|
The Fairness Doctrine never applied to print media anyway, and probably wouldn't apply to cable news nowadays even if it was still around.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
Joshmo posted:In the "mainstream" media, it was an actual government policy that if you wanted to have a media outlet, you had to cater to both sides on certain positions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine But that doesn't mean "the truth is in the middle" though and I agree with the poster who mentioned it that it's infuriating. I mean, you don't have to report that "smoking increases you risk of heart disease and cancer" and then report "well, the tobacco industry says 'no it doesn't'" just to be "fair". I thought The Fairness Doctrine just meant you had to allow for equal time if you were giving a political editorial and someone wanted to rebut it, not that you had to give two sides to every story just because.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Where did this "the truth is always in the middle" poo poo come from and where did it start? What happened in the mainstream news that put it in a place of not taking a side? Or was it always like this? The idea of genuine journalistic objectivity has been around forever, but the "truth is in the middle" crap that we see today began with the Iraq invasion and the media's complicity in it. The right basically got away with starting a war based on propaganda. The newsmedia needed access to the propagandists in power, so they allowed themselves to be manipulated into minimizing the administration's critics by suggesting they are equally partisan if not worse, therefore you shouldn't fully trust either side. You must depend on "the facts" only (as reported by the propagandists' media allies and journalists needing access).
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
You can go back to the creation of Fox News to find a 'news' source that was just naked propaganda for one political party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I'm sure this means he won't be voting Republican straight ticket in 2016 lol People should start badgering him with this, call out these two-faced fuckers on their bullshit until they actually prove they're not supporting the GOP in any fashion. Or until they explode, either one is good with me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:The idea of genuine journalistic objectivity has been around forever, but the "truth is in the middle" crap that we see today began with the Iraq invasion and the media's complicity in it. The right basically got away with starting a war based on propaganda. The newsmedia needed access to the propagandists in power, so they allowed themselves to be manipulated into minimizing the administration's critics by suggesting they are equally partisan if not worse, therefore you shouldn't fully trust either side. You must depend on "the facts" only (as reported by the propagandists' media allies and journalists needing access). Nah, it's been around longer than that. Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent in 1988 and a lot of that was based on earlier scholarly works and observations on the media. The current "truth is in the middle" media narrative has been going on since at least the Vietnam war and probably even before that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Yeah but it's a lot more reflexive today. Prior to the Dubya era I don't remember journalists/reporters typically interrupting with "but to be fair, Democrats ____________ too" whenever a politically damaging criticism of the right comes up. I mean, conservatives said it, but not "objective" reporters
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
The fallacy of the truth being in the middle is one we have to constantly re-learn every time we have a new object of truth to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
I saw on the AV Club today that Michael Moore has a new movie out. Anyone seen it yet, heard a anything about it or know if the RWM media even gives a poo poo anymore?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I saw on the AV Club today that Michael Moore has a new movie out. Anyone seen it yet, heard a anything about it or know if the RWM media even gives a poo poo anymore? As much as the right never lets go of a hate boner, I think they are focused elsewhere this cycle. Unless the movie is about tolerating immigrants/muslims . Which is not to say that some Slate or WashPost beigeist won't use it as a sign that see, Trump may be blowing wet kisses to Putin and whitewashing his autocracy as a model to be followed, but Moore has a movie out! Both sides bleaaaarghhhh
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
We can now add "copyright laws" to the list of things that are Literally Communism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
GottaPayDaTrollToll posted:We can now add "copyright laws" to the list of things that are Literally Communism. torrentfreak.com? Is that a well-known bastion of right wing media?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:torrentfreak.com? Is that a well-known bastion of right wing media? They're super angry libertarians usually exclusively about issues related to 'I want to steal things'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
"Intellectual Property might have property in the name, but as a libertarian, let me tell you why I think that intellectual property should not fall under general property rights." e: how bad is this Palin thing? I know it's been literally 7 years and change for Palin to muster up enough physical fortitude against whatever she's on to take Tina Fey down a peg, but apparently it's not completely abhorrent; just regularly abhorrent. Phone fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Dec 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
"Intellectual property" as it relates to most entertainment media is a really stupid term for pretty much exactly the reason that it turns culture into a thing you own. If you think they way we do copyright now is good for anybody but Disney et al, I have some bad news for you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:"Intellectual property" as it relates to most entertainment media is a really stupid term for pretty much exactly the reason that it turns culture into a thing you own. If you think they way we do copyright now is good for anybody but Disney et al, I have some bad news for you. What better system would you advocate? Copyright itself is not an issue, length of copyright is an issue but the premise and law itself is solid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
The average person has practically no reason to care about copyright: the MPAA, RIAA, etc have all had their abilities to mass sue people crippled, and practically the only people who actually get dinged for infringing copyright are people trying to make money off of other people's stuff. And I just don't think it's a horrible thing if the mass pirated DVD sales guys get knocked for some lawsuits every so often.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
