Obama Administration At War With FoxNews

Discussion in 'Politics' started by superstring01, Oct 19, 2009.

  1. Not my puppy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
    News and opinion. I don't have any trouble distinguishing between them. The leaning of the particular organization won't determine which news does or does not get reported because by comparison, people know when something is newsworthy or not. We expect newsworthy items to be reported. The organization simply plays up news that shows their agenda in a good light and down plays news that favors an opposing view.

    I don't care how you try to do it, when you control how the first amendment is exercised you are are on thin ice and when you force control by back door measures it is just as obvious as if you simply jailed those who speak views you don't like.

    The current administration is taking its plays from the wrong play book and it is obvious why. They have an agenda that doesn't motivate people enough and the opposing agenda doesn't need much air time to be effective against that agenda. Silence them somehow or fail in your agenda. It works both ways and doesn't matter what the agenda is. If the people aren't motivated by the agenda or are easily motivated against it then to win you have to control the media to isolate the opposing view.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Not my puppy: "News and opinion. I don't have any trouble distinguishing between them."

    If you would care to clearly explain how you do this I will be grateful.

    "you have to control the media to isolate the opposing view"

    But what if the media slips out of control? What if vanishing CNN viewership is a glimpse at an approaching event-horizon for our political world? Are we tuning and dropping out into a new frontier not transected by old-world oligarchies?

    What if people were encouraged to continue politics as usual, while organizing an opening of perspective (technologicaly augmented) culminating in exponentially-shared thoughts, clearer and more catalytic than those that came before, and arriving into full common awareness well before any necessity of deed.

    The Obama campaign dabbled in hope- rather callously some claim. But does it matter? When most humans are keenly aware of our greatest shared hopes and challenges we'll all become happily capable of, and secure to enjoy many wonderful new things. All we have to do is catalogue the ways in which humans think alike, and then commence thinking those thoughts more profoundly, in unprecedented parallel processing: Look Out.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2009
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Not my puppy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
    I guess you are saying that unless everything is fact checked you don't know if what is purported to be news actually happened, but fact checking is not what I was getting at. If a factual news item is reported, then the contextual way it is reported reveals the leaning of the reporting organization.
    Well then you've got me there. I'm just saying that if the news is factual, and the agenda of the reporting organization is distinguishable, then the people are equipped to decide for themselves on the issue.

    If an administration wants to advance an agenda that is not self-motivating among the viewers, then they need to try to control the media in order to advance the agenda. "Control" meaning isolate the opposing sources and marginalize them with tactics that belittle them or make them out to be dogmatic (wrong ideologically) IMHO.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    If we don't ask for any civic duties from our media then we might as well charge all that the market will bare for use of the public airways.

    Poorer people and unorganized groups of people don't have their share of the of control over the media which uses public resources. Corporations get what they want because they have money and they are organized.

    TV is primarily aimed at young people with money because that is who the advertisers want. Old people stick to the products that they have used since they were young and are therefore not as lucrative to advertise to.

    We are relatively equal on the internet but the corporations dominate TV radio and cable and both political parties and through dominating the media and the political parties corporations dominate our minds especially the minds of the weaker thinkers.

    When tribes and families told stories to their young in the pre-media past the family would take responsibility for whether or not the ideas in the story would benefit the children or society and were not simply trying to captivate an audience; but TV does not take this responsibility.

    I don't know if the fairness doctrine is the right approach but I wish something could be done to raise the quality of the national debate and to lesson corporate domination of what we think about.

    I am grateful that the corporations collectively are more like a mindless headless monster than some kind of sinister evil genius.
     
