How Should U.S. Media Outlets Be Urged To Higher Standards for Accuracy.?

a reply to: FuggleHop

So. You want the government to have control over the media?

You want the government to be able to veto stories presented by news broadcasters? And you do not see a problem with that? I mean, you are making it far too damned easy to see what you are really made of here. For all the blather about wanting government to be smaller that I hear from the right all the time, you have shown that for you, these things are simply words you say because you have been taught them, as opposed to beliefs you genuinely hold. You are asking for a Big Brother, Newspeak future here.

Relying on your government to fact check a story is like relying on a murderer to safe guard the well being of potential victims. It is simply ludicrous!

a reply to: DBCowboy


A bit extreme and very impractical, but we're thinking similarly. Anti-Trump/Anti-America LIES should not be tolerated by the authorities in this country who are in charge of Homeland Security.

First of all, they need to be professional and have a high level of integrity.

The Rock ( Dwayne Johnson ) is a bright shining example of just such qualities.





Buck

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: carewemust

Simply stop watching and don't subscribe. If we take away their money and relevance they will improve or die

Thankfully I don't subscribe to the newspapers, or liberal-slanted magazines. But the T.V. Cable Networks are a different animal. I learned 3 months ago that I'm helping MSNBC and CNN, simply because I subscribe to Cable-TV. CNN, for example, receives 65% of it's revenue from people who subscribe to Cable/Dish packages that contain CNN.

That's why I'm looking for our government to understand that these liberal outlets hurt America.. and put some control measures in place.

Thanks for your feedback, Metallicus. I've heard that more people are "cutting the cord" and using Non-Cable/Dish methods for watching T.V.. If these methods deprive anti-American outlets like MSNBC and CNN of revenue, that's fantastic.

Call your Cable TV provider and ask them for a package which doesn't include CNN. If they don't offer it take your business elsewhere...Easy enough.

CNN is one of the worst geographically wide-reaching offenders, but it's only 1 outlet Anti-Trump/Anti-America liberal outlet.

a reply to: flatbush71

I heard the other day that "The Rock" has presidential aspirations. Not sure if he's Rep/Dem/Ind though.

First off, the government should not try to regulate the news. Now this doesn't mean that they can't decide who to give interviews to, but they have no right to attempt to censor what they deem is fake or bad news.

As individuals, we can stop taking any news source at face value, and check in on facts ourselves as much as possible.

I think that we are already seeing the death throes of the mainstream medias monopoly on the news, and are seeing alternatives rise. This will have advantages and disadvantages.

So while the media may be back slapping themselves now and smugly feel they are better than everyone, they can continue celebrating themselves until they wake up and find out they are obsolete. That is why you see MSM sources putting so much time into attacking non traditional media like their campaign against PewDeePie.

They realize they are losing influence, and they are so arrogant that they can't believe people can live without them. I can't say I will feel bad for many of them when they come back to Earth with the rest of us peons.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Mabey so but at least the news reports would be accurate then.

originally posted by: FuggleHop
a reply to: TrueBrit

Mabey so but at least the news reports would be accurate then.

How about this Trump idea?

""President Donald Trump asked former FBI Director James Comey to consider imprisoning journalists for reporting classified information, The New York Times reported, citing a memo the head G-Man wrote after speaking to Trump.

The conversation, the paper reported, occurred in February following the firing of National Security Adviser Mike Flynn.""

Source: www.newsweek.com...

Unfortunately, that wouldn't stop the leaks, but it would reduce the odds of sensitive information reaching "bad guys" who can use it to hurt other people.

a reply to: FuggleHop

There is no reason to assume that. EVERY time the government are the only source of information in a given nation, that nations population become less well informed, less accurately appraised of the realities around them, because it has never suited governments to give them the information that they need in order to make informed decisions. Simply put, it would prevent information that the public SHOULD have, from reaching them.

There is nothing that Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden revealed to the public, that should not have been public knowledge. The truth about the actual impact on civilian populations of the illegal war in Iraq, and the existence and nature of the mass surveillance infrastructure operated by the NSA in America and GCHQ in the UK, ARE matters in the public interest. If we cannot be told the truth about war, how are we to make good decisions about how to prevent unjust and needless conflict, by selecting better leaders? If we are not permitted to know that we are watched, who by and to what extent, then how are we ever to know whether our rights are being violated?

If things were as you would wish them, there would still be people in the western developed world who believe that the government and its every facet are there to protect their rights, rather than as part of the main driver of their decay as a concept.

You say, flippantly discarding the only noble virtues that exist in the world, like a love of liberty and freedom for example, "at least the news reports would be accurate then."

