It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FingerMan
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.