Regulating News Networks (Eliminating Propaganda)

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: FingerMan

It is NOT an infringement if Congress comes down and tells News Organizations to segregate News from Commentary, and to do so in the clearest of senses.

Politicians in charge of the information the taxpayers receive...what could possibly go wrong?

Yup, whole reason the press exists is to counteract government monopolization of information made available to the public. Giving the gatekeepr role to government is far worse than the worst press can ever produce.

That said the US press is in dire need of a self-regulatory ethics and accuracy framework like other modern democracies. Accuracy standards are terrible, news pundits/celebrities need firing and replacing with actual journalists and news, stop with constant naming of race or religion when not relevant to the story as only spreads bigotry, a minimum percentage threshold of 'public service broadcasting' where networks must report accurate, unbiased, hard-hitting news rather than salacious gossip, rumour, scandal or 'what are the Kardashian's doing today?' reports.

Agreed!

And if the Press keeps tabs on our government, then who is keeping tabs on the press?

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: FingerMan

I agree with you that a lot of people don't have common sense. However, that common sense is compromised due to political bias. The news organizations you listed are liberal leaning, however, you failed to mention any of the conservative leaning news organizations like FOX News. They've been involved in many questionable reporting and some of their own reporters have turned against their slant of the new. I think FOX news reporter Chris Wallace's interview with Putin has proven Trump's unwillingness to put pressure on him to admit Russia interfered in our elections.

I really think giving credit to Trump as being a mad genius is over the top. He has a limited vocabulary, has been caught numerous times contradicting himself, and his credibility can't be trusted. Not all billionaires and business owners are geniuses. Many successful businesses are started by their parents or given financial help to become successful. If Trump came from a poor low-class family and than rose to riches, than I could probably prescribe him to be a genius. But a genius, I think not. He hasn't proven to me and to many others his so called gift "Art of the Deal" when it comes to negotiating domestically or on the world stage.

WeRpeons,

Thanks for your post. I agree that Fox News is getting in on the dredging of President Trump. Chris Wallace is in the "me too" crowd, and wants his attaboys.

Genius may be too strong of a word. But c'mon! Are we forgetting who this man is and what this man has done? It is off the charts, never seen before, will never see again - amazing. His instincts, while crude, have been 100% dead on. Look at Israel. How in the world did either of the Bush's not recognize Israel; or Clinton, or Obama? How has it taken us since 1967 to do the right thing? Just using that one single example exonerates President Trump from anyone who would describe his crude peculiarities as proof of him being a bad president.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: FingerMan

I like where you're going with this, but I do not trust the government to be the arbiter of truth or fact. It has lied (and institutionalized lying, in fact) to the point where its credibility is near zilch.

Surely no one thought the government could lie/cheat/steal for the last hundred years and still have credibility? Right?

...and that's how I feel with "my" President in office/both houses of congress and a libertarian/conservative SCOTUS.

I 100% agree with you. I do not trust our government to be the arbiter of truth in regards to the press.

Still. Something has to be done. And removing Editorial from the News is nothing to the effect of controlling speech. If anything, it just clarifies the difference for the 80% special people we have in this country.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Did you miss the:

It already is, although its slightly convoluted the arrangement as the corporatists that own the government own the TV, newspapers, radio, books, magazines, movies, etc.

Great addition to this thread! Thanks for that video.
Not sure if you were intending to support my argument with this? lol

For those that think I don't blame Fox News, you have not read my OP thoroughly, or all subsequent posts. I absolutely think Fox News is a culprit. If anything, I think Fox News is THE culprit. CNN used to be staged news before they were fake news. They had to compete with Fox, and thus changed their narrative to support one party. Same with MSNBC.
In my opinion, Fox News blind support of the GOP precipitated and necessitated the response we see in MSNBC and CNN. Instead of balancing the equation, it poisoned all of Broadcast News in where they slant their Editorial left or right. With exception to Fox News, they all slant left. I think Breitbart will get in on the action before too long, unless something is done to reverse the trajectory.

It's really up to us. Turn off the news on Radio, TV and youtube and social media.

Mainly for news I go through my facebook feed, if something crazy happened I know about it like a nuclear bomb or Tsunami. I turn on ATS once or twice a day except on Weekends. If there is something political going on, it's here and I can discuss it. And I look through a couple of news aggregate apps...mainly just for articles. I find you get less propaganda on a written blurb then say an online commmentor like Hannity or Bill Maher. Never watch or listen to any locala news. I live in Vegas it's always hot, I don't need the weather. Somebody alwyas gets hit by a car and shot. I don't need to watch it on the news.

The most close minded, stupid people, who are failing at life, are the ones that watch the most "news" on TV or listen to 'Talk Radio". They are never open to new ideas. They think they know everything and if you disagree with them, you are just plain wrong. Hate people like that. Sheep.

a reply to: FingerMan

In the UK we had the Press Complaints Commision since 1936 which is somewhat flawed as overseen by the press itself but the basic framework is sound.
academy.news.co.uk...

There's also the replacement Independent Editor's Code of Practice that is in my opinion a far superior framework.
www.ipso.co.uk...

a reply to: FingerMan

Fox = NBC = CNN = CBS = ABC = Google = Facebook = Fox

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: FingerMan

In the UK we had the Press Complaints Commision since 1936 which is somewhat flawed as overseen by the press itself but the basic framework is sound.
academy.news.co.uk...

