Printable View
Symptomatic: http://benswann.com/media-blacks-out...nt-you-to-see/
What else doesn’t make the news and why?
Broadcasters often just don’t report things they don’t want you to be informed upon.
Whether it is MSNBC or Fox or any other outlet they just skip what does not go along with the corporate view of how the world should be.
If it does not advance the crony capitalism empowered by the current political system you aren’t going to here about it.
That reminds me: I need to buy some more tin foil.....
Frags got a shed full, you should ask him if you can borrow some. :wink:
He's not that silly. The shed is LINED with tinfoil....Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Well, if the interview is:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
1) real (sorry not seen it yet, but will do shortly)
2) not being aired in the US
Then the title of "What the government doesn't want you to see" can be seen as having some legitimacy.
Interesting stuff. Snowden is very eloquent and intelligent guy.
It's an interview conducted by German public television, the German version is on youtube and an English (original interview) version as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x38jkFlPeg
Of course it's possible that the video is not available outside of Germany but I wouldn't know that.
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I found this link which works for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ask57bjVv5Q
It seems to be chopped a little into smaller segments lasting a total of 3 minutes opposed to the full 30 minutes but what he says isn't really anything mindblowing. It is what you expect to hear pretty much from anything coming out of Hollywood. The most surprising factor is the number of 'hits' the programme got, which Snowden says was one, which was a wiretransfer from a California cabby of $85,000 which was picked up. Outside of that, nothing.
I am struggling to find a source for the full version, the links are either 'dead' 'not working' 'cannot be aired in country' and Hola! isn't able to bypass it...
In the op there's a link to a full 30 min interview - you can't watch it?
When I click play, it comes up with "Stream ID not found on server". I will try again later, might be flooded or similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Edit: Managed to get it working now, Sarmatian. Thanks.
It worked for me again 30 seconds ago.
Tin foil, indeed...
If I don't post again in 3 days, the NSA got me. Avenge me, my friends, and don't let my dream of mandatory topless beach volley for hot girls aged 18-25 go to waste...
It's not aired in Norway either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Does that mean Erna Solberg is working with the US gubmint to screw me over?
Let's face the facts here: it's gone unnoticed because it's not interesting, not because of some NWO-conspiracy.
Since the highlight of Norwegian TV is showing fire-log burn, I am not surprised such an interview wouldn't inspire many watchers in ol' Norse. Clearly it was broadcast in Germany, there was a clear interest there by people that it even ended up transmitted by word of mouth across the Atlantic and there are those who wanted to hear about it. Clear fact we are noticing it now is in clear contradiction to the 'unnoticed' you suggest.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The interview did get picked up by BBC news who ran an article upon one of the comments made.
Either way, there is a clear public interest in the issue, however, they most likely had incentives not to do so, such as having to pay an overpriced licence for the said interview.
But I guess the log-fire is simply reduced to ashes that makes things a little dim from your perspective.
Watching firelogs burn? Nah, that was boooooring. The full weekend dedicated to knitting, however.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Anyway. Snowden is doing a whole bunch of interviews. Basically, every news source in Europe is doing their own. Why would the US media show all of them? He's basically saying the same thing in all of them, so how is it interesting?
I find myself underwhelmed by this particular instance of inefficient reportage by the media.
Snowden, to all appearances, wants to blow the whistle on the NSA. It's illegal, but that is sometimes true in whistleblowing instances. He chose to run rather than to face the music domestically. Cannot find myself lauding him for that. He will now live in exile. His choice.
The whole thing boils down to freedom versus security. At what point is security too costly in terms of the loss of freedom. In this electronic age, I am not sure that we're all familiar enough with the technology to really grasp what was going on.
Hoover having "skeleton files" on movers and shakers in DC makes sense. We can all understand it. A computer program that sucks up all of our cell phone calls and does word searches etc. but may or may not be able to access a specific call without direct intervention is a little more nebulous.