  8. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    All I was trying (with difficulty) to convey is that if concealing or distorting the truth is becoming appreciably (exponentially?) more difficult for those who buy and sell influence, then we are on the edge of something important at the present. We can bring this back to Obama's dangerous dabbling with hope.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    You hit the nail on the head Ice. While media sources have proliferated, news source ownership has consolidated to unprecidented levels. Just look at the Murdock media empire.

    http://www.woopidoo.com/biography/rupert-murdoch.htm

    The Fairness Doctrine is now needed more than at any time in our history. And for the record, the Fairness Doctrine states that in exchange for use of American air waves providers must give equal time for all relevant views.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

    It does not regulate what can be said or limit speech in any way. In order for a democracy to thrive the electorate must have access to good reliable information. We have recently seen all of the misinformation, misdirection, and out right lies coming from the healthcare indusrty in opposition to healthcare reform. We have also seen a news organization create its own media event (tea baggers) and report on it. It is a pretty crazy world greatly in need of some good old fashioned fair and balanced information.
     
  10. Not my puppy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
    So you feel that in order to equip people with the ability to decide on an issue, all relative slants on any news item must be presented? Or are you saying that you want to use that approach to control the media through the back door by diluting opinion of organizations that clearly are motivated by opinion. And you don't see a problem with that approach?
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Ah, NO I don't see a problem with both sides of every issue being presented in an unbiased fashion.

    If you look at the days in which the Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land, it was left to the news outlets to police themselves in this regard. There were no government monitors overseeing what was or not produced or sent over the air waves. There was no backdoor control over what was aired. At each license renewal providers had to demonstrate how they complied with the Fairness Doctrine.

    As an example, look at how the media and how it reacted to Nixon and his infamous tapes story. They showed Nixon no preference in reporting. Nixon exercised no backdoor control over the media. And that is not what we are talking about here, because the Fairness Doctrine is not about backdoor control of the press or media by government. The good news with the Fairness Doctrine is we have a history with it being the law of the land and that history is a good one.

    I would much rather have the Fairness Doctrine enforced by a government agency with 100 percent visibilty and subject to the electorate through action in the ballot box rather than news being spun and controlled in a boardroom or on someones yacht or golf course or any other place.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2009
  12. Not my puppy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
    If I read you correctly you are saying that there are two unbiased sides to each issue.

    I think there are multiple biased sides to each issue and to allow all relevant sides as you propose to be presented someone has to decide what are the relevant sides. Even if that decision is self imposed, it is subject to FCC determination and possible fines if in the opinion of the FCC you haven't present the proper mix of relevance.
    What you suggest is still control of freedom of speech and is still under the ultimate influence of opinion as wielded by the FCC. How is that different?
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I am saying yeah there are facts and there is spin. The public should get facts. If spin is offered, then it should be balanced with opposing spin.

    Two, what I suggest is not control of freedom of speech. Anyone can say whatever they want. Giving equal time for opposing positions in exchange for using public airwaves is not control of freedom of speech.

    Three, as has been pointed out numerous times, the Fairness Doctrine is not new. It is not untested. It is not radical. It has been successfully used as the law of the land for decades, for almost a half century.

    So let me get this straight, you would much rather the news and opinion that is presented to you and others is first sanctioned and controlled by a few men or women who operate in the dark and are responsible to no one but themselves?
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2009
  14. Not my puppy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
    This is the FCC. We are breaking into this thread to assure fairness. Joe, we have been following your posts and find you to be radical left. On that basis you are irrelevant and will not be permitted to post on this thread hereafter. A violation of this decision will result in enforcement of the law leading to fines, trial and possible imprisonment. Consider your self warned.

    Turing control back to Puppy for now.

    Not My Puppy: Wow, can you believe what FCC control means. The current administration determines the policies and as the administration changes the policies change. Is that what we want, or need?
     
  15. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    But that is not fair to the political right because the left likes facts more than the right does and facts are more likely to be on the left's side than they are to be on the right's side.
     
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Yep, just look at how Not My Puppy and others with a similar pov have to first change the arguement into something it is not and then tag that position on their opponents. This is classical error in logic referred to as a Strawman.

    I guess Not My Puppy and others with his/her pov would much rather have their information fed to them by those few who control the media without scrutiny.
     
  17. Alien Cockroach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    886
    That's really my take on it. It's so unprofessional of the administration; I don't know what I'd say of their choice of strategy, here. On the other hand, I don't really have any sympathy at all for Faux News. They've been trying so hard to pick a fight with the Obama administration, and the network really has no right to any sympathy whatsoever. No matter how I might criticize the White House, the only thing I can say for Faux News is, "You want it, you got it." The problem here is that there is no real "good guy," much as I tend to favor the Obama administration in most cases.

