EPT"The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011."
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 303
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
"The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011." | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 18 2018 23:35 Ayaz2810 wrote: Can we bring back the fairness doctrine please? I'm so tired of 40% of America missing out on the truth because right-wing media won't report it. This is bullshit. Fox is actively participating in the downfall of American democracy. Also, fuck you Scalia. "The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011." This had more pull when there were only 3 broadcast television networks and people regarded the radio airwaves as a scarce resource. Both are no longer the case. You're just using political rhetoric in a very slanted way to try to enforce your will on others. Fox is a big participant in the downfall of American democracy? Hardly. Liberals have their MSNBC and CNN. You can pick the echo chamber of your choosing if you like that sort of thing. It's eternally hilarious how much talking is done out of both sides of the mouth. Oh Trump is this ridiculous authoritarian and media is under threat. By the way, let's force right wing media to report what I call truth. Because I say they won't report it. Of course my left wing media is fairly reporting the truth. Oh yeah. Also, fuck you Scalia. Rest in peace, Scalia. Your opinions and dissents greatly furthered the cause of democracy. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 18 2018 23:50 Danglars wrote: This had more pull when there were only 3 broadcast television networks and people regarded the radio airwaves as a scarce resource. Both are no longer the case. You're just using political rhetoric in a very slanted way to try to enforce your will on others. Fox is a big participant in the downfall of American democracy? Hardly. Liberals have their MSNBC and CNN. You can pick the echo chamber of your choosing if you like that sort of thing. It's eternally hilarious how much talking is done out of both sides of the mouth. Oh Trump is this ridiculous authoritarian and media is under threat. By the way, let's force right wing media to report what I call truth. Because I say they won't report it. Of course my left wing media is fairly reporting the truth. Oh yeah. Rest in peace, Scalia. Your opinions and dissents greatly furthered the cause of democracy. That is the problem. Liberals have these networks, conservatives have their own. We can all get manipulated by billionaires willing to feed us exact what we want to hear. While they make money pitting Americans against each other. Your objection is the argument why the current media landscape is harmful for democracy. CNN, MSNBC and Fox News all need their feet held to the fire. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 18 2018 23:35 Ayaz2810 wrote: Can we bring back the fairness doctrine please? I'm so tired of 40% of America missing out on the truth because right-wing media won't report it. This is bullshit. Fox is actively participating in the downfall of American democracy. Also, fuck you Scalia. "The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011." It seems doubtful we could bring it back; the changing media landscape makes the legal basis for applying it harder to use iirc, even if it were reimplemented, since less of the conversation goes over public airwaves. And free speech rules would limit the ability to force balance in other cases. I also suspect those people would miss out on the truth even if they did hear it, though perhaps it would help some in the long run. i'ts not against the rules to try to destroy democracy; and it's easy to convince fools that you're not doing so but are actually trying to help, which makes it hard to police against anyways. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 19 2018 00:10 Logo wrote: I don't get the line of argument there. "The lack of a fairness doctrine is worse than you are claiming" doesn't really setup a good rebuttal. Unregulated news media driven entirely by profit margins isn’t healthy for democracy. It won’t end it, but it isn’t good for a function democracy. News networks the peddle conspiracy theories(Seth Rich, for example) should be dragged before congress to justify why they are lying to the US public. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 18 2018 14:25 KwarK wrote: It's not really clear which period you're referring to when you say Client Kings. Krugman seemed to be implying the Imperial period but Client Kings in the Greek east were largely a feature of the Republican era. There's always Armenia which is a bit of an odd one out, but I don't think you meant them. In any case, I'm certainly not suggesting that there was no cultural interchange between Rome and the east. Rather that to suggest that the east was romanized would require an awful lot of very big exceptions, such as language as you point out. And not to state the obvious but when the barbarians in the west were able to retain strong cultural identities under their own elites there was a pattern of acts that would suggest they were not fully romanized, such as sacking Rome. What does it mean to be "a feature" though? why do you feel the need to divide it up like that? Yeah much of the Balkan peninsula and the shores of Turkey were conquered under the republic but what makes their conquering particularly important, or "a feature?" Some of the first to really embrace Roman imperial rule culturally were Asian peoples. Pergamon quickly had