|
BiggerBoat posted:There is none. The genie is out of the bottle and it's become normalized and entrenched. I don't even think re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine would do much. This should be a cautionary tale for anyone who thinks just ignoring Nazis will make them go away. The Muppets On PCP posted:dunno but quasi-related i've been seeing mark krikorian of the center for immigration studies, which is listed as a white nationalist hate group by splc, on cnn and msnbc a whole bunch to talk about daca This too.
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
The Fairness Doctrine was stupid as hell. It literally required media to do the BOTH SIDES MUST BE LISTENED TO shtick, that is its very basis. Want to have coverage of civil rights? Well that's controversial and you need to provide balance... better get some dumb racist on the air. It was only marginally useful in that it managed to get the most outspokenly racist television station in the history of the country off the air, but only after it'd been able to peddle its crap for 20 years previously. The essential idea of the fairness doctrine was so that government as a whole could punt on the uncomfortable fact that TV broadcasting capacity in many areas was going to be limited to just 1 station for quite some time, due to the massive costs associated with starting up a station. And this was essentially going to give a lot of such owners indefinite monopolies on TV content in areas with hundreds of thousands of people. There are obvious reasons why that could mean a huge opportunity to bias coverage, and that probably should have had some sort of regulation, but the Fairness Doctrine doesn't provide any, it just says "well you need to present both sides somehow" and generally left stations to do that as they please.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The Fairness Doctrine was stupid as hell. It literally required media to do the BOTH SIDES MUST BE LISTENED TO shtick, that is its very basis. Want to have coverage of civil rights? Well that's controversial and you need to provide balance... better get some dumb racist on the air. It was only marginally useful in that it managed to get the most outspokenly racist television station in the history of the country off the air, but only after it'd been able to peddle its crap for 20 years previously. This is true, but it's also a fact that the repeal of it in 1987 led directly to demagogues like Limbaugh having an uncontested platform to spew hate from, which is what created the right-wing media sphere we have today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Are you sure it wasn't due to the rise of cable tv access in the eighties and nineties?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Even though my #BollingBallsOut campaign never caught on, or even started, Eric Bolling has left Fox and his program has ended on "amicable terms" Maybe the real reason Ailes kept Shep Smith around was to have one ace in the sleeve, with an utter lack of interest in harassing women?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Are you sure it wasn't due to the rise of cable tv access in the eighties and nineties? That happened concurrently, but Limbaugh was first, starting in 1989 and FNC didn't come on the air until 1996, (and even then it took them until the Bush years to build up an appreciable audience). But for conservatives, Limbaugh in the 90's was entry-level RWM, Fox News and the idea of separate news ecosystem didn't come later until after Bush was elected and 9/11 happens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Re LEGO: If they're failing it's because their kits are insanely overpriced even among other bricks. If I'm a parent, my choices are LEGO or megablocks, megablocks are half the price. Even going one step further: It's a toy that my kids are going to make a mess with, and it's not really portable. But some lovely game on my tablet? That checks every box but the one where my parents roll their eyes about screen time but gently caress them. Re Rush: Just gently caress this guy, but maybe he just knows his elderly demographic isn't able to evacuate anyways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
well its important to interact physically with things as a child but it is not like you need lego for that, certainly not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:This is true, but it's also a fact that the repeal of it in 1987 led directly to demagogues like Limbaugh having an uncontested platform to spew hate from, which is what created the right-wing media sphere we have today. Except "contesting" the platform beforehand never meant actually keeping down conservative voices. You could always run your lovely conservative shock jock hosts and plain conservative talk shows in the prime drive time etc slots, and have your token liberal opposition in the lesser hours. You'd be hard pressed, say, to find any pro-gay rights content on the air in huge swathes of the country in the early 80s, but you could get tons of homophobic propaganda from all over. And of course you'd have televangelists on preaching whatever they wanted, also uncontested. You'd have people like Bob Larson already doing satellite-syndicated daily radio call-in shows where they'd talk about how evil anything left of Hitler and less Christian than a Bible made of crucifixes was. HootTheOwl posted:Re LEGO: If they're failing it's because their kits are insanely overpriced even among other bricks. If I'm a parent, my choices are LEGO or megablocks, megablocks are half the price. Even going one step further: It's a toy that my kids are going to make a mess with, and it's not really portable. But some lovely game on my tablet? That checks every box but the one where my parents roll their eyes about screen time but gently caress them. MegaBloks as a division of another toy company now, makes something like $400 million in revenue a year. Lego's "downturn" in revenue meant they only took in $2.4 billion the first 6 months of this year. fishmech fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Sep 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
