RE: Freaking Orwellian

RE: Freaking Orwellian (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:18:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Who indeed... who is doing it now... There are some things that ONLY our government can do... remember WE have control over our government. If we don't like the way they are demanding...just the facts ma'am in news broadcasting...we can change them.. Now we are at the mercy of partisan funded news organizations... Only giving THEIR view of the world. I am not against all things government... their very existence is to do things on a national level that individual states cannot do. Making sure we are getting the facts of the happenings in this world is one of those things. Butch If you don't think the are telling the truth don't watch them. What makes you think politicos are any more interested in the truth than any news network?

BamaD -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:21:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy When you have a Country like the USA, it seems misguided to peddle defeatist ideas. My wife's job is to oversee that her financial company does not produce false or misleading advertising. The same principles that apply to her workplace could also be applied to the field of journalism. I agree with your position. Why should we accept yellow journalism if we could eliminate it? Networks vision of the truth is clouded by their world view. Don't watch what you don't trust.

cloudboy -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:22:01 PM)
Please, enough with the sophistry. Journalism has standards just like any other profession. Lawyers are barred from filing frivolous lawsuits, so why can't news organizations be prohibited from printing / broadcasting false and misleading information?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:25:06 PM)
I think I've seen it all, now. We actually have people that *claim* to love this country that are arguing for the need to curtail the freedom of the press? Really? Nope. No destruction of American values going on, here.

BamaD -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:25:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Cite the authority of the FCC regarding newspapers, Ken. I think that it is newspapers associated with radio stations and that it started back in the 1940's. But you might want to double check. http://www.adweek.com/news/press/fcc-backs-study-newsroom-editorial-practices-155673 quote: "But what Wheeler didn't say in his letter is that it would drop the controversial part of its study that had its researchers question the decisions of journalists, producers and other news staff, leaving lawmakers less than fully satisfied." All the letter from the FCC Chairman said, in essence, was "Trust us, we're not going to interfere with the newsrooms, or tell them what to report" A government bureaucrat of the Federal Government who is stating, essentially: "Trust us, we're from the Government." which ranks right up there with "We're with the FBI, we're here to help." Its hayday was at the turn of the 20th century with Hearst, they pushed the country into a war with Spain before there was time to find out what really happened to the Maine. That was when they got the name.

jlf1961 -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:26:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Now we are at the mercy of partisan funded news organizations... Only giving THEIR view of the world. First, considering the varied media news outlets, you are, if you so choose to do so, free to watch as many as you wish to form your own opinion. As far as limiting news sources to just broadcasting the truth, again, where are you going to find a truly unbiased individuals to sit and monitor these news sources 24/7/365 and determine what is and is not the truth. And if it is the source that spoke the lie, then how can you say a news program did not broadcast the truth, if they quoted the individual directly and agreed with his statement? At that point, you will need people to monitor what public figures say to insure they are indeed telling the truth. But what if they misunderstood what they were speaking out against? Is it false at then? What about taking something out of context? Of course you also have the problem of he said and a speaker responded to that statement. People do not always express themselves clearly. he/she may not have meant what was said. So far we have a division of the FCC making sure that only the truth is broadcast. Then you have a new agency to distribute through some media the exact nature of a bill, or proposed law, you will also have to expand cspan to include every committee meeting so that every word is clearly broadcast. But then what about interpretation of what a law means, or an opponent's stand on an issue. Then it gets murky. Would the literal statement be considered truth, or the figurative? Now we have reached the wonderful world of the new government agency, the thought police. Sorry but anyone will tell you that "truth" is relative. Once it passes to opinion, truth goes out the window, be it FOX, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, NPR, ABC. Of course satirical media would be eliminated altogether, say good bye to "The Onion." And what about the right wing broadcasters, like Rush? Or any of the others, and conspiracy broadcasters? Sorry, but all things considered, I am not willing to live in that country, and will do everything within my power to keep that from happening. Strangely enough, I still feel bound to the oath I took when I enlisted.

