So the FCC chair is threatening networks that broadcast unfavorable news

[Papageorgio]

Except for when they do, like on Sundays

I wouldn’t know I don’t watch TV much, especially the news. Years ago I used to watch CBS on Sunday because they had “On the Road with Charles Kuralt and I probably stopped that in the early 90’s.

 

[BlindBoo]

312 to 226…landslide

525 to 13...a real landslide.

 

[Papageorgio]

Eventually the doctrine was deleted by a 4-0 bipartisan vote at the FCC.

And then Congress voted to restore them and Reagan vetoed the bill another reason Democrats didn’t like Reagan.

 

[Papageorgio]

Threats of force is the same as force.

Carr is threatening government force. The same can’t be said about other administrations.

Yes it can but we won’t know because social media caved to the force.

 

[Papageorgio]

It was a milestone year.

Licensees who broadcasts from a single political perspective were the ones limiting freedom of speech. Not a rule deemed constitutionals in 1969, based on the 1st Amendment rights of the people. But that was then, when there was only 3. It never applied to print media, cable, or the internet.

It applied to radio as well as all broadcast mediums, I also believe it was a bad ruling because it infringed on free speech, Broadcasters have not obligation to allow free speech, government has no right to limit free speech and we saw that when the FCC under Reagan dumped the 1st amendment limiting doctrine.

 

[Marener]

Yes it can but we won’t know because social media caved to the force.

Your statement is gibberish.

There was no force.

Why can you say it if you don’t know?

 

[Papageorgio]

Your statement is gibberish.

There was no force.

Why can you say it if you don’t know?

Right so had social media had not complied the government would have said, okay, no problem, continue to go against our wishes. lol!

Implied force means nothing, the result is not any of the big three have changed their reporting, and they won’t. There is no force.

 

[Marener]

Right so had social media had not complied the government would have said, okay, no problem, continue to go against our wishes. lol!

Implied force means nothing, the result is not any of the big three have changed their reporting, and they won’t. There is no force.

There were many times when social media companies didn’t comply with the government and they never resorted to force.

It’s not “implied” at all, it’s perfectly explicit.

And yes, it does absolutely mean something.

 

[Papageorgio]

There were many times when social media companies didn’t comply with the government and they never resorted to force.

It’s not “implied” at all, it’s perfectly explicit.

And yes, it does absolutely mean something.

When did they not comply?

Also, what changes has have the big theee been forced to change? When did it happen and which have lost their licenses?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When did they not comply?

Also, what changes has have the big theee been forced to change? When did it happen and which have lost their licenses?

That's not the only problem, here.

The threat is the problem. We already saw two networks settle lawsuits with Trump that they would have won walking away,for example. They amounted to bribes.

The mere threat can alter their behaviors.

 

[struth]

525 to 13...a real landslide.

Yep

Get used to it

Loser

 

[Marener]

When did they not comply?

There were numerous instances where the government requested content takedowns that social media companies didn’t comply with.

Also, what changes has have the big theee been forced to change? When did it happen and which have lost their licenses?

Hard to say since we aren’t part of the decision making process. It’s pretty clear media companies have reconsidered their stance and are pulling punches.

CBS airs '60 Minutes' report on Trump deportations that was suddenly pulled a month ago

The network announced less than two hours before its broadcast that correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi's report about migrants sent to El Salvador's notorious CECOT prison would air, giving no immediate details on how it was changed.

www.pbs.org

Loading…

www.npr.org

Threats are still threats regardless of whether they’re heeded or not. The intent is clear either way.

 

[Papageorgio]

There were numerous instances where the government requested content takedowns that social media companies didn’t comply with.

Hard to say since we aren’t part of the decision making process. It’s pretty clear media companies have reconsidered their stance and are pulling punches.

CBS airs '60 Minutes' report on Trump deportations that was suddenly pulled a month ago

The network announced less than two hours before its broadcast that correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi's report about migrants sent to El Salvador's notorious CECOT prison would air, giving no immediate details on how it was changed.

www.pbs.org

Loading…

www.npr.org

Threats are still threats regardless of whether they’re heeded or not. The intent is clear either way.

So you have nothing, that’s what I thought.

 

[Marener]

So you have nothing, that’s what I thought.

You choose to ignore that which doesn’t fit your worldview.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You choose to ignore that which doesn’t fit your worldview.

CBS canceled the most popular late night talk show and paid $40MM in bribes to curry Trump's favor.

And that was after a mere THREAT from the FCC.

 

[Marener]

CBS canceled the most popular late night talk show and paid $40MM in bribes to curry Trump's favor.

And that was after a mere THREAT from the FCC.

Probably had more to do with the merger deal.

 

[MayorQuimby]

What a lie. He's threatening the broadcast licenses of free over the air broadcast stations who report fake news for political purposes.

But I wonder though, if the organization's bylaw says that news must be in the public interest, and if he sincerely believes that what these broadcasters' broadcast is not in the public's interest, then really he has a leg to stand on.

I think the problem is that what constitutes "public interest" is too vague and furthermore, subjective. Whose rule do we rely on to determine whether a piece of news is in the public interest or not?

 

[Papageorgio]

You choose to ignore that which doesn’t fit your worldview.

You have a bunch of I don’t knows, I asked specifics, you gave me no answers that go with the events. When was the threat made, how have they changed reporting? Go reread my post and answer the questions instead of dancing around and not answering one.

 

[Marener]

You have a bunch of I don’t knows, I asked specifics, you gave me no answers that go with the events. When was the threat made, how have they changed reporting? Go reread my post and answer the questions instead of dancing around and not answering one.

Social media deciding against complying with requests is documented in court cases and testimony in those cases.

We’ve seen lots of threats from the Trump administration.

Do you expect the threatened to come out and say they made decisions based on those threats? That’s absurd.

You demand an unattainable level of specificity and proof to believe your own view which has no such level of specificity and proof. It demonstrates a dishonest in your argument.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Probably had more to do with the merger deal.

Same for the FCC threat.