    I would really love to see Faux News finally pick a fight with the wrong group of people, you know, and finally get what they deserve. I would love to see some of them finally get shot in the back by some enraged lunatics they decided they would try bullying. As far as I am concerned, the drooling, psychotic lunatic who finally puts one in Beck's spinal column should get a medal of honor. I will take my dog for a walk in the cemetary where he's buried and let him urinate on the headstone.

    I am just disappointed that the White House is doing so much right now to jeopardize their reputation. I really miss their campaign days, when nothing seemed to shake them at all.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2009
  18. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    There's no "fight" or "war" here. They are just pointing out the obvious. If anything, Fox has been at war with the Democrats since the beginning, when they lost 100 million dollars a year for 5 years until they started to break even.
     
  19. Not my puppy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
    So I am introducing accusations that turn the topic into a defense of free speech and then accusing you of wanting to deny my free speech? I thought your statements above did that. How are statements like “folks with my perspective would not survive in the light of day”, or “Opinion shows like on Fox could not survive in the light of day”, or “if spin is offered” not the equivalent of tagging my opinion with straw men of your persuasion. You are free to belittle opposing views but you cannot abide with being on the receiving end of accusations that those of your pov could be guilty of wrong thinking?

    And I don’t need to ask again because your pov is as clear as mine, but how can you say that my speech should be subject to the scrutiny of those who you choose any more than your speech should be subject to the scrutiny of those who I choose? Did you miss the point I was making with my FCC takeover of the thread?
     
  20. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    This paragraph does not make any kind of sense. You are all over the place here. But yes, it is very clear you are making strawman arguements which are typical of followers of limbaugh, fox, et al. No one is belittling you or others of your point of view, just stating fact.
    I don't know how I could be more clear on this topic in my pervious posts, but I will try one more time.

    I don't think anyone should restrict free speech. People should be allowed to speak their minds. What about that statement is confusing? I think also that those who use our airwaves should be required to allow for desenting opinions and should not be 24 hour propaganda machines for a particular point of view (e.g. Republican Party) and disguise their point of view as something it is not. I think in the old days we used to call that honesty.

    Now how do you turn that into being against freedom of speech issue? Since you are against fair and balanced, providing time for others with different views on our airwaves, you must like having a Murdoch and company decide what news we will hear and how it will be spun. I like my news honest, up front, and with differing points of view.

    It is a sad day indeed when American citizens no longer want honest truth and a healthy debate. But instead prefer their news and information predigested and fed to them via a few men hell bent on fulfilling their personal agendas and not the public agenda.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2009
  21. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    "I am just disappointed that the White House is doing so much right now to jeopardize their reputation. I really miss their campaign days, when nothing seemed to shake them at all."

    But if in this experience we have a new administration that went in with good intentions, then we can watch carefully and make out the interests perturbing a good-faith trajectory. It seems that some vectors are nearly head-on; we can begin with worldviews that are the antithesis of human hope.

    Or we can take a specific issue, such as the international role of the USA in 5 or 50 years- then something must be revealed if not directly, then as we might observe things beyond the visible spectrum of nation-management.

    I'm not speaking of evil, because where men believe in their own integrity there is an absence of evil, however minute. What interests me most about the state of the world today is that it is entirely up for grabs.
     
  22. Not my puppy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
    What you say doesn't make sense was merely quotes from your previous posts. And if you just want to state fact, you are so biased you can't even hide it behind denial. Everyone can see through your efforts to appear to want fairness when your turn right around and isolate conservatives and then belittle them by referring to their typical use of straw men.
    This is truly hilarious. Claim you are not for scrutiny but insist you are appointed to determine what the public agenda should be. :runaway:
     
  23. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Bullshit. Triple bullshit. They reported Republican sex scandals as Democrat, several times, not just once. Also what they report and what they don't,
    like the 70K gay march in DC, exactly the same size as the teaparty. Stewart had a field day with it.
     

Share This Page