a neocorate under Augustus. The Greek cities had revolted the generation before Caesar, having to be put down by Sulla. But by the time of the empire, the Romans were building massive structures there, attending Olympic games, and plucking the educated out for use back in Rome or in the provinces. Maybe you are taking issue with my use of "client kings," but this list seems to have quite a few after Caesar, and my intention was mostly to refer to a way of ruling through the local elites, rather than any particular title. You are criticizing Krugman for being too simplistic, but then you do the same thing from the opposite end. Like I'm not sure what "fully Romanized" means in the context of "soft power." I'd also point out that Rome wasn't sacked for 400 years after the birth of the empire, and it was never sacked by a directly conquered and incorporated people. So I'm not really sure what your point is there. ![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png/1024px-Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png) | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9485 Posts
LOL. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote: I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time. LOL. what's the "LOL" part about? i.e. I don't get what you mean by it in this context. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote: I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time. LOL. As an American, I envy the UK and the BBC. They provide quality news coverage and seem to give a shit about reporting on smaller stories people might not hear about. We have NPR here in the states, but it doesn’t have the reach of the BBC. But the UK is also very very small. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9485 Posts
On June 19 2018 00:48 zlefin wrote: what's the "LOL" part about? i.e. I don't get what you mean by it in this context. People's perception of bias in the news media relies 100% on their political opinions. All new media outlets have established parameters of what they will call 'fair' and 'unbiased', but it rarely has anything to do with actually being fair and unbiased, it just sticks within those parameters and anything outside it is ridiculed. Look at Corbyn for the first year of his reign of the Labour party. The BBC was basically an anti-Corbyn news outlet, because his views fell outside what the BBC would call established political truth. Most people don't notice it as much with the major news outlets because they are living life within a mythology that aligns with the news they are consuming. To pretend that this is a complete, fair and balanced view of politics, or anything else, is a complete joke. Every day that you read the BBC you are being conditioned to believe in a set of basic assumptions that are really only there to protect those in power. On June 19 2018 00:48 Plansix wrote: As an American, I envy the UK and the BBC. They provide quality news coverage and seem to give a shit about reporting on smaller stories people might not hear about. We have NPR here in the states, but it doesn’t have the reach of the BBC. But the UK is also very very small. They certainly do make quality TV. They are biased as anyone when they want to be though. When our government was proposing massive funding cuts a few years ago, the BBC were running a huge amount of pro government news. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 19 2018 00:54 Jockmcplop wrote: People's perception of bias in the news media relies 100% on their political opinions. All new media outlets have established parameters of what they will call 'fair' and 'unbiased', but it rarely has anything to do with actually being fair and unbiased, it just sticks within those parameters and anything outside it is ridiculed. Look at Corbyn for the first year of his reign of the Labour party. The BBC was basically an anti-Corbyn news outlet, because his views fell outside what the BBC would call established political truth. Most people don't notice it as much with the major news outlets because they are living life within a mythology that aligns with the news they are consuming. To pretend that this is a complete, fair and balanced view of politics, or anything else, is a complete joke. Every day that you read the BBC you are being conditioned to believe in a set of basic assumptions that are really only there to protect those in power. ok, thanks for clarifying your claim. I disagree that people's perception of bias in news is 100% based on political opinions; in my experience it's more like 85% based on political opinions. There's a small amount by which the actual bias or lack thereof in news affects people's perception of it. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 19 2018 00:54 Jockmcplop wrote: People's perception of bias in the news media relies 100% on their political opinions. All new media outlets have established parameters of what they will call 'fair' and 'unbiased', but it rarely has anything to do with actually being fair and unbiased, it just sticks within those parameters and anything outside it is ridiculed. Look at Corbyn for the first year of his reign of the Labour party. The BBC was basically an anti-Corbyn news outlet, because his views fell outside what the BBC would call established political truth. Most people don't notice it as much with the major news outlets because they are living life within a mythology that aligns with the news they are consuming. To pretend that this is a complete, fair and balanced view of politics, or anything else, is a complete joke. Every day that you