Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 58 of 58

Thread: Sen. Rockefeller: FCC should shut down Fox News and MSNBC

  1. #46
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    No one was restricted to watching a particular channel then, and no one is now. However certain people, especially elderly, and brain-addled older people, who are very reliable voters, tune to FoxNews as their only source of news, and when they are in the car, they are listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, et. al. (which are heard on FCC-regulated radio spectrum). As I said earlier, if the people who were either watching, or listening to these channels, heard a rebuttal, it would begin to balance out the totally egregious one-sided crap that they currently hearing.
    That's the attitude I can't behind: that people who YOU decide are "brain addled" for watching or listening to something you don't like need to be policed. You're advocating that certain people are so ignorant in your view they need to be "re-educated" when you have no basis for that. How do know what viewers of a certain channel read, think or do? It's a very condescending attitude: just because people watch something you don't like doesn't make them mentally deficient (and, just because someone is elderly, BTW, doesn't mean they are mentally deficient either). And it doesn't mean they don't listen to the other side, it merely means that they listen to people they AGREE with. Or something they find entertaining. I just find that an appalling attitude: because you think some people watch programs you dislike may vote a way you don't like, you want to take away their free will to use whatever they like to form THEIR opinions, and force some other opinions on them. Then what if they still don't listen to the other side: what if they change the channel during the "rebuttal"? What then? You honestly thing that a big fan of Fox News is going to be open to a "rebuttal" commentator that the government has forced onto their favorite show?

    We live in a free society. People can vote whatever way they want. If they want to vote for a candidate because of the candidate's gender, religion, their stance on single issue or because they a broadcaster they listen to pimps for that candidate, well, what business is that of yours? What if someone decided that you are "addle-minded" and starting putting rules on what you voluntary chose to watch? Just because you think other voters are ignorant doesn't make their vote count less. Quite frankly, what you advocate veers uncomfortably into literacy tests territory, or the recent Kansas controversy trying to prevent people with disabilities from voting.

    And as I said before, there are already Supreme Court opinions and regulatory statutes and precedents in place that would allow the FD to be exercised over cable and talk radio.
    The Supreme Court decision you cite is over 40 years old and came from a different court. It predates both the internet and cable and gives no precedent for using the FD to govern cable networks. In fact, that decision was then followed by a later one that restricted the Fairness Doctrine by stating that it did not cover print media. If the FD was instituted again and it did happen to go to the Supreme Court, there is absolutely no guarantee that the current Court would uphold it. Just because a previous SCOTUS ruled one way does not mean that all future Courts will rule the same way.

    The absolute only thing the FD would accomplish is angering the people you claim need to be educated, making them even more militant, more closed off to opposing viewpoints and causing them to flee to either other shows or other media. And also probably galvanizing them even more into campaigning and voting against any Democrats or anybody who was for the Fairness Doctrine.
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  2. #47
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Um, certain people ARE ignorant.

    Certain outlets DO lie. Quantifiably. They've been caught a hundred times.

    This is reality.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  3. #48
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    34,566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Um, certain people ARE ignorant.

    Certain outlets DO lie. Quantifiably. They've been caught a hundred times.

    This is reality.
    I couldn't agree more.

    NoNoRehab - That's the attitude I can't behind: that people who YOU decide are "brain addled" for watching or listening to something you don't like need to be policed. You're advocating that certain people are so ignorant in your view they need to be "re-educated" when you have no basis for that. How do know what viewers of a certain channel read, think or do? It's a very condescending attitude: just because people watch something you don't like doesn't make them mentally deficient (and, just because someone is elderly, BTW, doesn't mean they are mentally deficient either). And it doesn't mean they don't listen to the other side, it merely means that they listen to people they AGREE with. Or something they find entertaining. I just find that an appalling attitude: because you think some people watch programs you dislike may vote a way you don't like, you want to take away their free will to use whatever they like to form THEIR opinions, and force some other opinions on them. Then what if they still don't listen to the other side: what if they change the channel during the "rebuttal"? What then? You honestly thing that a big fan of Fox News is going to be open to a "rebuttal" commentator that the government has forced onto their favorite show?
    Being brain addled is a demonstrably measurable state. It's a person who doesn't know what's going on. Particularly, if their understanding of politics and current events has been pickled in Fox News toxic stew of misinformation. The network exists to promote Republicans and tear down Democrats by out and out lying about them. Putting an opposing viewpoint on the channel would be a huge public service.