There's also the replacement Independent Editor's Code of Practice that is in my opinion a far superior framework.
www.ipso.co.uk...

During the campaign, I distinctly recall Donald Trump making a very similar argument using similar facts to what you presented. Thanks for the links. Great post!

Edit:
I read both links. This is well beyond what I proposed. This is actual censorship. It seems to work for the UK.
I think this is a bridge to far. I just want to see Editorial separated from News. You know, for the children. The other 80% of our population.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FingerMan


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

DBCowboy's clever quip very accurately describes the problem.

The quote is latin for "Who will Guard the Guards?"
If the Press is the Watchman on the wall for our Government, then who is watching the watchmen? It is an old clever quote that is very applicable to this dilemma.

originally posted by: FingerMan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FingerMan


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

DBCowboy's clever quip very accurately describes the problem.

The quote is latin for "Who will Guard the Guards?"
If the Press is the Watchman on the wall for our Government, then who is watching the watchmen? It is an old clever quote that is very applicable to this dilemma.

If we place regulations on the media, then who will watch the regulators?


It's a problem we create ourselves when the solution is to have freedom instead.

a reply to: DBCowboy

But when they've been regulating our thoughts for generations, with ever increasing contempt for US all, then what?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Ah. Did I get you wrong.

Fact remains, nobody is watching the press in any meaningful manner. So your quote was applicable to what I am saying.

And to counter your argument, separating editorial from news is not censorship or the removing of any freedoms. It is simple organization.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: DBCowboy

But when they've been regulating our thoughts for generations, with ever increasing contempt for US all, then what?

Heavy and true! I didn't even think about how long they have been steering our government policy and social politics.

originally posted by: FingerMan
a reply to: DBCowboy

Ah. Did I get you wrong.

Fact remains, nobody is watching the press in any meaningful manner. So your quote was applicable to what I am saying.

And to counter your argument, separating editorial from news is not censorship or the removing of any freedoms. It is simple organization.

Why aren't we smart enough to discern the information for ourselves?

originally posted by: FingerMan
a reply to: DBCowboy

Ah. Did I get you wrong.

Fact remains, nobody is watching the press in any meaningful manner. So your quote was applicable to what I am saying.

And to counter your argument, separating editorial from news is not censorship or the removing of any freedoms. It is simple organization.

The idea is that a truly free press should be watching each other.

No one envisioned a near monopolized press that acts with one mind.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: FingerMan
a reply to: DBCowboy

Ah. Did I get you wrong.

Fact remains, nobody is watching the press in any meaningful manner. So your quote was applicable to what I am saying.

And to counter your argument, separating editorial from news is not censorship or the removing of any freedoms. It is simple organization.

Why aren't we smart enough to discern the information for ourselves?

Not sure if serious? Based on most of your posts, is this sarcasm?
Without going into too much detail, cause it deserves its own thread, the majority of the population are not smart enough to discern this. As is and has been obvious.

No censorship needed, just segregate the commentary from the news. As a regulation. Let the news organizations oversee it. Again,,, for the children. lol

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: FingerMan
a reply to: DBCowboy

Ah. Did I get you wrong.

Fact remains, nobody is watching the press in any meaningful manner. So your quote was applicable to what I am saying.

And to counter your argument, separating editorial from news is not censorship or the removing of any freedoms. It is simple organization.

The idea is that a truly free press should be watching each other.

No one envisioned a near monopolized press that acts with one mind.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

originally posted by: FingerMan

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: FingerMan
a reply to: DBCowboy

Ah. Did I get you wrong.

Fact remains, nobody is watching the press in any meaningful manner. So your quote was applicable to what I am saying.

And to counter your argument, separating editorial from news is not censorship or the removing of any freedoms. It is simple organization.

Why aren't we smart enough to discern the information for ourselves?

Not sure if serious? Based on most of your posts, is this sarcasm?
Without going into too much detail, cause it deserves its own thread, the majority of the population are not smart enough to discern this. As is and has been obvious.

No censorship needed, just segregate the commentary from the news. As a regulation. Let the news organizations oversee it. Again,,, for the children. lol

You're describing a soft tyranny.

I'd have to be against that.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Right.

But we already have a Firm (just not quite HARD) Tyranny.

What's the solution?

I'm trying not to spell it all out for a change. I'm trying to be a soft fun.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: FingerMan

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: FingerMan
a reply to: DBCowboy

Ah. Did I get you wrong.

Fact remains, nobody is watching the press in any meaningful manner. So your quote was applicable to what I am saying.

And to counter your argument, separating editorial from news is not censorship or the removing of any freedoms. It is simple organization.

Why aren't we smart enough to discern the information for ourselves?

Not sure if serious? Based on most of your posts, is this sarcasm?
Without going into too much detail, cause it deserves its own thread, the majority of the population are not smart enough to discern this. As is and has been obvious.

No censorship needed, just segregate the commentary from the news. As a regulation. Let the news organizations oversee it. Again,,, for the children. lol

You're describing a soft tyranny.

I'd have to be against that.

It is not tyranny in any sense of the word. It is simple organization. We have literally thousands of regulations that do this. If this is a soft tyranny, then we have had tyranny since 1775.