So the FCC chair is threatening networks that broadcast unfavorable news

[Papageorgio]

Your claims is false. The Fairness Doctrine never was about censorship. Nor, was it ever used that way. It was about the balanced presentation of political views. One could present the conservative view, but it had to be balanced out by a similar presentation of other views as well.

When it was abandoned, the door opened to one-sided political marketing, something that Rush Limbaugh and his imitators latched on to right away.

Fox came in 1996. It was founded on the same premise as right wing talk radio. Lowbrow tabloid style entertainment and partisan poltical marketing dressed up as news. Fox never cared about the truth, and neither does its audience.

You are very wrong. The government deciding what is fair and balanced is indeed censorship. I don’t care which side of the aisle it favors.

Government’s job is not to decide what we say or when we say it, their job is to allow us to keep the right to say it.

We are not Canada or Britain when it comes to free speech.

 

[struth]

I wasn't referring to that.

But that scheme was so preposterous!

then you'll have to be more clear

 

[Marener]

Cannot even give you a "nice try" for that one.

That was the really quite precocious, Miss Jankowicz, the original head of the Disinformation Board, being interviewed by NPR.

She accuses her detractors of disinformation, but does not give one single example of it.

So the claims of disinformation on the part of detractors of the Disinformation Board are themselves - you guessed it - disinformation.

She explains it.

You believed the disinformation

Yeah that’s not my definition. That's the defination of a independent establishment for purposes of that title.

When I asked you for a definition, this is what you provided.

So if it’s not a department, and it’s not a military branch, and it’s not a government corporation, it’s independent.

 

[TimFitz]

You are very wrong. The government deciding what is fair and balanced is indeed censorship. I don’t care which side of the aisle it favors.

Government’s job is not to decide what we say or when we say it, their job is to allow us to keep the right to say it.

We are not Canada or Britain when it comes to free speech.

The point of the Fairness Doctrine was to insure that all sides get reported.

The authors of the Communications act were well aware of censorship, and how powerful censorship of broadcast media could be.

They were fully aware of Dr Goebells, and the power he wielded through mass communication.

It took Rupert Murdoch and Limbaugh and his crowd less than ten years to prove that point.

And uneducated, uncurious mass market, one which perfers validation over information is easy prey.

That is obvious here and on other forums every single day.

 

[22lcidw]

The point of the Fairness Doctrine was to insure that all sides get reported.

The authors of the Communications act were well aware of censorship, and how powerful censorship of broadcast media could be.

They were fully aware of Dr Goebells, and the power he wielded through mass communication.

It took Rupert Murdoch and Limbaugh and his crowd less than ten years to prove that point.

And uneducated, uncurious mass market, one which perfers validation over information is easy prey.

That is obvious here and on other forums every single day.

You guys whined because of Talk Radio when the truth is Progressive Socialist Communist talkers rating sucked and got cancelled. TV today can handle many many networks that produce Republican style programming. And they are denied for some reason.

 

[TimFitz]

You guys whined because of Talk Radio when the truth is Progressive Socialist Communist talkers rating sucked and got cancelled. TV today can handle many many networks that produce Republican style programming. And they are denied for some reason.

Ratings do not equal truth. It's odd that so many right wingers seem to want to believe that it does.

Fox News lies to you every single day, and has done since 1996.

It is official corporate policy. Tell you what you want to hear, and omit what you need to know if it makes you uncomfortable.

 

[Papageorgio]

The point of the Fairness Doctrine was to insure that all sides get reported.

The authors of the Communications act were well aware of censorship, and how powerful censorship of broadcast media could be.

They were fully aware of Dr Goebells, and the power he wielded through mass communication.

It took Rupert Murdoch and Limbaugh and his crowd less than ten years to prove that point.

And uneducated, uncurious mass market, one which perfers validation over information is easy prey.

That is obvious here and on other forums every single day.

Sorry the 1st amendment doesn’t give government the right to decide what is free speech and what isn’t. I dislike many shows right and left and I have the right to choose, your elitist attitude is why the 1st amendment needs to be protected at all costs. That is why the FCC has no right to interfere with the big 4 and what they broadcast as far as political speech. My interpretation of the 1st amendment seems to much broader than yours.

 

[TimFitz]

Sorry the 1st amendment doesn’t give government the right to decide what is free speech and what isn’t. I dislike many shows right and left and I have the right to choose, your elitist attitude is why the 1st amendment needs to be protected at all costs. That is why the FCC has no right to interfere with the big 4 and what they broadcast as far as political speech. My interpretation of the 1st amendment seems to much broader than yours.

Repeating your misrepresentations does not change the facts.

Almost every poster who peddles your claims only listen to or watch one highly unreliable and normally dishonest source. it's what they want to see. They don't care if its true or not. Fox made that official.

Which is why not having a fairness doctrine is so dangerous.