    And it's not what I dislike - unless lying out your ass is a dislike. I'm talking about someone getting on the air and putting some actual facts on display.

    The Supreme Court decision you cite is over 40 years old and came from a different court. It predates both the internet and cable and gives no precedent for using the FD to govern cable networks. In fact, that decision was then followed by a later one that restricted the Fairness Doctrine by stating that it did not cover print media. If the FD was instituted again and it did happen to go to the Supreme Court, there is absolutely no guarantee that the current Court would uphold it. Just because a previous SCOTUS ruled one way does not mean that all future Courts will rule the same way.

    The absolute only thing the FD would accomplish is angering the people you claim need to be educated, making them even more militant, more closed off to opposing viewpoints and causing them to flee to either other shows or other media. And also probably galvanizing them even more into campaigning and voting against any Democrats or anybody who was for the Fairness Doctrine.
    So what if a Supreme Court decision is over 40 years old? A whole plethora of still-standing Supreme Court decisions are older than that. The 1968 decision explicitly gave the FCC the power to govern cable networks. The Fairness Doctrine was NEVER intended to govern print media because print media (i.e. - newspapers and magazines) does not travel over over the limited broadcasting spectrum that the Government oversees. I don't particularly care if reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine tees off a bunch of viewers -- the FoxNews channel thrives on pissing people off by shoveling crap at them 24X7.

  4. #49
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    And it's not what I dislike - unless lying out your ass is a dislike. I'm talking about someone getting on the air and putting some actual facts on display.
    There are plenty of actual facts on display on television (including on Fox News - I've seen their top of the hour news spots and they are perfectly fine). Try PBS, broadcast news, CNN (usually) etc. etc. There are plenty of options but your problem is that you don't think enough people take advantage of them. Well, big whoop. That's life - you can't dictate other people's opinions. You can't make people think how you want.

    I think Mad Men is the best show on television but yet it struggles with a few million viewers while 25 million will watch crap like Dancing with the Stars. But guess what? Those people WANT to watch DWTS and get a kick out of it. It's not my cup of tea so I don't watch. It's simple. I don't think the government needs to come in and cancel DWTS or add "rebuttal" experts to tell the viewers that it doesn't reflect real ballroom dancing standards. It's fucking television and it's entertainment.

    The network exists to promote Republicans and tear down Democrats by out and out lying about them.
    And in the game of politics, Democrats are wee innnocent little naifs who never stretch the truth.

    Putting an opposing viewpoint on the channel would be a huge public service.
    They already do, but again the criticism is that they don't put on the "right" opposing viewpoints, either liberals who can't debate, are too militant and "too far" on the other side, etc. So then the argument changes from "put on an opposing viewpoint" to "put on the RIGHT opposing viewpoint," and where does it stop?

    It still boils down, if you want an opposing viewpoint, CHANGE THE CHANNEL. The whole thing smacks of sour grapes of liberals who can't stand that some conservatives have been more successful in cable and talk radio then they have been. You want to change people's minds? Make a better product! Millions of people watch Fox News or listen to Rush or Hannity because they like it. Get an entertaining liberal talk show host and THEY can get tons of listeners. MSNBC has already gotten its biggest success by rebranding itself as the anti-Fox (I notice, BTW, that you're not advocating MSNBC bring in conservative commentators to make "rebuttals). Jon Stewart is mega-successful, Rachel Maddow is successful, Anderson Cooper (who is largely neutral) is successful, etc. etc.

