Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Like literacy tests?
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.
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.
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.I can see that, but a certain extent of the industry that thrives on conspiracies and misinformation would object strongly.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.
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.
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.FCC has broadcast standards and licensing that has not been adhered to in a long time.
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.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.
Well, we can't all be a superior intellect like yourself. Does that mean we should be disenfranchised?
If you're satisfied with the way things are going, great. I'm not.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.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.
Or if you like... Facebooks fact checking if you want a more direct comparison... It's... THIRD party.
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.You don't see a significant Left bias in TV news?But currently those to the left really don't have anything comparable to what's out there on the right.
Well that's a bigger lie than usual for you.But currently those to the left really don't have anything comparable to what's out there on the right.
That's true. The conspiracies of the left are far more fantastic and unbelievable.
I don't see it as possible without federal intervention. Oann, breitbart, newsmaxx, those guys aren't gonna sign on voluntarily.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.FCC has broadcast standards and licensing that has not been adhered to in a long time.
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.
Well, that's part of the process of starting with a germ of an idea.I don't see it as possible without federal intervention. Oann, breitbart, newsmaxx, those guys aren't gonna sign on voluntarily.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.FCC has broadcast standards and licensing that has not been adhered to in a long time.
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.
That would take decades to make any real impression. I think we need a quicker solution.Well, that's part of the process of starting with a germ of an idea.I don't see it as possible without federal intervention. Oann, breitbart, newsmaxx, those guys aren't gonna sign on voluntarily.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.FCC has broadcast standards and licensing that has not been adhered to in a long time.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.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.
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.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.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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
.............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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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 ...
.