Understandable would be the NSA is copying Jane's sexting photos to Joe and pinning them up on the wall in the break-room. That is the kind of thing that people understand.
The rest? People's eyes glaze over except for a few percentage points of the savvier younglings who start screaming Big Brother. Since that sub-group is the same subgroup that thought Napster's piracy was cool, they don't necessarily convince a lot of others.
You know he cannot 'face the music' right, as his case would be done behind closed doors due to national secrets. Maximum exposure involved running so he can be heard than simply silenced and locked away within the court system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Unless you suggest a martyr for a martyr's sake.
Just so you have a clearer picture the in Utgard, the US news is that the US media ignored it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The only interview they are aware of the ARD/NDR interview which is also the only one that seems to get any hits on web searches. It is available in several languages, however. So perhaps it is one and the same as all these mass interviews you are eluding to.
Unless you have something through your tin hat that no one else knows.
If you believe this to be his only interview, you should really pay more attention to what's happening in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
EDIT: From the top of my head, he has given interviews to the Guardian and the Washington Post. So much for a US media blackout of Snowden, eh?
The big question is, did he say anything revolutionary different to the Nazi's than what he told the Post a little over a month ago? The surprising answer is:
Nope.
I wonder why the media doesn't bother to report on the same thing twice?
They're not Nazis, put down your tinfoil hat.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
And "Nazi's" is genitive singular, you could at least get the grammar right.
*guffaws*Quote:
the media doesn't bother to report on the same thing twice?
Oh shoo ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
It's just true that media ignore what doesn't suit them. Media = ministry of truth
I'm really amazed how it came to this view. Unlike us euroweenies, who demand that our governments guarantee our "freedom to" do something, you Americans always prided yourself on your "freedom from" government meddling. Bill of rights ought to protects your rights. Isn't that why you have the 2nd amendment? Isn't that why you supposedly keep arms?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The same conservative element should have been outraged by what Snowden revealed. It's a good reason as any to go to your basement, take out M-16's, Uzis, howitzers and Abrams', go to Washington and ask your elected representatives some questions. But, somehow the entire thing was spun that Snowden is a bad guy for revealing it.
Well, if nothing else, it proves that those keeping their private arsenals in their basements or attics do it because they think their penis grows proportionally with increase in firepower, not because they want to protect their rights and freedoms.
"Nazi" is a synonym for no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
And the word should always be spelled wrong, so as to attract grammar nazis.
Most Americans are not going to get worked up about anything unless the talking heads tell them to get worked up about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Stories or innuendos about Snowden working for the Russians or Chinese. Stories to make him look small or a crackpot. Unpatriotic.
Whistleblowers often get maligned. The fact that they often are charged recently under the Espionage Act is meaningless to the uninformed.
Don’t you know, people are supposed to be upset about Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus and just trust the government to do what is best for the people. After all, spying on the whole world is just to try and catch the bad guys, don’t you know.
When they need to get upset the News Man will let them know.
Nah.
The fact is, it's the other way around: the media don't report extensively on the subject (at this point) because not only is it a much more difficult thing to report on than "Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus", but the American public just doesn't want to hear about it. The people who do want to hear about it are already going to sources that oblige them, so why would major outlets invest any resources in bringing them into the fold - when everyone else is already tuned in?
And many were. Rand Paul being the most notable one of the Tea Party types, he was absolutely furious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Snowden is a bad guy not because he revealed what he did, but because he ran away. By running away he totally ruined his credibility and goodwill with the masses.Quote:
It's a good reason as any to go to your basement, take out M-16's, Uzis, howitzers and Abrams', go to Washington and ask your elected representatives some questions. But, somehow the entire thing was spun that Snowden is a bad guy for revealing it.
Well duh. Biggest penis == instant win in Life.Quote:
Well, if nothing else, it proves that those keeping their private arsenals in their basements or attics do it because they think their penis grows proportionally with increase in firepower, not because they want to protect their rights and freedoms.