    I can't believe anyone honestly thinks that the Fairness Doctrine would be successful in any capacity. Say you get what you want and it's instituted exactly how you want, what do you think will happen? All those Fox News viewers will magically accept "rebuttal" commentators, embrace them with open arms, "see the light" and become devout Democrats - who you consider to be paragons of virtue and always speakers of truth?

    You know what's a massive festering mess of lies, biases and opinions? The Internet. So I guess we need the Internet police to come in and, every time someone posts gossip about which celebrity is gay, who's banging who, who's a bitch, etc. we can get a "rebuttal." Because God knows, every second of the day us poor plebes must be concerned with facts. God forbid we are presenting with varying opinions, bullshit and gossip and make up our minds about something. We might become crippled with uncertainty without the government to sort out our opinions for us.
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  5. #50
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,250

    Default

    As much as I dislike FOX, the FCC shouldn't shut them down. Rockefeller is really off his gourd.

    Fox does have liberal commentators sometimes. Didn't they just give Juan Williams a bigger role?(yeah he's a bit on the moderate side, but that still makes him a flaming liberal on the network).
    That's like being the smart one of the Kardassians.
    Tea baggers want to fight the Man because the Man doesn't look like them.

  6. #51
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Again, it's the difference between misinformation and factual information.

    Some people dislike the fact that news SHOULD BE FACTUAL. It has a duty to be factual. That's why it's fucking called NEWS, and not "spun bullshit"
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  7. #52
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    34,566

    Default

    There are plenty of actual facts on display on television (including on Fox News - I've seen their top of the hour news spots and they are perfectly fine).
    Anything tantamount to actual facts on display at Fox is at the top of the Shepherd Smith's newscast -- and virtually nowhere else. Ailes dictates what gets on the air and how it's spun. And by the time that happens, you get mostly distortion.

    I think Mad Men is the best show on television but yet it struggles with a few million viewers while 25 million will watch crap like Dancing with the Stars. But guess what? Those people WANT to watch DWTS and get a kick out of it. It's not my cup of tea so I don't watch. It's simple. I don't think the government needs to come in and cancel DWTS or add "rebuttal" experts to tell the viewers that it doesn't reflect real ballroom dancing standards. It's fucking television and it's entertainment.
    I don't see how this relates at all to the argument at hand. DTWTS and Mad Men are entertainment programs, not news programs or political advocacy programs. With respect to how many viewers, that isn't pertinent at all to whether the Doctrine would get enforced.

    And in the game of politics, Democrats are wee innnocent little naifs who never stretch the truth.
    I don't believe I ever said it applied to Republicans only. If someone wants to get on MSNBC and rebut Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, or whomever, fine.

    They already do, but again the criticism is that they don't put on the "right" opposing viewpoints, either liberals who can't debate, are too militant and "too far" on the other side, etc. So then the argument changes from "put on an opposing viewpoint" to "put on the RIGHT opposing viewpoint," and where does it stop?
    When you pick the advocates and the opposition for a debate, like Fox does, you have basically rigged the game.

    It still boils down, if you want an opposing viewpoint, CHANGE THE CHANNEL. The whole thing smacks of sour grapes of liberals who can't stand that some conservatives have been more successful in cable and talk radio then they have been. You want to change people's minds?
    Maybe in your opinion, this is only about liberals attacking conservatives, however the genesis of this thread (and Rockefellers comment) was about the excesses of both. To me, it's not about liberal vs. conservative - it's about poisoning the public discourse.

    Make a better product! Millions of people watch Fox News or listen to Rush or Hannity because they like it. Get an entertaining liberal talk show host and THEY can get tons of listeners.
    Making something entertaining or popular doesn't make it right. Joseph Goebbels was wildly popular and entertaining - so was Hitler. It doesn't give them the moral high ground or make what they did right.

