EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4746
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
Burning down sh*t ain’t going to help nothing. Y’all burning down sh*t we need in our community. Take that sh*t to the suburbs. Burn that sh*t down. We need our weave. I don’t wear it, but we need it. http://ijr.com/2016/08/672666-sister-of-armed-man-killed-by-milwaukee-cops-tells-rioters-to-burn-sht-down-in-the-suburbs/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=ods&utm_term=ijamerica&utm_content=politics CNN cut the clip short to not show the part where she is inciting violence against the suburbs. Kind of disturbing that the media and government are just letting this BLM movement turn into pure terrorism and are turning a blind eye to it and even encouraging them via selective coverage. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
For an easy example look at NPR. While NPR isn't the most unbiased news source, it's certainly painted as a liberal bastion by conservative media to an extent that seems a bit extreme. And why? In no small part because it takes some of their potential market share. Same thing routinely happens to the BBC. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 16 2016 03:25 RoomOfMush wrote: I personally believe that if you want high quality unbiased news they must not be monetized. No lobbyists, no advertisements, no donations, no trying to maximize numbers or shares or anything. Of course, that doesnt work very well in real life. People need to be paid, they wont work for free. The only viable solution is the state paying for the news but then how can they be unbiased? Perhaps if free unbiased news were declared a basic right which the state has to provide and the current government and law-makers have no chance of changing its rules easily. But thats very likely to ever happen now, is it? NPR has always been pretty good, with a strong effort to keep the public informed. Of course it has a strong left bias, which should be a problem if you are aware of it. The problem with the US is the news networks created this “left vs right” debate dynamic to increase news viewership and the thing took on a life of its own. We act like it has been like that all along, but it has been a slow build to John Stewart calling out Cross Fire for hurting America. We fell a long way from Edward R. Murrow taking on McCarthy and telling the public they didn’t need to fear people who read the little red book. | ||
KwarK
United States44286 Posts
On August 16 2016 03:25 RoomOfMush wrote: I personally believe that if you want high quality unbiased news they must not be monetized. No lobbyists, no advertisements, no donations, no trying to maximize numbers or shares or anything. Of course, that doesnt work very well in real life. People need to be paid, they wont work for free. The only viable solution is the state paying for the news but then how can they be unbiased? Perhaps if free unbiased news were declared a basic right which the state has to provide and the current government and law-makers have no chance of changing its rules easily. But thats very likely to ever happen now, is it? The BBC works by having a special tax levied on households with televisions. The tax goes to the BBC, not the government. The BBC is not accountable to the government but rather to its own charter. So the PM can't call up the Director General of the BBC and demand that something be changed, only the BBC Trust (12 Trustees, appointments last four years, usually retired civil servants etc) can hold the BBC to account and only in cases of violations of the BBC's Charter. It is possible to have an organization be both publicly funded and independent. Obviously there are limitations to how independent anything can be, if you're sufficiently powerful you could lobby for a pawn to be placed on the Trust and then blackmail them or whatever. But in principle the setup is designed to allow the BBC to criticize the government when appropriate, and indeed do whatever else it deems in line with its obligation to inform, entertain and educate the British public. | ||
|
Evotroid
Hungary176 Posts
On August 16 2016 03:24 KwarK wrote: First amendment would be the one. It's a problem without any good solution because of the lack of faith in the country that already exists. There isn't much of a middle ground to build on. Y'all needed a BBC about 50 years ago to grow up trusting as a reliable source of truth that was independent of both corporate influences and state interference. That said we needed our BBC to not protect child rapists so there are negatives to that too. Yeah, it came to mind, but does it not have provisions for things like this? Like, in the US for example, can I just say to random people that I am a cop, and ask them things they would not do for a not-a-cop person? Surely, I would be held accountable for lying about being a cop, even if I did nothing illegal? Or is it too much of a stretch that a site like breitbart is considered to be lying about being the news, when they do not show the news, but rather, mostly falsehoods? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 16 2016 03:30 zlefin wrote: most people just don't want to watch real, thorough news; because it's boring. Getting quality news people will pay for is hard, it's a rather niche market. That is the problem. The news started out as a public service. A mandate on networks to keep the public informed for free use of the airwaves. The problem was that they figured out how to make it profitable and the government never filled in the gap. The news shouldn't care how many people watch it. That isn't the point of the news. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On August 16 2016 03:34 Evotroid wrote: Yeah, it came to mind, but does it not have provisions for things like this? Like, in the US for example, can I just say to random people that I am a cop, and ask them things they would not do for a not-a-cop person? Surely, I would be held accountable for lying about being a cop, even if I did nothing illegal? Or is it too much of a stretch that a site like breitbart is considered to be lying about being the news, when they do not show the news, but rather, mostly falsehoods? You can be punished for knowingly making a false statement, but in many cases it's hard to meet the standard of evidence | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44286 Posts