Aylee -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:29:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Now we are at the mercy of partisan funded news organizations... Only giving THEIR view of the world. First, considering the varied media news outlets, you are, if you so choose to do so, free to watch as many as you wish to form your own opinion. As far as limiting news sources to just broadcasting the truth, again, where are you going to find a truly unbiased individuals to sit and monitor these news sources 24/7/365 and determine what is and is not the truth. And if it is the source that spoke the lie, then how can you say a news program did not broadcast the truth, if they quoted the individual directly and agreed with his statement? At that point, you will need people to monitor what public figures say to insure they are indeed telling the truth. But what if they misunderstood what they were speaking out against? Is it false at then? What about taking something out of context? Of course you also have the problem of he said and a speaker responded to that statement. People do not always express themselves clearly. he/she may not have meant what was said. So far we have a division of the FCC making sure that only the truth is broadcast. <snip> I think they call them Commissars.

BamaD -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:29:44 PM)
"We're with the FBI, we're here to help." I always heard that as "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" The scariest phrase in the English (American) language.

BamaD -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:33:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I think I've seen it all, now. We actually have people that *claim* to love this country that are arguing for the need to curtail the freedom of the press? Really? Nope. No destruction of American values going on, here. Reminds me of the guy on one of these threads who actually said that freedom comes from regulation.

cloudboy -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:37:15 PM)
That's right: the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, BOARDS OF MEDICINE, THE SEC, etc. All those organizations are littered with "commissars." Putting fluoride in the drinking water also evinced the same kind of protests I'm seeing on this thread.

TheHeretic -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 9:01:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Paranoia is unbecoming. You imagine that studying how and what news is presented will result in some sort of authoritarian power grab because that reflects your internal desires and attitudes. You cannot show that it has any basis in fact or that this study will have any result beyond the gathering of the information. While you were completely fine with the IRS targetting people whose politics you disagree, right up to the moment you were told to start calling it a manufactured scandal instead. If you want to get personal, Ken, I'm happy to go there, and you can tell us what your thoughts would be when a Republican administered Social Security contractor shows up at your door to study the political leaning and online activities of disability benefit recipients. Just a quick survey. He's from the government, so it's not like you have anything to worry about... This is the 21st century, Dude. If you aren't at least a little paranoid, you aren't paying attention.

DomKen -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 9:10:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Paranoia is unbecoming. You imagine that studying how and what news is presented will result in some sort of authoritarian power grab because that reflects your internal desires and attitudes. You cannot show that it has any basis in fact or that this study will have any result beyond the gathering of the information. While you were completely fine with the IRS targetting people whose politics you disagree, right up to the moment you were told to start calling it a manufactured scandal instead. If the IRS had actually been targeting people I would have been very opposed. Making some groups wait a while a longer and fill out some extra paper work before getting a status a clear reading of the law says they are not entitled to? I could care less and no amount of whining by over entitled cons who feel that rich pricks should not have to disclose to which groups they give money will change my mind on that. As to the rest, if you only knew. Suffice it to say that the feds know more about me than I like but since I get to live I can live with it. I suggest that if you get paranoid about a research survey you never become disabled.

TheHeretic -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 9:27:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I suggest that if you get paranoid about a research survey you never become disabled. I know enough about that system to have a good private policy, thank you very much.

Owner59 -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 10:12:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Paranoia is unbecoming. You imagine that studying how and what news is presented will result in some sort of authoritarian power grab because that reflects your internal desires and attitudes. You cannot show that it has any basis in fact or that this study will have any result beyond the gathering of the information. While you were completely fine with the IRS targetting people whose politics you disagree, right up to the moment you were told to start calling it a manufactured scandal instead. If you want to get personal, Ken, I'm happy to go there, and you can tell us what your thoughts would be when a Republican administered Social Security contractor shows up at your door to study the political leaning and online activities of disability benefit recipients. Just a quick survey. He's from the government, so it's not like you have anything to worry about... This is the 21st century, Dude. If you aren't at least a little paranoid, you aren't paying attention. Says the party who targeted ACORN for destruction.... Notice folks, how dick`s favorite nra-pedophile-spokesman laces "ACORN into his bigot rant? "“I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America,” The IRS sending an extra letter to your tea-baggers is NOT political retribution..... The GOP attacking and killing a non-profit b/c it enfranchised tens of thousands of folks who don`t vote old-white-man-party.......is. It`s not thuggery when cons do it......just ask ted . [8\|] Though I know there`s not much here......that you`re might be upset in any way, is comforting.[;)]

FrostedFlake -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 10:14:56 PM)
quote: "I welcome today’s announcement that the FCC has suspended its 'Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,' or CIN study," said Pai in response to the announcement. "This study would have thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country, somewhere it just doesn’t belong." "The Commission has now recognized that no study by the federal government, now or in the future, should involve asking questions to media owners, news directors, or reporters about their practices. This is an important victory for the First Amendment. And it would not have been possible without the American people making their voices heard. I will remain vigilant that any future initiatives not infringe on our constitutional freedoms." While I cannot recall the last time I subjected myself to a news broadcast, I use the news system all the time. I rely upon it to know what is happening outside. It is very important. But I am confident the other news guys would raise hell if they could show a certain bunch of newsguys were lying. In the final analysis, it is the news that protects us from the government, as has just been demonstrated. To suppose government can, should or would, protect us from the news, is to fail to get it. Control the news... THAT is something I could see this government trying to do. That way, they would know everything we say and do and we would 'know' exactly what they told us.

BamaD -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 10:17:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Please, enough with the sophistry. Journalism has standards just like any other profession. Lawyers are barred from filing frivolous lawsuits, so why can't news organizations be prohibited from printing / broadcasting false and misleading information? Lawyers are governed by lawyers.

BamaD -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 10:18:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake quote: "I welcome today’s announcement that the FCC has suspended its 'Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,' or CIN study," said Pai in response to the announcement. "This study would have thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country, somewhere it just doesn’t belong." "The Commission has now recognized that no study by the federal government, now or in the future, should involve asking questions to media owners, news directors, or reporters about their practices. This is an important victory for the First Amendment. And it would not have been possible without the American people making their voices heard. I will remain vigilant that any future initiatives not infringe on our constitutional freedoms." While I cannot recall the last time I subjected myself to a news broadcast, I use the news system all the time. I rely upon it to know what is happening outside. It is very important. But I am confident the other news guys would raise hell if they could show a certain bunch of newsguys were lying. In the final analysis, it is the news that protects us from the government, as has just been demonstrated. To suppose government can, should or would, protect us from the news, is to fail to get it. Control the news... THAT is something I could see this government trying to do. That way, they would know everything we say and do and we would 'know' exactly what they told us. 1984

TheHeretic -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 10:45:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Putting fluoride in the drinking water also evinced the same kind of protests I'm seeing on this thread. Been watching old Kubrick movies, Cloudboy? Did you happen to notice that coverage of America's wars doesn't rate as a critical need? How convenient would that have been for the Bush administration, as well as the current one that just announced they won't be giving any more information on drone attacks?

kdsub -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 8:57:30 AM)
quote: If you don't think the are telling the truth don't watch them. What makes you think politicos are any more interested in the truth than any news network? You and I should not have to resort to watching another countries news services to get unbiased news reporting. I do think the FCC could do a better job than no regulating at all. Opposing parties will assure honesty in regulation. Bama you cannot go through life trusting no one. I am willing to give my city, state, and federal, governments a chance. If they abuse my trust than I will vote a change in the administrating authority. Butch

kdsub -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 9:11:52 AM)
There are many people that do not have access to varied media outlets… and even when we do how do YOU know they are unbiased. Look at all the links we provide when arguing our viewpoints that say the opposite of each other. If only the facts are reported then it would be up to us to editorialize as we see fit… The factual reporting is what our government should be demanding. If private news media wants to editorialize… then they should report the facts first then clearly state they are editorializing. There would be no problem determining if the reported facts were truthful or not. Could you be honest enough to do just that…no matter your political bent? I could and would be proud of it…and so would most people…Have faith in your fellow man. You are wrong to think the FCC would have to interpret the law… all they would have to do is assure what was reported was factual. You keep talking about truth… I don’t care about truth… truth is relative and subjective. Facts are not... and facts are all I would care about… I or you will then determine the truth… I don’t need fox telling me the truth… or their claim to be the truth. Butch

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125