You are however, totally ignoring the fact that your government considers it utterly justified to propagandise at its people, to use propaganda against its own, something which USED to be a no no, but is now considered par for the course. Is this not against your principles? Is this not against liberty, against freedom? Is this not anathemic to everything the political right claim to believe, against the only virtues that the right hold which have ANY merit what so ever?

If your population is not informed without a filter, it cannot be expected to make decisions which will benefit its people about who ought to lead them, and how they ought to do it. Simply put, what you are asking for is to increase the power of government, over the citizen, by rendering them under informed and ignorant of the realities before them, especially realities for which government are responsible. You cannot justify this... violation of the basic, fundamental underpinnings of your country, by simply saying it would be done in the name of accuracy. It would be done, if at all, to draw a curtain between the people and the truth.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Well, okay, but what exactly are you saying?

a reply to: FuggleHop

What I am saying is that your assertion that the press need to be regulated more heavily by the government, in order that "accuracy" can be attained, is chock full of pitfalls as a concept, not least of which is that the government hide information you SHOULD have, all the time, no matter who happens to be in charge of it on a given year. All you seem to be asking for, is to be kept in the dark, and that is ridiculous.

The output of media organisations ALWAYS has to be treated with suspicion, and always did before. Nothing, precisely NOTHING has changed in that regard. But having to spend time parsing truth out of muck is a small price to pay, to be informed when things ARE afoot that your government do not want you to know, the Snowden revelations being a perfect example. This has ALWAYS been the trade off. You would have thought that people would be used to this by now, and understand it.

Simply put, you are asking for something which will increase the tyranny government can involve itself in without being caught out, not reduce it.

Everyone in the the veteran mass media knows they are telling really outrageous, unbelievable propaganda these days; the only difference is how they feel about it. All the smart media pros who haven't lost their basic grip on reality are terrified of what their deep state bosses are making them do to keep their jobs. The true believers, the zealots that think they are doing something right and just, are batsh** insane and out of control. They are drunk on power and don't see the real danger dead ahead.

They all know that the answer to this thread's question is that the American people are getting angrier and angrier with them and eventually, if they don't come to their senses and turn back, a line will be crossed, a threshold response will be triggered, and they will all be running for their lives. There will be a tipping point, a straw that breaks the camel's back, and the American people will intervene to 'assure higher standards for media accuracy' with gunfire and pitchforks and torches.

Seriously, ask yourself, if that kind of crap gets started, isn't an obvious target going to be the mass media?

I wouldn't normally bother to remind people of this stuff as it is usually just not a likely or realistic thing, but the current talk of impeaching Trump makes it a relevant reminder. Somebody up there is seriously flirting with disaster with all this nonsense about impeaching Trump.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Mabey so but not all of us are opposed to tyranny.

I think tyranny would be a great way to clean up america. Lose the left, have the right and flourish. Prosper.

Nobody would say no to that.

a reply to: FuggleHop

Aside from the constitution of your country, aside from the people who fought and died because they were told they were protecting the USA from tyranny, aside from the people who make it their task to prevent tyranny, especially those who prepared to do so by starting small militia groups, especially the very right wing, gun owning, highly motivated people, who would indeed argue with it, I am sure you are absolutely right.

I will tell you now, if there is a person in your country who thinks themselves a patriot, who would agree with your position, then that individual is lying to themselves, either about their agreement with your position, or about being a patriot.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Yes! Thats the god awful truth.

The country needs to be fixed. It needs a change.

Trumps the man to do that, if the dems let him!

a reply to: FuggleHop

You are now talking nonsense.

You are not even connecting your statements to the comments you are responding to. That sort of dissociative behaviour does not suggest to me that you have ANY idea what is good for you, leave alone the nation you live in.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Mabey true. Mabey true. The press just needs to leave him alone and he needs to stop taking the bait so he can do his job!

originally posted by: FuggleHop
a reply to: TrueBrit
The press just needs to leave him alone

Never going to happen. Trump needs to learn how to deal.

a reply to: carewemust

For starters, Trump openly admitted to sharing the information and even went on to say that he was well within his rights to do so. Which legally speaking, he is.

Secondly, no one who was in the meeting ever said that Trump didn't divulge classified information.

What they said was that in doing so, Trump didn't reveal any sources or means of intelligence gathering. (You should pay closer attention to the details, the devil is in there.)

The information he provided to the Russians was definitely classified, (code word classified to be exact) and although that divulgence wasn't illegal, it was incredibly stupid.

Especially in the midst of an investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Especially when that investigation is centered around the exact same Russian dignitary, (Sergei Kislyak) that Trump now divulges the secrets to.

The very same guy that Michael Flynn lied about discussing sanctions with and ended up getting fired over.

On one point you are absolutely correct. Trump is, without a doubt, his own worst enemy.

The man is dumber than a box of rocks and hasn't got the foggiest idea of what ethical behavior looks like.