On August 16 2016 03:34 Evotroid wrote: Yeah, it came to mind, but does it not have provisions for things like this? Like, in the US for example, can I just say to random people that I am a cop, and ask them things they would not do for a not-a-cop person? Surely, I would be held accountable for lying about being a cop, even if I did nothing illegal? Or is it too much of a stretch that a site like breitbart is considered to be lying about being the news, when they do not show the news, but rather, mostly falsehoods? That's a specific case in which you are impersonating an agent of the state to steal powers reserved for the state. The supply of information is not reserved for the state but is instead dictated purely by the free market. What that used to mean is that if you were better at providing high quality and reliable information then you gained market share. What that now means is that if you're better at providing the information people want to hear, and for a lower price, you gain market share. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On August 16 2016 03:34 Evotroid wrote: Yeah, it came to mind, but does it not have provisions for things like this? Like, in the US for example, can I just say to random people that I am a cop, and ask them things they would not do for a not-a-cop person? Surely, I would be held accountable for lying about being a cop, even if I did nothing illegal? Or is it too much of a stretch that a site like breitbart is considered to be lying about being the news, when they do not show the news, but rather, mostly falsehoods? It's pretty easy to show you are not in fact a cop even though you said you were. It's very hard to prove that anonymous sources in the X campaign didn't say Z and that you knew it despite reporting on it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 16 2016 03:36 Nevuk wrote: NPR does have a low level of public funding, I thought. Like 10% of their budget or something - they could obviously get by without it but it does help prevent them from being a non stop ad machine. Of course that doesn't stop them from begging for donations 4 months of the year... And I donate every year because I’ll be damned if I’m going to get my news from the BBC rather than an US run news network. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10165 Posts
On August 16 2016 03:30 LegalLord wrote: I wouldn't mind a government news channel being made, and in general I think a direct government mouthpiece is a good thing. Most Americans would lose their shit if one was to be proposed though. Hmm, probably is my country bias talking here, but i don't think news channels tied to the goverment are a good idea. They will end up being as propaganda tool for the ruling party. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22566 Posts
On August 16 2016 03:25 RoomOfMush wrote: I personally believe that if you want high quality unbiased news they must not be monetized. No lobbyists, no advertisements, no donations, no trying to maximize numbers or shares or anything. Of course, that doesnt work very well in real life. People need to be paid, they wont work for free. The only viable solution is the state paying for the news but then how can they be unbiased? Perhaps if free unbiased news were declared a basic right which the state has to provide and the current government and law-makers have no chance of changing its rules easily. But thats very likely to ever happen now, is it? This is more or less the BBC? But then as you identify your never going to be unbiased, someone is always footing the bill and that person will always have an agenda they try to push, even if subconsciously. What we need is an AI news network that can operate completely independently and without opinion, based purely on facts. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On August 16 2016 03:43 Godwrath wrote: Hmm, probably is my country bias talking here, but i don't think news channels tied to the goverment are a good idea. They will end up being as propaganda tool for the ruling party. While a valid concern, they can be established in a way that is insulated from party changes, and current outlets aren't immune to propaganda either. Quite the opposite, given that I see much more bias from independent news sources than government ones around the world. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6474 Posts
On August 16 2016 03:30 hunts wrote: http://ijr.com/2016/08/672666-sister-of-armed-man-killed-by-milwaukee-cops-tells-rioters-to-burn-sht-down-in-the-suburbs/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=ods&utm_term=ijamerica&utm_content=politics CNN cut the clip short to not show the part where she is inciting violence against the suburbs. Kind of disturbing that the media and government are just letting this BLM movement turn into pure terrorism and are turning a blind eye to it and even encouraging them via selective coverage. Their coverage is based on convenience. The MSM operates in its own world with no accountability. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On August 16 2016 03:45 Gorsameth wrote: This is more or less the BBC? But then as you identify your never going to be unbiased, someone is always footing the bill and that person will always have an agenda they try to push, even if subconsciously. What we need is an AI news network that can operate completely independently and without opinion, based purely on facts. if you want news like that you'd probably want to use reuters, AP or bloomberg terminal | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 16 2016 03:43 Godwrath wrote: Hmm, probably is my country bias talking here, but i don't think news channels tied to the goverment are a good idea. They will end up being as propaganda tool for the ruling party. To be perfectly honest, if the nation that sent people to the moon can’t create a publicly run news network that can survive more than one administration, we might as well just quit right now and go back to being ruled by the UK. The BBC is fine. But they also have 50 years of public trust built up behind them. Seriously, think about that. If we can’t trust our government to build an independent entity that sole purpose is to keep the public informed, why do we trust them with anything? We entrust them with the power of lethal force, but not the power to provide information to the public. | ||
| ||