    MSNBC has already gotten its biggest success by rebranding itself as the anti-Fox (I notice, BTW, that you're not advocating MSNBC bring in conservative commentators to make "rebuttals). Jon Stewart is mega-successful, Rachel Maddow is successful, Anderson Cooper (who is largely neutral) is successful, etc. etc.
    Once again, I am in favor of applying the same Fairness Doctrine standards to Olbermann, Stewart, Maddow, whoever.

    I can't believe anyone honestly thinks that the Fairness Doctrine would be successful in any capacity. Say you get what you want and it's instituted exactly how you want, what do you think will happen? All those Fox News viewers will magically accept "rebuttal" commentators, embrace them with open arms, "see the light" and become devout Democrats - who you consider to be paragons of virtue and always speakers of truth?
    Just because you don't believe something will be successful doesn't mean it won't be -- or that someone shouldn't try. Arguing that someone wouldn't be receptive to an idea or a statement that is counter to their general beliefs is not a good argument either. There have been public campaigns and rules in place to stop cell phone use in cars, or to use seatbelts, and on and on. The benefits outweighed the initial public discontent/backlash.

    You know what's a massive festering mess of lies, biases and opinions? The Internet. So I guess we need the Internet police to come in and, every time someone posts gossip about which celebrity is gay, who's banging who, who's a bitch, etc. we can get a "rebuttal." Because God knows, every second of the day us poor plebes must be concerned with facts.
    This might be one of the few times I've heard someone argue that facts are a bad or negative thing. With regard to the Internet, who knows? The thrust of my argument here is that the Fairness Doctrine should be returned to the areas where it was originally applied.

  8. #53
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    There's a lot of angry flailing going on
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  9. #54
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    3,034

    Default

    I don't see how this relates at all to the argument at hand. DTWTS and Mad Men are entertainment programs, not news programs or political advocacy programs
    And Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, The Daily Show, etc. etc. ARE entertainment. Just because you want to try to argue that commentators are news broadcasters doesn't make them so. It's all entertainment - you want hard facts? Go read a newspaper or watch Frontline. Cable traffics in entertainment.

    There have been public campaigns and rules in place to stop cell phone use in cars, or to use seatbelts, and on and on. The benefits outweighed the initial public discontent/backlash.
    Even if you agree with things like seatbelt laws (and a lot of people don't) the basis of those law are public safety, i.e. trying to prevent deaths and injuries. You're arguing to try and prevent people from watching what they want due to your fear that they may not vote how you like. (And BTW, there is conflicting research as to whether banning cell phone use while driving has provided any public safety benefits).

    This might be one of the few times I've heard someone argue that facts are a bad or negative thing.
    Facts are a beautiful thing and I have no problem making up my own mind. I like in the U.S. where there are so many options to get my facts that it constitutes an embarrassment of riches.

    With regard to the Internet, who knows?
    Then what about the FD advocates who think it should also apply to the Internet?

    The thrust of my argument here is that the Fairness Doctrine should be returned to the areas where it was originally applied.
    You're being inconsistent: The FD was originally applied to the broadcast networks, since cable did not exist when it was instituted and was in its infancy when it was halted in 1981 (and in its entire history the FD was never applied to radio). Yet in an earlier post, when I pointed that out, you argued that there were "ways" to make the FD apply to cable and talk radio if it were enforced, citing the 1969 Red Lion Broadcasting Supreme Court decision (even though, obviously, that decision was issued in 1969 and thus makes no mention of cable AND it stated that the FCC was under no obligation to enforce the Fairness Doctrine). So which is it: do you advocate that the FD be reinstituted in its original form - which applies to broadcast networks only - or do you advocate expanding it into cable, radio and the Internet, as Democrat politicians have advocated?
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  10. #55
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    34,566

    Default

    And Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, The Daily Show, etc. etc. ARE entertainment. Just because you want to try to argue that commentators are news broadcasters doesn't make them so. It's all entertainment - you want hard facts? Go read a newspaper or watch Frontline. Cable traffics in entertainment.
    Only the Daily Show is honest enough to admit that their show is entertainment. You are not going to hear O'Reilly EVER say that his show is entertainment and not giving the viewers the straight dope on what's going on. If he did, it would be tantamount to saying that his show is a whole tissue of lies.

