Not in the news

**HoreTore** · 02-22-2014, 08:35

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".

Why would anyone want to research how cats react to bearded men?

But we've done that, researching how news selection is done is way more useful to us.

**Tuuvi** · 02-22-2014, 17:13

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Why would anyone want to research how cats react to bearded men?

But we've done that, researching how news selection is done is way more useful to us.

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.

**Fisherking** · 02-22-2014, 17:25

that is just his way

**HoreTore** · 02-22-2014, 18:04

Originally Posted by Fisherking

that is just his way

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...

**Fisherking** · 02-23-2014, 16:29

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.

**HoreTore** · 02-23-2014, 17:58

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"...?

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.

**HoreTore** · 02-22-2014, 18:03

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

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.

Why? Where is the clear potential?

Which media outlets have the FCC shut down in the past?

**Tuuvi** · 02-23-2014, 18:49

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Why? Where is the clear potential?

Which media outlets have the FCC shut down in the past?

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.

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.

**HoreTore** · 02-23-2014, 19:33

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

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.

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.

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.

**Tuuvi** · 02-24-2014, 04:02

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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?

**HoreTore** · 02-24-2014, 09:22

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

don't they need to know how and what the media is reporting?

You mean they need to watch TV?

**Fisherking** · 02-24-2014, 09:04

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The survey seems like a misguided but honest attempt to do something about the sorry state of our news reporting. It will likely be a shortlived effort.

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.

Is it really a power you would place in the hands of a partisan government and not expect it to get abused?

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Where, exactly, was did I "point up a link that has nothing to do with the topic"...?

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.

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.