 

[Papageorgio]

Repeating your misrepresentations does not change the facts.

Almost every poster who peddles your claims only listen to or watch one highly unreliable and normally dishonest source. it's what they want to see. They don't care if its true or not. Fox made that official.

Which is why not having a fairness doctrine is so dangerous.

There is absolutely no misrepresentation on my part, if there is please point it out. My opinion differs from yours, I believe the 1st amendment protects all speech and government is not the one to decide what is fair or accurate.

 

[struth]

She explains it.

You believed the disinformation


When I asked you for a definition, this is what you provided.

So if it’s not a department, and it’s not a military branch, and it’s not a government corporation, it’s independent.

Show me where in the law creating it that Congress said it was independent of the executive branch

I’ve provided you the code

It’s a commission that is part of the executive branch

 

[Papageorgio]

Show me where in the law creating it that Congress said it was independent of the executive branch

I’ve provided you the code

It’s a commission that is part of the executive branch

Who decides what is fair and accurate? The administration in office? That is a dangerous view.

 

[Marener]

Show me where in the law creating it that Congress said it was independent of the executive branch

I’ve provided you the code

It’s a commission that is part of the executive branch

The code you provided proved it.

It’s not a department.
It’s not a military branch.
It’s not a government corporation.

That makes it an independent commission.

 

[struth]

Who decides what is fair and accurate? The administration in office? That is a dangerous view.

The FCC conducts investigations after reciecing complaints

As it has since 1934

The issue isn’t if it’s fair or accurate

The issue is if it’s distorted or not

 

[struth]

The code you provided proved it.

It’s not a department.
It’s not a military branch.
It’s not a government corporation.

That makes it an independent commission.

Haha nope try again

Nowhere does that link say anything about a commission


If it were independent why is the President allowed to suspend rules or regulations unilaterally?

The Communications Act of 1934 | Bureau of Justice Assistance

BackgroundThe Communications Act of 1934 combined and organized federal regulation of telephone, telegraph, and radio communications. The Act created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to oversee and regulate these industries. The Act is updated periodically to add provisions governing...

bja.ojp.gov

 

[Marener]

Haha nope try again

Nowhere does that link say anything about a commission

It’s an independent entity.

If it were independent why is the President allowed to suspend rules or regulations unilaterally?

The Communications Act of 1934 | Bureau of Justice Assistance

BackgroundThe Communications Act of 1934 combined and organized federal regulation of telephone, telegraph, and radio communications. The Act created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to oversee and regulate these industries. The Act is updated periodically to add provisions governing...

bja.ojp.gov

Has nothing to do with the FCC.

 

[percysunshine]

Kind of sad when Al Jazeera is the beacon of truth....

The US-Israeli strategy against Iran is working. Here is why

Every aspect of Iran’s ability to project regional power is being successfully degraded.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[TimFitz]

Fair enough.

Give a couple examples of the disinformation that the public fell for and the biden administration acted on in eliminating the Ministry of Truth or whatever they called it?

You mean you called it. That’s trashy right wing talk.

Yeah that’s not my definition. That's the defination of a independent establishment for purposes of that title.

No, no i didn't.

The Act, outlines numerous things, including what is required to have a broadcast license. Nobody has a right to a broadcast license and it regulates how one gets one, and keeps one, one thing someone can't do if they want to keep one is distort the news.

Yes, you did.

Prove your claim. You can’t, of course.

And since you consume fake news every day, you don’t care whether the news is distorted or not. Experience show you prefer the right wing line, distortions and all. Facts have never mattered to you. Your posts make that very plain.

 

[TimFitz]

Kind of sad when Al Jazeera is the beacon of truth....

View attachment 1231971

The US-Israeli strategy against Iran is working. Here is why

Every aspect of Iran’s ability to project regional power is being successfully degraded.

www.aljazeera.com

And irrelevant.

The long term is what counts. counting bodies and crowing about targets hit has little relevance on what the outcome may be.

As your own post makes clear;

“The most politically potent criticism is that the administration has no endgame. Trump’s own rhetoric has not helped: the oscillation between “unconditional surrender” and hints at negotiation, between regime change and denial of regime change, feeds the impression of strategic incoherence. Only 33 percent of American respondents in a recent Reuters-Ipsos poll said the president had clearly explained the mission’s purpose.”

That’s What you linked to.

But we already knew that.

 

[struth]

You mean you called it. That’s trashy right wing talk.


Yes, you did.

Prove your claim. You can’t, of course.

And since you consume fake news every day, you don’t care whether the news is distorted or not. Experience show you prefer the right wing line, distortions and all. Facts have never mattered to you. Your posts make that very plain.

I did, I provided links to the act for you

Yes I do care if broadcast networks are distorting the news

 

[TimFitz]

I did, I provided links to the act for you

Yes I do care if broadcast networks are distorting the news

But you cheer when Fox does it.