e: Eh, its rare but it does happen http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/popcorn-time-lawsuits-continue-as-16-are-sued-for-watching-survivor/ Phone posted:"Intellectual Property might have property in the name, but as a libertarian, let me tell you why I think that intellectual property should not fall under general property rights." The concept of intellectual property tends to make libertarians brains melt. For the libertarian, property is a "natural" right and definitely not something that a government with a monopoly on force sets up through a system of laws and enforcement. See, you can defend your property with just a shotgun and your steely-eyed, strong-jawed masculinity. But you can't chase someone off of the lawn of your ideas with a hand gun. That definitely requires some sort of government to protect. Therefore, since government is the font of all evil, there can't be any such thing as "intellectual property". QED. 800peepee51doodoo fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Dec 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Generally the libertarian response I've seen has been to 'defend' their right to an idea through 'proactive force' I.E. murdering people that implement their ideas without reimbursing the 'creator' for having at some point exposing them to their works. Also, I don't want to (re)start poo poo but, people do realize the 'false rape accusations hurt more people so we shouldn't treat all accusations as honest' has the same statistically significant evidence as the justifications for voter ID laws, right? You are literally falling for another right wing meme based on anecdotal evidence and trumped up outliers, all of which are the result of the systematic problems that would be directly attacked by making it safer and easier for people to talk about having been sexually assaulted or harassed--the most effective method of doing so we yet know just so happens to be treating all rape claims as true in so far as the person accused of rape is removed from anywhere they could victimize others or enact retribution against their accuser. If someone wants to >make the thread< I feel that we should be discussing how employment post-accusation should be handled. I.E. Compensation for days the accused are unable to work, opportunities to make money while waiting for the case to heard... Etc. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
RoanHorse posted:Generally the libertarian response I've seen has been to 'defend' their right to an idea through 'proactive force' I.E. murdering people that implement their ideas without reimbursing the 'creator' for having at some point exposing them to their works. Oh my god shut up. I agree with you and I want to punch you in the face.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
tech/open source people have always had this bizarre political theory which tends towards hardcore ancap libertarianism in the real world, but socialism in the world of computer stuff. i wonder why that could be
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
It doesn't really make libertarians brains melt. Two of the biggest libertarian I've ever known were IP attorneys. What you're witnessing here is post-hoc rationalization for why it's totally ok that I, a libertarian who believes, above all else, in the sanctity of property, have pirated every bit of music, movies, television, and video games that I've consumed in the past decade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Libertarians want to protect private property because they recognize they have objects other people may want they are indifferent to intellectual property for similar reasons
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Wait, are y'all still talking about rape?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
RoanHorse posted:Generally the libertarian response I've seen has been to 'defend' their right to an idea through 'proactive force' I.E. murdering people that implement their ideas without reimbursing the 'creator' for having at some point exposing them to their works. if you dont want to restart poo poo then SHUT THE gently caress UP Sir Tonk posted:Wait, are y'all still talking about rape? No gently caress no
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Libertarians want to protect private property because they recognize they have objects other people may want That's pretty loving snappy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
Speaking of "fighting Crowder for the title of 'Shittiest Human on Twitter'" https://twitter.com/Nero/status/679117797532688386 I realize that pales in comparison to other explicitly advocated atrocities, but drat if that just doesn't make me want to do reconstructive surgery on him with a spork.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Speaking of "fighting Crowder for the title of 'Shittiest Human on Twitter'" All that landing on the moon bullshit  Such slackers
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Speaking of "fighting Crowder for the title of 'Shittiest Human on Twitter'"  I hope he realizes that SpaceX is a NASA client, they might object to that plan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
How can these guys open their mouths without getting punched in the face every thirty seconds? Like I get that being as obnoxious as humanly possible can probably make you some money or w/e, but it doesn't seem like a very safe/healthy plan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
I think Crowder actually did get punched in the face when he confronted some union guys a few years ago. It's easy to be a big man on Twitter but not so much in real life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Celador posted:I think Crowder actually did get punched in the face when he confronted some union guys a few years ago. It's easy to be a big man on Twitter but not so much in real life. He did. He started the fight and then the union guy punched him back. MYSTERIOUSLY only the part where Crowder got punched showed up on Fox News. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
His lawsuit was MYSTERIOUSLY rescinded for some odd reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Phone posted:His lawsuit was MYSTERIOUSLY rescinded for some odd reason. He knew he would have lost due to the liberal courts. The only safe space is the internet 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Speaking of lawsuits, where's Mr. Sharpio's assault case at?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Phone posted:Speaking of lawsuits, where's Mr. Sharpio's assault case at? He has to find a new lawyer after he dropped the previous one for shaking his hand to hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Todd Starnes held his yearly Todd Starnes All-American Christmas on Fox News. That is the name of it http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/12/21/watch-now-todd-starnes-all-american-christmas 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Oh wow they got Chonda Pierce, the Queen of Clean, to perform! Hooray. so funny. wow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Oh, thank baby Jesus. I thought that Todd wouldn't have the time to do such a thing with him quitting the Republican party and everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
I want to be angry at that but he wants me to be angry at it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 17:31
|
|