What I don't quite get is why America only accepts dead people or comic characters as heroes.
IMO someone who does something heroic and lives on to do even more heroic things is a better hero than someone who dies in the process.
At the very least the former hero saved one more life by saving his own.
What would have happened had Snowden stayed in the US would probably have been a death sentence and he would've had to release all of his documents at once given that he probably couldn't have done it piecemeal out of a federal high security prison. Then the press would've condensed it all into two weeks of shallow reporting before Snowden would've been officially killed as an evil traitor who aided terrorists and the US public would've cared even less about all of it...
Where exactly do I overlook the advantage of that approach?
Revealing more than needs to be revealed is bad for the country. Snowden originally revealed enough to show that we have a problem than needs to be solved. Had he stayed in the country, he'd be hailed as a hero and would become a minor celebrity. Case closed. Feds would not have touched him.
Instead he chose to run away and proceeded to reveal more. For what purpose? We already know there's a problem, there's no reason to continue to leak information, since at this point it does nothing short of damaging American interests. He kept leaking data purely for self-interest, i.e. creating more notoriety and fame for himself. Doing that while sitting in Moscow does not endear him to the general public. Snowden is pretty much guaranteed to be a pariah for the rest of his life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
They are mainly victims of their own complacency.
That and comic book. The Hero always stands up to the bad guys and wins in the end!
Justice will prevail!
Of course none of them have any experience with the federal legal system. Justice doesn’t enter the equation.
Snowden is already tried and convicted by the press and the pundits. He would never receive a jury trial. And none of it would be in open court.
That they are naïve is an understatement.
Despite numerous experiences they continue to believe their government are “The Good Guys”.
Collectively, I have to say, my countrymen are simpletons.
As for justice;
No one who knew this was going on could go to court to stop it because it was secret and they had no standing.
When Snowden gave them the proof so that they had standing what was the result?
Dismissal!
On December 28, 2013, Judge William Pauley granted a motion to dismissed the suit. The court acknowledge that the program "vacuums up information about virtually every telephone call to, from, or within the United States"
In an argument regarding the ACLU's claim that the NSA was exceeding the bounds of section 215 of the Patriot Act Judge Pauley wrote:
"The ACLU would never have learned about the section 215 order authorizing collection of telephone metadata related to its telephone numbers but for the unauthorized disclosures of Edward Snowden. Congress did not intend that targets of section 215 order would ever learn of them. And the statutory scheme also makes clear that congress intended to preclude suits by targets even if they discovered section 215 orders implicating them. It cannot possibly be that lawbreaking conduct by a government contractor that reveals state secrets—including the means and methods of intelligence gathering—could frustrate Congress's intent. To hold otherwise would spawn mischief: recipients of orders would be subject to 215's secrecy protocol confining challenges to the FISC while targets could sue in any federal district court. A target's awareness of section 215 does not alter the Congressional calculus. The ACLU's statutory claim must therefore be dismissed."
Old stuff: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...the-free-.html
And what has changed?
Nothing! A few promises to reform and a little bit of show.
And I guess that makes it ok.
To every person on this thread that says Snowden is a traitor/coward/narcisist/whatever for running away once he blew the whistle, I would like you to consider what the American government has done over that last, oh, 70 years:
It has repeatedly censored, oppressed and persecuted people because of their skin colour, country of origin, sexuality or ideology.
It has constantly screwed over it's own lower class for half baked reasons, put downs ranging from repeated attempts to undo healthcare reforms to actively spreading deadly chemicals over it's own slums just to see what happens.
It has put dictators, warlords, extremists in power in several different countries for petty ideological reasons.
It has tried and occasionally succeeded in assassinating people, great and small, for said ideological reasons.
It has used a national tragedy as an excuse to send thousands of men and women to thier deaths in a war with one of their own warlords, who was unrelated to said event, all to secure materials it already has.