read the BBC you are being conditioned to believe in a set of basic assumptions that are really only there to protect those in power. This can be easily counter balanced by reading a couple news sources. News agencies don’t report in an unbiased nature. They just report on sets of facts and stories they hear, while trying to make their potential biases known to the viewer. As an American who listens to BBC radio its world coverage, I’ve never heard the network push that it is reporting on all the facts or that its coverage with the “truth”. It has mostly been the opposite of that, with reporters being careful in saying they do not have all the facts. On June 19 2018 00:54 Jockmcplop wrote: They certainly do make quality TV. They are biased as anyone when they want to be though. When our government was proposing massive funding cuts a few years ago, the BBC were running a huge amount of pro government news. This right here is a problem, but one that the citizenship has to address, not the BBC. Government officials using funding to try to get better coverage of their policies should be blamed on the goverment. The BBC is trying to secure its ability to report for the future, which means they have to please the people who pay the bills. And the government knows this. If politicians are trying to cut the BBC’s funding, they need to make it clear that positive coverage will not impact that decision. Or hold public hearings on cutting the funding and have the BBC make its case to the people. https://www.fredrogers.org/frc/news/mister-rogers-goes-washington-may-1-1969 I present the greatest case of public broadcasting makings it case before the government for its continued existence. This was back when the US congress gave a shit about Americans and did things. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9485 Posts
On June 19 2018 01:00 Plansix wrote: This can be easily counter balanced by reading a couple news sources. News agencies don’t report in an unbiased nature. They just report on sets of facts and stories they hear, while trying to make their potential biases known to the viewer. As an American who listens to BBC radio its world coverage, I’ve never heard the network push that it is reporting on all the facts or that its coverage with the “truth”. It has mostly been the opposite of that, with reporters being careful in saying they do not have all the facts. When it comes to the ind of 'establishment bias' that I believe affects the BBC, reading multiple news sources to get a fair, balanced view of current events is actually counter productive. The truth isn't determined by the majority, and the majority of news outlets will report a very similar, and very narrow interpretation of events. If you are reading multiple sources these are the facts that you will assume are true, but often you will find all the major news outlets failing to report stuff, and I've seen it argued many times on here that if there's no major news source, its probably a conspiracy theory or it didn't happen. One news outlet like the BBC reporting in the way they do isn't a problem, as you've said they try and do their best to be balanced within their parameters, but when these parameters are identical in all the major news outlets you have a problem. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On June 18 2018 23:50 Danglars wrote: This had more pull when there were only 3 broadcast television networks and people regarded the radio airwaves as a scarce resource. Both are no longer the case. You're just using political rhetoric in a very slanted way to try to enforce your will on others. Fox is a big participant in the downfall of American democracy? Hardly. Liberals have their MSNBC and CNN. You can pick the echo chamber of your choosing if you like that sort of thing. It's eternally hilarious how much talking is done out of both sides of the mouth. Oh Trump is this ridiculous authoritarian and media is under threat. By the way, let's force right wing media to report what I call truth. Because I say they won't report it. Of course my left wing media is fairly reporting the truth. Oh yeah. Rest in peace, Scalia. Your opinions and dissents greatly furthered the cause of democracy. Bullshit. MSNBC and CNN are not the bastions of the liberal media agenda that you claim they are (nor is WaPo, the Times, or any of the other major papers). They report factual information that Fox does not. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and rotten oranges. The only reasons Trump supporters hate MSNBC and CNN are because A. he tells them to and they're easily manipulated and B. those networks call out the blatant lies and hypocrisy that Fox won't. Fox is essentially state media at this point. Is truth and fact somehow part of the "liberal agenda"? Because if it is, I'll be a liberal forever. Claiming that those networks are somehow an echo chamber is also false. I can recall dozens of occasions in which anchors and guests on those networks have explored the possible benefits of Trump policy, international diplomacy, EOs, and other things. Of course, that fades quickly because most, if not all, of his decisions are fucking awful. I've even heard them give credit for the state of the stock market and economy. This kind of shit is why I hardly ever debate people anymore. You falsely accuse "the left" or "liberals" of doing the things that Trump and Republicans are doing. You clearly don't watch either of those channels. If more right-wingers did, and weren't brainwashed by the "fake news" mantra, Trump would be out on his ass. There are few things I hate more than when people go "the other side is just as bad!". Because that's just not fucking true. Years in office/Criminal Indictments/Convictions/Prison Sentences Barack Obama Democratic 8 0 0 0 George W. Bush Republican 8 16 16 9 Bill Clinton Democratic 8 2 1 1 George H. W. Bush Republican 4 1 1 1 Ronald Reagan Republican 8 26 16 8 Jimmy Carter Democratic 4 1 0 0 Gerald Ford Republican 2.4 1 1 1 Richard Nixon Republican 5.6 76 55 15 The one valid criticism of "the liberal media" is that they are like a cat chasing a laser pointer when it comes to making stories out of Trump's bullshit. They are so easily distracted it's not even funny. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1883 Posts
On June 19 2018 00:38 IgnE wrote: What does it mean to be "a feature" though? why do you feel the need to divide it up like that? Yeah much of the Balkan peninsula and the shores of Turkey were conquered under the republic but what makes their conquering particularly important, or "a feature?" Some of the first to really embrace Roman imperial rule culturally were Asian peoples. Pergamon quickly had a neocorate under Augustus. The Greek cities had revolted the generation before Caesar, having to be put down by Sulla. But by the time of the empire, the Romans were building massive structures there, attending Olympic games, and plucking the educated out for use back in Rome or in the provinces. Maybe you are taking issue with my use of "client kings," but this list seems to have quite a few after Caesar, and my intention was mostly to refer to a way of ruling through the local elites, rather than any particular title. You are criticizing Krugman for being too simplistic, but then you do the same thing from the opposite end. Like I'm not sure what "fully Romanized" means in the context of "soft power." I'd also point out that Rome wasn't sacked for 400 years after the birth of the empire, and it was never sacked by a directly conquered and incorporated people. So I'm not really sure what your point is there. Rome was sacked by client kings. In the last century of the western empire, Rome did not have the power to defeat the germanic invasions by themselves and gave the attackers concessions. Most famously the francs were a tribe of people that were allowed reign the area of modern belgium and northern france in exchange for them defending roman borders against other "barbarians". And Rome tries the same with the goths but they sacked rome and made one of them Caesar. When they conquered the eastern mediteranean, they did let those countries more or less rule themselves and some of them remained more or less autonomous for a long time but this was only due to them being culturally similar. The conquest of France was something entirely different and those people did not rebel against roe because they were largely subdued or slaved after the conquest. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 19 2018 01:20 Jockmcplop wrote: When it comes to the ind of 'establishment bias' that I believe affects the BBC, reading multiple news sources to get a fair, balanced view of current events is actually counter productive. The truth isn't determined by the majority, and the majority of news outlets will report a very similar, and very narrow interpretation of events. If you are reading multiple sources these are the facts that you will assume are true, but often you will find all the major news outlets failing to report stuff, and I've seen it argued many times on here that if there's no major news source, its probably a conspiracy theory or it didn't happen. One news outlet like the BBC reporting in the way they do isn't a problem, as you've said they try and do their best to be balanced within their parameters, but when these parameters are identical in all the major news outlets you have a problem. Personally, i think having a better understanding of the journalism profession is the solution to this problem. Because when people understand that there is no truth, only information from a specific point of view, they understand that no journalist can provide them with complete information. So when I want more information on a specific story, I might read the local coverage of the story, rather than go to another national paper. And the vast majority of news worthy events in the world do not get reported on. The rise of false or misleading information being peddled through social media sites have made people reluctant to believe stories from unknown sources. Which is just the nature of anonymous internet forums leaking into the wider public discourse. I didn't believe random people on the internet is the last 1990s and I don't think its a good idea to start now. Again, I think people would be well served to find a specific reporter covering a story they are interested in and follow that person on social media. Reporters are generally pretty good a sniffing out a conspiracy theory or when someone is overselling a story that might not have a lot of verifiable information surrounding it. You can learn a lot about a story just by who is covering. | ||
Sermokala
United States13816 Posts
Its correct that rome offered soft power over its conquered lands but they still demanded taxs and soilders from everyone. The prosperity of rome was seeded in its ability to leverage Phoenician ideals such as colonies and a Reliance on trade for revenues to gain power in new areas. Also best pr empires ever go to the Byzantines my boy justinian started out as a farmers son and retook rome from the franks and Goths. But then Muslims happen and what can you do. | ||
| ||