try the new taco place posted:And here's the Rush Limbaugh Money Shot Wait, so how are his idiot fans supposed to respond to this? Do they ignore what Rush said and do what Rush is doing, or do they listen to what Rush said and ignore what he's doing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Wait, so how are his idiot fans supposed to respond to this? Do they ignore what Rush said and do what Rush is doing, or do they listen to what Rush said and ignore what he's doing? Look, if Rush encouraged autoerotic asphyxiation, do you really think some of his followers would not hesitate to do it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The Fairness Doctrine was stupid as hell. It literally required media to do the BOTH SIDES MUST BE LISTENED TO shtick, that is its very basis. Want to have coverage of civil rights? Well that's controversial and you need to provide balance... better get some dumb racist on the air. It was only marginally useful in that it managed to get the most outspokenly racist television station in the history of the country off the air, but only after it'd been able to peddle its crap for 20 years previously. If handled correctly that type of doctrine can actually work quite well. British broadcasting media has to follow those rules and it generally ensures decent quality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:If handled correctly that type of doctrine can actually work quite well. British broadcasting media has to follow those rules and it generally ensures decent quality. bbc was blatantly in the tank for may over corbyn
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Look, if Rush encouraged autoerotic asphyxiation, do you really think some of his followers would not hesitate to do it? Of course they would, but my question is regarding how they would reconcile two contradictory stances.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:If handled correctly that type of doctrine can actually work quite well. British broadcasting media has to follow those rules and it generally ensures decent quality. Britain actually has laws that make it possible to sue someone for making blantantly false statements and passing them off as news, however.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Of course they would, but my question is regarding how they would reconcile two contradictory stances. That's the point. No matter what he says, they'll believe it. Rush could say that universal healthcare is something that needs to be done today, and his followers will agree. Then twenty minutes later, he could say that universal healthcare is a sin and abomination and they'll agree. Contradictions don't matter. Angry_Ed posted:Britain actually has laws that make it possible to sue someone for making blantantly false statements and passing them off as news, however. Yeah, about the UK's libel laws... You could call homeopathy a load of bullshit and a company that sells homeopathic products can sue the ever living poo poo out of you over it even though homeopathy is in fact bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:bbc was blatantly in the tank for may over corbyn Angry_Ed posted:Britain actually has laws that make it possible to sue someone for making blantantly false statements and passing them off as news, however. That is kind of point though. The UK has rules that even if they do start to show favortisim, it will never approach the level of bullshit that can be pulled of in the US.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Um maybe read up about the UK media landscape before pronouncing it better than the US
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Britain actually has laws that make it possible to sue someone for making blantantly false statements and passing them off as news, however. Which 99.9% of the time get used to silence legit criticism of the rich and famous by people who aren't as wealthy. You can sue someone for putting up actual falsehoods against you in the US too, the bar of standards of evidence actually exists though. Hunt11 posted:That is kind of point though. The UK has rules that even if they do start to show favortisim, it will never approach the level of bullshit that can be pulled of in the US. The Daily Mail prints lies and bends the truth so often it no longer meets the standards to be considered a proper source on Wikipedia. Not even Fox News is considered that untrustworthy. It is also the second largest drat paper in the country. fishmech fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Sep 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:That is kind of point though. The UK has rules that even if they do start to show favortisim, it will never approach the level of bullshit that can be pulled of in the US. bbc was more apocalyptic about corbyn than any mainstream outlet was about either us presidential candidate though
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