It has killed millions over the world in futile attempts to restrict narcotics, half of which are no more deadly or addictive than alcohol and tobacco and the other half have exploded in production directly due to those attempts.
You want to argue the truth, ethics or validity of each of those parts; go ahead. you want to point out that my or anyone else's government is little better; fine. But if you think that Snowden, or any American who attempts to reveal that it's own government was betraying the very principles it swears to maintain, could leave themselves in the hands of the irrational, psychopathic, unfettered and vengeful entity you call the US Government and not get silenced or even killed, you need to take a rain check.
Snowden right now has almost all of the government wanting him dead for making them look bad, and half the country wanting him lynched because the news tells them they should. The only thing we would have heard about the entire ordeal if he tried to reveal what he did without evacuating America would have been his (Quote) unfortunate suicide (/Quote)
But of course, the conservative majority know only what their conservative representatives tell them. Meanwhile their conservative representatives are too scared that if they were to follow their ideology and take issue with this it could result in a de-clawing of the governments powers. And that's all they care about. Not their convictions or ideology but how much power they get to play with when they eventually retake the white house.Quote:
The same conservative element should have been outraged by what Snowden revealed. It's a good reason as any to go to your basement, take out M-16's, Uzis, howitzers and Abrams', go to Washington and ask your elected representatives some questions. But, somehow the entire thing was spun that Snowden is a bad guy for revealing it.
Sure, they could ride the Snowden debacle and retake capitol hill 10+ years early. But really, what's the point if they don't get to keep spying on the illegals and poor people's emails? No, better to stew in their voter's ignorance until once again the slightly less conservative half of the US voting block we call "The Left" forgets how much of a complete :daisy: up their previous 5 or so rises to power were and once again vote them in. Because there's no way that the people will maintain a streak of sanity indefinitely. The houses, senate, it's all theirs, they just have to wait a decade, maybe two and they get their asses back in the drivers seat without giving up a shred of the Government's invasive and all encompassing powers.
Don't believe me? Consider this, they've been trying to get rid of Obama for 6 years, sabotaging his efforts to run the country in an attempt to keep him from being reelected and now that failed they're trying to impeach him. Yet for all they've done they haven't once tried to remove any of the president's suite of powers. Sure, there's been rules lawyering and a great wringing of hands over the interpretation of what president's allowed to do, but no actual calls for removal of those powers. You'd think that if they really believed he would ruin the country they would do absolutely anything to stop him, even remove those presidential powers. Yet there hasn't been one attempt.
Funny that.
First documents appeared in June. He was charged in June. Other documents appeared after he was charged. He didn't choose Moscow, he was stranded in it. He applied for asylum in two dozen countries and was refused in all of them. He was granted temporary asylum in Russia, of all countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
And? For what purpose did those other documents appear?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Informing the public of the extent of violation of their rights and freedoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The goal of Snowden's revelations is to stop all NSA domestic surveillance not generated following a federal court (not the special intelligence court which is almost a "subpoena the ham sandwich" rubber stamp) warrant. Morally and Constitutionally, that is the only acceptable stance.
Perhaps Snowden's revelations would have been ignored by the powers that be in Washington, with his "appropriate" format whistle blowing going no further than a Senate subcommittee and the whole thing being hushed by a gag order. I have more faith in our elected officials than that, I grudgingly admit, but I may well be wrong.
As to getting the media to focus on this, there is not a chance. The media WOULD air the story if they could get the ratings. They cannot. The USA viewer wants entertainment and entertaining news when a disaster is happening. The state of the Union address drew maybe 11 million viewers. The Superbowl beat that by an order of magnitude. The only news programs that ever get into the top 25 (and that rarely) in a given week are 60 minutes and Fox (a huge slice of the loyal news watchers pick this cable channel over the other choices). More people watched Big Bang Theory than the State of the Union. The only reason news stays on TV is weather and the fact that it is cheap to produce.