    I also don't think that it is a supportable argument to say that cable traffics in entertainment - which in itself is difficult to define. Some people find hard-core news "entertaining". C-Span/C-Span2 traffic in hard-core news. Countless other channels focus on hard facts. Broadcast networks have millions of viewers because their programs are entertaining.

    Even if you agree with things like seatbelt laws (and a lot of people don't) the basis of those law are public safety, i.e. trying to prevent deaths and injuries. You're arguing to try and prevent people from watching what they want due to your fear that they may not vote how you like. (And BTW, there is conflicting research as to whether banning cell phone use while driving has provided any public safety benefits).
    Having people not be indoctrinated with a bunch of lies is a public safety issue, too. It can lead to bad decisions by the electorate.

    I also didn't say I am going to prevent anyone from watching their channel, or putting it out of business -- merely opening up space for dissenting opinion.

    Facts are a beautiful thing and I have no problem making up my own mind. I like in the U.S. where there are so many options to get my facts that it constitutes an embarrassment of riches.
    It's great that you are an omnivorous consumer of diverse facts and opinions. Not everyone is you, though.

    Then what about the FD advocates who think it should also apply to the Internet?
    I doubt that on most mainstream or news-related internet sites, it would ever be an issue. This page, for example, does not stifle or limit dissenting opinion. People can argue an issue ad nauseum, without worry that they will be banned or have their posts edited.

    You're being inconsistent: The FD was originally applied to the broadcast networks, since cable did not exist when it was instituted and was in its infancy when it was halted in 1981 (and in its entire history the FD was never applied to radio). Yet in an earlier post, when I pointed that out, you argued that there were "ways" to make the FD apply to cable and talk radio if it were enforced, citing the 1969 Red Lion Broadcasting Supreme Court decision (even though, obviously, that decision was issued in 1969 and thus makes no mention of cable AND it stated that the FCC was under no obligation to enforce the Fairness Doctrine). So which is it: do you advocate that the FD be reinstituted in its original form - which applies to broadcast networks only - or do you advocate expanding it into cable, radio and the Internet, as Democrat politicians have advocated?
    The easier places to apply it at first would be broadcast networks where the USSC already supported the FD. However, there is a long and rich history of municipal, state, and federal regulation of cable tv systems, so it wouldn't be too difficult to argue that channels like Fox News and MSNBC would be subject to the FD. I haven't been following Democrat's arguments for the institution of FD -- I would like it applied wherever a channel filibusters with rhetoric that is incendiary and deceitful.

  11. #56
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Antartica.
    Posts
    1,695

    Default

    The government should not control the media. Which is exactly what evil fucks like him want.

    Him and his whole evil ass family should be thrown in the ocean.

    Next he'll probably tell us how two sides in congress is also a problem, and that the president needs more power to even things out.


  12. #57
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    34,566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joebob View Post
    The government should not control the media. Which is exactly what evil fucks like him want.

    Him and his whole evil ass family should be thrown in the ocean.

    Next he'll probably tell us how two sides in congress is also a problem, and that the president needs more power to even things out.

    Who is "him"?

  13. #58
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Antartica.
    Posts
    1,695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post
    Who is "him"?
    Sen. Rockefeller.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 112
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2009, 06:36 PM
  2. What it takes for Ann Coulter to shut up-jaw wired shut?
    By twitchy2.0 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 25th, 2008, 11:32 PM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: September 8th, 2008, 10:45 PM
  4. News of the Weird on MSNBC
    By Moongirl in forum Laughs and Oddities
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 12th, 2008, 02:20 PM
  5. MSNBC edits their news to favor Bush cabal
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 15th, 2006, 01:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •