative statements about the President, 95 percent of which (634) were negative, vs. a mere five percent (34) that were positive. Using the same methodology (fully described at the end of this article), we found very few evaluative statements about Joe Biden — just a dozen, two-thirds of which (67%) were positive.


Do the math, and viewers heard 150 TIMES more negative comments about Trump than Biden. That’s not news reporting — that’s a negative advertising campaign in action.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
44,549
Reaction score
10,802
Points
2,040
Msnbc leans pretty far left. Cnn commentary does but they are fairly careful to distinguish commentary from news (which fox does not). The big three abc nbc cbs are pretty even keeled.

I realize it doesn't look that way from the perspective of most tRump supporters but that isn't their bias, its yours.
Here is an excerpt from a study that examined TV news reporting on Trump v Biden during 2020. As always with any study, there is the possibility that the author is biased. But these numbers are consistent with other analysis I have read on Liberal bias in TV news.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

.............I’ve been studying the news media and elections for more than 35 years. Trust me — there’s never been anything like it.

A new MRC analysis of all evening news coverage of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in June and July found these networks chose to aim most of their attention and nearly all of their negative coverage on Trump, so Biden escaped any scrutiny of his left-wing policy positions, past job performance or character.


From June 1 through July 31, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts focused 512 minutes of airtime on the President, or nine times more than the 58 minutes allotted to Biden. (This excludes coverage of the Trump administration in general when not associated with the President himself.) This is an even wider gap than the spring, when Trump received seven times more coverage than Biden (523 minutes vs. 75 minutes).


The extra airtime devoted to Trump consisted almost entirely of anchors and reporters criticizing the President. During these two months, our analysts documented 668 evaluative statements about the President, 95 percent of which (634) were negative, vs. a mere five percent (34) that were positive. Using the same methodology (fully described at the end of this article), we found very few evaluative statements about Joe Biden — just a dozen, two-thirds of which (67%) were positive.


Do the math, and viewers heard 150 TIMES more negative comments about Trump than Biden. That’s not news reporting — that’s a negative advertising campaign in action.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No link, which undermines your credibility somewhat, but the simple fact is tRump did a shitload of negative things and Joe Biden wasn't holding any public office to be criticizes about.

Next.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
720
Reaction score
383
Points
883
Well, we can't all be a superior intellect like yourself. Does that mean we should be disenfranchised?
Yes. Why not? You obviously don't care enough about the country to bother with learning what it is you're actually voting for, so why should your vote count as much as those who do the work?
It's not the media, but I think fncceo was lying about your superior intellect.
Do you have any crackers to serve with that soup ... :dunno:

.
He wasn't, and try carrying something that doesn't crumble in your buttcrack; crackers are messy.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top