I admit to being aware of this thread, but not caring because I was more interested in Man United's crosserama against Fulham.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Maintain the "bubble"
If it is not reported-event does not exist
It reminds me of Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent; a book I had to "sign" for to purchase...chilling effect?
He didn't have to release the specifics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
But he did. He, on his own, had determined that the government would not do the right thing so he, on his own, had to insure as fully as possible that it could not occur.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I think it is so much hype and hogwash.
The first things he released were the names of programs and laws to give standing for lawsuits.
The second round were which allies we were spying on and the phone numbers.
It is to the governments benefit to blow it out of proportions and say he ruined the security network.
Caught with their hand in the cookie jar they are pointing at the accuser.
They speculate over what he has and may have or could release.
This was not wiki leaks. All the material was targeted. No masses of files.
If you have a comprehensive list of all the evil things he put out, please show us. You might even win a convert or two.
Show us the damage!
The interview in the OP is very informative in that regard. He explained how the only way for the public and politicians to find out is if NSA self-reports. He was torn when it came to making all of this public and he finally made a decision when the head of the NSA directly lied about it to a congress committee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Now, you can choose to think he lied about that and that he only wanted publicity, that's fair I guess, maybe he did lie, but somehow I doubt it.
He also explained how the Five Eyes alliance work and how basically all members were doing the same thing. This isn't only about USA. There is no reason to believe that all intelligence agencies around the world with adequate funding and infrastructure aren't doing the same thing.
The big issue is how public has little interest in all of this. We're truly sheep and it appears that as long as the shepherd doesn't do something that directly affects us, we'll just happily bleat away.
I understand your point.
Interesting that watching fake news can leave you better informed than watching Fox: http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_..._informed.html
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
I had this hunch that watching the Daily Show and the Colbert Report kept me relatively well-informed about US politics even though they're not entirely serious shows, guess it wasn't all wrong.
Hmmm..............Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
We are all the public. You let silly social faux pas prevent you from contributing to the social discourse and in return you wonder why the majority of people are troglodytes that are not involved or educated in any way.
Be a little less Benjamin the Donkey in your life and see what impact you can actually have on those around you.
Sure! What is real news and what is fake news. Are they just telling you what they want you to know? Is it information or misinformation. How can you tell?
Two years ago anyone telling you the NSA and FBI was spying on citizens listening to phone calls or reading your email was just a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
Perhaps, if you are backward you still think that.
You are not interested because you think you have done nothing wrong, but on average everyone commits between 3 to 7 felonies everyday without them even knowing it. You may think that is just fear mongering, but it is not.
Any and every electronic device, hooked to the internet or not can be used. Even your neighborhood streetlights can be watching and recording you.
Don’t believe me, just look it up.
Around the same time Snowden was releasing his information Michael Hastings died in a car crash. Some said it was a government plot. Crazy conspiracy theory said the powers that be. It can’t be done!
Well,http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/08...-brakes-engine
Look at the date of the article Aug 13, 2010.
Recently several have documented that it can be done. Forbs Magazine for one.
Then there was the short piece about what Snowden could expect if he had stayed home to face the Feds. http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson...d-snowden-dead
But why should anyone worry! They will never be a target of the government, right?
They are only looking for terrorists, after all. Only right-wingers, former military, whole foots types, second amendment activists, and about 80 or so other groups are on this governments watch list. Chances are if you aren’t on this one you will be on the next government list.
But it is all ok, America is the land of the free.
Not entirely sure who the last two posters are adressing...
On a not so different note: http://aclj.org/free-speech-2/why-is...s-in-newsrooms
It would seem the government wants more control over the stories, broadcast or printed, that you are to learn about.
But I suppose none of you really see any danger in this.
Not really, since the paranoid blogger you linked to contained 10% truth and 90% fantasy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Pat Robertson really is a brilliant source of objective information.
exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
this is the most little small things you can know!! mnay even doesnt go to internet!
and thats what i've said many times but some people here only know to oppose and attack!! instead of rethink and search for more..........but they are what the world 1% and their world media wants to be.
Here is the opinion piece written by an FCC commissioner that Fisherking's link was getting its information from:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...66903828260732
I saw that as well, which is what made me realize just how batshit insane that blogger was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
I didn't notice how bad the article was until I skimmed it a second time. Maybe I've lived in Utah for so long that I've become immune to Conservative hyperbole.
Either way I do think the CIN initiative is worrying. How does interviewing news broadcasters about their coverage policies help entrepreneurs enter the market? Maybe the CIN really is just an objective fact finding mission, but given how both the Right and the Left are so worried about how the media is distorting information to influence the public, I don't think it's too far of a stretch to think the Obama administration or maybe the FCC on its own wants to ensure that the public has access to what Obama/FCC deem to be "critical information".
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Why is it you feel compelled to lie, obfuscate and deliberately misconstrue.
As with the title of the thread, this is exactly the problem with news coverage in the US.
They are all ardently partisan.
But don’t worry. In a week or so Mother Jones will pick it up and have roughly the same take as the first link.
And as you know, it was not a blog but a civil rights organization. You can’t even read a by line.
I don’t know that I have ever seen someone as terrified of other ideas as you. Are you afraid to think for your self?
Why would anyone want to research how cats react to bearded men?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
But we've done that, researching how news selection is done is way more useful to us.
It was the blog section on the website of a conservative hack organization founded by evangelical loonie Pat Robertson, who spends most of their time challenging abortion-related issues in court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
So, who reports is more frightening to you than what is reported? How enlightened.
Perhaps this will shed more light on the problem: http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php
But the main cause is political bias on the part of the outlets, and apparently you.
Yes, those right-wingers are as likely to pass stupid laws or regulations when they are in power as left-wingers. But they are not in power.
The trouble is that if the administration keeps going down this path they may be. Then it would be time to see what the other side is saying.
The quality of the source is vital when judging the reliability of the information, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Yes it's useful but why does it need to be done by a government agency tasked with regulating the airwaves? Clearly there's potential for abuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
:rolleyes: that is just his way
Why? Where is the clear potential?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
Which media outlets have the FCC shut down in the past?
Is the language and terms I use too difficult for you to understand? Considering you apparently believe in perpetual motion machines and free energy, that's hardly surprising...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Pardon me HoreTore, but it must be that you don’t understand.
What you believe my beliefs to be has no bearing on the topic. It is a distraction. Point up links that have nothing to do with the topic is irrelevant and a distraction, contributing nothing to the subject.
You confuse the topic with your own prejudices. can cloud and obstruct the discussion making it difficult for other to follow. Thus Obfuscation.
As to the FCC, they have at least stopped to examine what they are doing and put it on hold.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...tor-newsrooms/
But it is probably a source you won’t credit so chose to ignore it if you will.
Where, exactly, was did I "point up a link that has nothing to do with the topic"...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
And when you have previously stated your admiration of a completely nutjob movie claiming perpetual motion works and free energy exists(Thrive), you can't expect me to just forget about that, sorry.
How many people who have been cheated on thought it would never happen because their spouse never cheated on anyone in the past? It's not logical to assume that because someone has never done something they can't or never will. The probability that they will do something such as adultery may be very low depending on the person but it's never an impossibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The FCC is a government agency with regulatory authority. They do have the potential to start pressuring news organisations to report the news the way they want them to. As I said before this might not be their intent but their is nothing unreasonable with being concerned.
They already have the ability to shut down media stations. They can already use that ability to force news stations to report the news they want them to report.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
But they don't.
I fail to see how a research initiative changes anything when they already have the means necessary to make the media dance to their tune.
