It's just weird to see it hold up in court.spicersh said:And this is surprising? The media is pretty much an extension of whatever administration happens to be in power at the time. It's in their best interests. So what if they have to change a few facts here and there, politicians have been doing it for years.
It IS new and the consolidation of news sources is what's getting us there. That's why those issues, especially the changes from the FCC in recent times, but also court appointees, etc. are SO DAMN IMPORTANT. THAT'S the stuff that's going on while we're engrossed in BS like Clinton's BJ and the recent focus of news organizations on the campaigns. That's a classic example of why I get SO disgusted and SO preachy on these somewhat trivial matters that in the end, ARE THE GAME! And also why I'll forever be so disgusted with FOX and their agenda which IS NOT news. Any news they accurately report is coincidental in their extreme right wing persuits. Know it.spicersh said:And this is surprising? The media is pretty much an extension of whatever administration happens to be in power at the time. It's in their best interests. So what if they have to change a few facts here and there, politicians have been doing it for years.
The FCC's change in regulations covering the consolidation of news outlet ownership IS new, it's this administration, and it serves only those with the control (money) at the detriment of the general public because it affords what is effectively censorship, exactly what was at the center of those two suits, while maintaining the appearance of "freedom of the press" and conformance with the Constitution. The public benefit requirement of the publicly owned air waves, part of the long standing licensing requirements, has been gutted. And I think it's to our detriment, BIG TIME, and is a way more important story than much of what we get on TV news.spicersh said:Perhaps I read it wrong, but I didn't think this was new. No laws or policies were changed. They were just interpreted by the court.
Was there a law before this that said the media had to be truthful?
There are (could be gone now) rules for obtaining an FCC broadcasting license. One of the stipulations is that stations must serve the "public good". Lying doesn't qualify as public good in my book......dimmit spicersh now I have to look up the rules for this shit thanks :twofingerspicersh said:Was there a law before this that said the media had to be truthful?
Man, there are an awful lot of weasel words in there. No wonder they can do what they want with no more than a slap on the wrist. I ought to copy that shit and use it in some of the documents I write.....Jose said:Not quite illegal but at the very least their license should be suspended....... check this out, I think it applies.