So hearing none, I've basically given up any hope on clarification of "media sneaks"; I'll just ignore that part and deal with the present.
To Pogo: Your lack of reading comprehension skills is showing. My meaning is stated throughout the OP, but for your benefit I’ll say it again; it means sneaks working in the media.
Maybe it's
your lack of comprehension skill; I asked three times for a definition of "media sneaks" and you have yet to respond but with circles. If you can't define what you mean, I'm not worried about it; I just move on. But don't pretend you defined something you didn't.
If we were living in, say, North Korea that would be a valid definition.
To Pogo: Your comparing oranges and apples. The government in this country is using propaganda to establish a totalitarian state; whereas, North Korea is already there.
--- and your basis for this mysterious state media is.... where again?
As already noted, mass media here is driven by commercial interests, not the state. That's why the comparison to NK.
Apples and oranges? Of course it is. That's the point. I just showed the flaw in your point; we are not North Korea even if you seem to think we are.
To Pogo: Of course it does. Doubly so when the government tells media what it cannot say.
The gummint does not tell the media what it "cannot say" (politically). That's just a fact. Feel free to post evidence to the contrary.
You can't, say, slander somebody or purvey false advertising, but those aren't political issues.
Also, the scope of “Don’t say” is increasing under the national security umbrella. Here’s the rub. If the folks in the media are not willing participants in propaganda by omission the government must not trust them to do the right thing as journalists did in WWII. Either way you interpret it media sneaks come off as not very nice people. That’s another reason media sneaks are now leading in my horse race analogy.
NOTE: The government does NOT dictate to media every day or on every issue. The media operates under government guidelines. Editors enforce those guidelines. In addition, news writers know exactly what to say and not say. Even those few true conservatives who appear on talk show panels know which topics and opinions are forbidden. Careers depend on knowing what to avoid.
Again, the only influence on "careers" or "topics" comes from the management of those commercial interests that run the media. Doesn't come from government. Once again, feel free to document any of these wild ideas, but I worked in broadcasting for over 25 years, including the entire licensing process, and I know for a fact it doesn't exist. And the only federal "guidelines" broadcasters operate under have to do with their technical specs as far as power and frequency, etc., that they can't engage in fraud or slander, and that they provide some service to their community... which is
entirely left up to the broadcaster to document and justify. There are no "guidelines" on content, outside of whatever comic book you're drawing all this from.
You think the government is "dictating" that news programs follow the royal baby, or the ZimmerMartin thing, or Jody Arias? Bullshit. Those are news puppet theater emotion-magnet pieces. Their only purpose is, as we stated at the beginning, to draw eyeballs so they can sell ads. That's
it. That alone should be enough to demonstrate all this gummint-paranoia is just that.
To Pogo: The threat is enough.
What "threat"? I just got done saying, denial of a renewal almost never happens. Once a license is granted, it's all downhill. Renewal is just a formality.
Again, feel free to post evidence that it doesn't work that way.
To Pogo: Not so. Only liberals wanted it. Only liberals benefit from it. Only liberals are trying to bring it back.
Regardless who
you think "wanted" it (see below), the FD had nothing to do with political parties or any particular political point. Nor did it ever have anything to do with cable TV, and your reference to Fox in this belies that you have no clue what you're talking about. Of course you never did explain your own sentence there, so it's got as much relevance as "media sneaks".
The Cliff's Notes: the FD simply ensured a level playing field of commentary in a time when mass media was limited to a very finite broadcast space (before internet, before satellite/cable TV etc). It simply said that, since broadcast space was severely limited to a select few, then if broadcaster A put out some opinion about Entity X, and Entity X wanted to respond, then X had the right to do it on A's airwaves. It wasn't selective about any particular ideology at all. It denied
no one the right to speak; it ensured the right to speak
back. Just as I have the right to respond to your post here. THAT is what the FD was for.
at.
And as for who "wanted" it, it was championed by Republicans, including Joe McCarthy, who used it to respond to Edward R. Murrow's famous scorching program on McCarthy. Murrow gave him the
entire program time to respond. That's what we call an exchange of ideas ... rather than a monologue.
That you're so fatally misinformed about all of this tells me there is definitely propaganda and you're lapping it up. Ain't coming from the government though. As with any propaganda it's coming from entities that stand to gain from how you're misinformed. It might be instructive to think about that.
NOTE: Liberals spouting their garbage in entertainment mediums is protected by “artistic freedom.” No liberal ever demanded equal time for conservative views in movies and TV shows. In fact, fictional conservative characters were always portrayed as boobs while liberal characters had all the answers. The Fairness Doctrine (1949 - 1987) turned out to be a godsend for liberals after television began to dominate the dissemination of information. Eventually, the very government agency that created the Fairness Doctrine —— the FCC —— made sure the Fairness Doctrine was used to force the liberal message into news and opinion shows. If not getting the liberal message heard then shutdown conservative views. That’s exactly what happened until 1987.
That's exactly
not what happened; see above. But again, feel free to document anything that in any way supports this wispy emotional pipe dream. Or at least share whatever's in that pipe.
To Pogo: Get some help before you read the OP again.
I asked the writer. You didn't respond.
The fact is that the idea of the FD, again sparked by conservatives who wanted equal time on FDR's fireside chats, was to address
limited broadcast space of the time. Cable TV doesn't have that limitation, ergo it was never part of the FD. Period.
To Pogo: That’s why Democrats are trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. They are working around it for the time being by putting liberals on FOX’s payroll. The rest of subscription TV as well as the major networks are already dominated by on-air liberals and the Democrat position on every issue.
As noted above, the FD never had anything to do with anything like Fox News, nor could it have, even if Fox had been created in 1789.
And now you're saying the government "hires" people for Fox News??
What IS in that pipe??
To Pogo: No they aren’t. Even stretching it to fit the definition of news they should be identified as press releases and/or advertising instead of presented as hard news.
They already are. It sounds like this:
"The White House said today that..."
The operative word is "said". Don't blame the messenger if it flies by without your noticing.
To Pogo: Socialism/communism is a religion in every sense except that government is its one true God and the tax collector’s morality is its doctrine. Democrats are socialism’s priesthood getting rich on tax dollar. Poor, and wealthy, welfare state parasites are the flock groveling for handouts from the priesthood. Of course, proof is more than my words, but I have been doing this for so long I no longer have the patience to detail the Socialist religion for everyone that comes along. Research my messages if you want more.
Thanks, I think the above speaks for itself.
I get the idea you imagine the government has some kind of control over the press, rather than the other way around.
To Pogo: The power to revoke a broadcast license is one control.
Maybe. So feel free to, I think this is the fifth time, post any case to support your theory-- somewhere the gummint has yanked a broadcast license for political reasons. Just one.
No one can punish the government for violating print press’ First Amendment Rights is another control.
Ahem... SCOTUS?
The most powerful control of all is seen in the media sneaks who want the same thing the sneaks in government want —— a Socialist theocracy. In practice they want unbridled capitalism for themselves and communism’s shackles for everyone else.
Once again, ^^ ramblng wholly unquantified emotional paranoia using a term you refuse to define. No substance.
That video is utterly unrelated to anything in this thread. This is the Media forum. The city of Detroit is not the media.