Yea exactly, that is the point. They have the power to shut down media stations. If they want the media to report the news a certain way, don't they need to know how and what the media is reporting? How else are they supposed to know who is and who isn't reporting the news the right way? Did you read the opinion piece?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
GC, admittedly the stated premise behind the study sounds like what is needed. But as we have seen time and again the stated goal gets perverted down the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Is it really a power you would place in the hands of a partisan government and not expect it to get abused?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
HoreTore,
Obviously that was a thread you completely misunderstood, and apparently still do. I stated my skepticism from the outset, saying they presented some factual information, and some not, and reached wrong conclusions.
The idea was like examining a complex math problem to see where the individual had worked the steps correctly but made an error in calculations.
We know the answer is wrong but want to find why. You were fixed on there only being a wrong answer and refused to examine the steps.
You still seem fixated on your own misperception. Your mind was closed to such an exercise, as it somehow threatened your world view and you chose to attack the messenger without your really understanding the message.
You are still attacking based on your own misinterpretation of what occurred in a completely different topic and don’t seem to be able to let it go.
Stop obsessing, have a stiff drink and relax. It will all be ok.
You mean they need to watch TV?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
Does watching TV give you an idea of what's going on behind the scenes? Does it let you know how the broadcaster decides which news stories to report and how? I'm sorry but at this point I am going to have to agree with Fisherking, you are so closed minded that you just refuse to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
All administrations are partisan to one extent or another. If you trust one with the power to censor you trust them all.
If you don’t see potential for abuse you are wearing blinders. What would you have said if the Bush administration had proposed such measures?
Do you need that knowledge in order to figure out which news stations are hurting "the powers that be"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
Why, exactly, is news selection a vital criteria for media shutdown abuse?
Good points. Censorship is a poor road down which to travel. I favor it only in highly restricted -- and temporary -- instances (such as prior to and during the opening phases of a military operation).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Just a study to best determine how to have broadcast and print media to report what the government wants you to know.
How enlightened. Government approved news. Brilliant.
The commissioners are all political appointees serving at the pleasure of the President, that makes it fair and balanced for sure, huh.
Moving into print media isn’t an unprecedented step either, is it?
It will all be just fine. Sometimes everything sounds like MSNBC or USA To Day, at other times they all sound like Fox and The Washington Times. Of course if your guys control it first it makes it harder for the other party to come back. I guess you like that prospect too.
As long as your guys control the news it is a public service, when the other side does it is tyranny.
Were from the government and we are here to help!:rolleyes:
You can put your faith in corporations to bring you the news you need, (bad idea)
Or allow the government to decide what it is you need to know (worse idea).
Especially since the administration and member of congress have called for laws revoking first amendment privilege from those not employed by approved news organizations…. So you would not have access to other outside sources.
The only way you are going to be informed is to examine differing viewpoints on the various topics and making up your own mind. If you don’t then all I can say is, what I have heard is a French proverb.
If you don’t do politics, politics will do you.
Let's put it this way - something bad happens and you have to have a date with the surgeoun in the hospital - would you rather government set the standard for his education and the procedure or a corporation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Neither. A reputable professional association that sets standards based on the good (and reputation) of its craft -- which is what we have now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
GC:
Fisherking has the right of this one. If it were simply a study, then hire academics and have them report results to your select committee investigating the issue -- it is what we academics do and we have research procedures that have been well vetted to both address the issue and protect the study subjects.
As currently formatted, it appears to me to be the snout of a very ugly camel.....
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razorQuote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
A fair point. It could very well be an exercise in unthinking empire creep for someone at FCC as opposed to anything Stalinist. Good reminder.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
People seldom do what they do for the sake of evil. Who was it who said “everyone is right from their own side”?
I am sure the idea was well intentioned. A lot of bad, a lot of misery is due to unintended consequences.
Then there are those who thing the ends justify the means. Good or bad often depends on where you happen to find your self. Those in charge can usually find good justifications for what they do, but they are not the ones being effected in most instances.