Sportbike World banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,373 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
S370HSSV 0773H
Joined
·
7,434 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,373 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
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's just weird to see it hold up in court.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,230 Posts
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.
 

·
S370HSSV 0773H
Joined
·
7,434 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,230 Posts
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?
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.

Wise people in the past set up restrictions in ownership of multiple outlets in a single market EXACTLY to prevent this. It sets things up to control the information you hear, whether by sinister plan or just logical outcome. With multiple outlets, independently owned as always existed, the information has a statistical probability of finding its way to the air waves as well as the statistical probablility that some of them won't be under outside or affiliated corporate pressure to edit in a less than truthful fashion. Somebody who is independent in the business would be HAPPY to air a story of value, has a moral responsibility outlined in their licensing agreement to use publivly owned air waves, and the broad censorship by default and intertwined business interests goes by the wayside. When it's all controlled by a select few, it results in a practical censorship as sure as if it WAS the law, while maintaining the technicality that it's not.

It also allows the kind of format that we now have with 3 minute time allotments per piece of information because there's NO competition to speak of, only the bottom line to consider, and no pressure to hire the staff and allocate the budget necessary to produce a real investigated story, evidenced by the closings of the majority of foreign based news bureaus, both print and TV, that were always common in the decades past. So NONE of them are pressured to continue in the search for true and complete stories, world news, or an incentive to do anything more than the next guy, another pure profit center, not news center, backed and tapped by the same priveledged class.

That's also what's at the core of accusations by foreigners that we are self-centered, ill informed, arrogant, and a host of other less than pleasant accusations that are based in facts, much to our surprise, even if they are not the informed intent of the general US population. Not knowing better doesn't relieve you of the responsibility in most social interactions. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, to borrow a related concept. My life experiences cause me to FIRMLY believe that the US population is better than that at heart, but is led in directions that are not their intent and do so through their ignorance, not their beliefs. THAT is why I'm SO frustrated to watch people sold a bill of goods, vote for it with their eyes wide open, when it's DISASTROUS to their own interests as well as the broader spectrum of society.

The new three minute format is just enough time to have two opposing sides scream at each other without the chance to back up what they said, real information necessary to make a fair judgement. And worse yet, in the case of Fox, the underlying editing that strictly adheres to a dogma, editing the facts to conform! Reprehensible even if not illegal. If it was the Fox Editorial Show it would be fine, but it's the Fox News Hour. What is demonstrated in that law suit is EXACTLY what I've accused them of and then been derided for it. While Fox is the only consistant offender in the dogma arena, the three minute soundbyte is BS and it's common to all but the public TV news. MacNeill News Hour is the only nightly news HOUR, not thirty minutes of ads for every hour of broadcast, and NOT the corporate pressures of those in the "club" who are so often willing to protect each other at times of real importance, such as the story that those journalists put together, the editing, and the resulting lawsuits. In the publicly owned news format, you can actually get some information without all of the financial pressure, gimmickery, and showmanship that has become TV news. All flash, no substance, sell advertising time.

There are a number of other shows on public TV that are worthy of your time where you might actually learn something and not got bombarded with bullshit from the pundits. Dan Moyers, Frontline, etc. Real investigative journalism, real topics receiving real time, on TV, absent the computer generated flash BS.

First ammendment covers some of what they won, as it should. The important discovery in that trial was FOX's own admission that the story was cooked, edited, and controlled to mislead, not who "won". They made NO EFFORT to dispute that the story was cooked because it was TRUE, by their own admission. EXACTLY what they espouse to NOT DO while accusing others of the same, burning up countless hours of valuable news time with more confrontational, gotcha' BS that appeals to the basest intincts of man while it affords not one moment of valuable information. Their same repeated misleading innundation of the public that led to the majority of people believing that Saddam had a direct involvement in 9-11, and perpetuated by the rest of the common news outlets just reporting the administration's soundbytes, the origin of the mantra of Fox, without ever giving equal time or background to the story. Just play the same old film clip, twice an hour, for days at end. Then the next news clip, a re-hash of the same BS, for another several days, and never devoting an equal dose of appropriate journalistic effort to the background, the real facts and real truthful story. It's a sham and we're blindly following the bastards right down their orchestrated path to the detriment of the majority of our citizens.

In light of Fox's position in the information stream, those lawsuits and their resulting verdicts are an IMPORTANT story to the US public, way moreso than Laci Peterson, OJ Simpson, or the rest of the BS that's rammed down our throats as NEWS, leading folks to a false sense that they're actually being responsible in their persuit of current events. In a multiple outlet news environment the real story has a MUCH better chance of being reported and not edited or buried by your "competitors" who are vulnerable just the same as you. Their cash cow is just as dependent on not rocking the boat as yours is. Like circumstances can make for strange bedfellows. The US allied with the Soviet Union during WW II is just such an alliance and it doesn't take a big imagination to see how that can apply here. It's common in virtual monopolies as well.

It's also what leads to these long ass posts that don't even begin to touch on the meat of a subject because they are spent trying to give background to the topic, something that can't be properly covered that easily, but should be a given in the public consciousness. It leads to great difficulty and frustration attempting to engage in reasonable exchanges with most people on real important topics because they don't have the most basic background knowledge to understand, therefore discuss intelligently, regardless of their viewpoint or party affiliation, the issues that are shaping their futures. That is also a theme in many of my posts, as you well know.;)

There I go again.:dunno: :) I share the view by some who have said that this election is one of the most important in a loooong time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
spicersh said:
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 :mad: thanks :twofinger


PS: Mark (Dad), don't hold back on us :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,173 Posts
My :2cents: on this matter...If you believe anything the media says anyways, then something is wrong. Like I said, just my :2cents: .
 

·
S370HSSV 0773H
Joined
·
7,434 Posts
Jose said:
Not quite illegal but at the very least their license should be suspended....... check this out, I think it applies.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/falsebroadcast.html
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.....
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top