I'll also point out that it's like, you can say "immigrants are criminals here to rape our women and convert your pub into a dungeon for White Btitons" all you want in the British media. It's just if you start doing things like "Mr. Scaryname of West London specifically is doing this" that they start getting able to be sued or dinged over it at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Fair enough, for some reason I thought the laws in Britain were a bit more strict/functional in regards to libel, but I was misinformed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Fair enough, for some reason I thought the laws in Britain were a bit more strict/functional in regards to libel, but I was misinformed. British laws on libel are essentially "if you upset someone rich or powerful even with something true, you'll be bled dry in court proceedings unless you yourself got enough behind you to build a serious legal team". Well, they were quite a bit more so until recently with a cleaning up act of parliament, but still bad. There was a very undue burden on the defendants to prove their speech was justified, compared to the us/Canada/lot of other countries where the one suing must prove that it wasn't justified.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:We're dealing with a group of people (right wing pundits) that are now reaching the point where they're claiming this uptick in powerful hurricanes is because we as a species had the audacity to analyze this stuff and report on climate change. I mean, it's exactly how they deal with racism. Tons of right wingers have said that racism was mostly gone until Obama revived it by talking about race.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
fishmech posted:British laws on libel are essentially "if you upset someone rich or powerful even with something true, you'll be bled dry in court proceedings unless you yourself got enough behind you to build a serious legal team". Well, they were quite a bit more so until recently with a cleaning up act of parliament, but still bad. That's more or less how I understand it. In the US/Canada/most elsewhere the burden is on the person bringing the suit to show how this libel has harmed them. So you can scream outrageous poo poo like "Coca-Cola causes gay frogs!" all you want and Coca-Cola will just shrug and ignore it because proving one crank, no matter how popular, is doing actual harm to them is a pain in the rear end. This is why a recent libel case against John Oliver brought by a coal mining CEO was slapped down so comically hard. In the UK the burden is on the person who made the so-called libel. This basically means that you cannot say "X person/company did Y" unless you have very, very, very damning and clear evidence that said event happened. So you can't scream about Coke causing gay frogs unless you have like twenty independent studies AND access to internal memos and email stating that Coca-Cola UK was aware of the fact that their soda made frogs gay. Even then you will likely be ground down beneath the weight of the lawsuits they will bring against you unless you have a top-notch legal team of your own. It's why when the accusations came out that David Cameron hosed A Dead Pig the silence from Cameron and his supporters was so damning: he would have easily had the power to squash such claims and claim oversized damages from the guy making them UNLESS a) he actually did gently caress a dead pig and b) knew the accuser had ironclad evidence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/yashar/status/906564241494298624 A tragedy for the Bolling family. I hope that he and his family are shown more support and solace in this moment than he has shown others. More ghoulishly, can we take wagers on the first RWM figure to blame Yashar for this? Then again, since it's been an hour so someone probably already has.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:That's more or less how I understand it. Having said that, the longest running trial in british history was McDonalds trying (and iirc, failing) to sue 5 people for handing out leaflets from greenpeace
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:https://twitter.com/yashar/status/906564241494298624 https://twitter.com/cazielins/status/906608589954940928
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Eric wants thoughts & prayers. Oh well, thoughts & prayers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Have they announced cause yet? Someone on my FB said he probably killed himself out of shame for his father. A long shot, but not long enough to totally dismiss it I guess 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:https://twitter.com/yashar/status/906564241494298624 Dammit. Wanted him to suffer greatly, but not like this. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Zipperelli. posted:Have they announced cause yet? TMZ reported suicide at first, but now they're saying drug overdose. https://twitter.com/ericbolling/status/906626952521551872
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Looks like an overdose after using drugs because he was so embarrassed. Hope those texts were worth it!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:Eric wants thoughts & prayers. everyone should let eric know he's in their thoughts by texting him photos of penises
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
changing the subject a bit, but it is absolutely disgusting how most of American tv media is obsessed with "Hurricane Irma ruins American couple's honeymoon/vacation/whatever." Yeah, that is the real tragedy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:changing the subject a bit, but it is absolutely disgusting how most of American tv media is obsessed with "Hurricane Irma ruins American couple's honeymoon/vacation/whatever." Yeah, that is the real tragedy. Especially since going to Florida means your getaway is ruined before you even start.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
I've said it before, but it's amazing to see how one of the so-called intellectual leaders of the modern day conservative movement - referring to Art Laffer - comes off as so utterly simple-minded. He was on Joy Ann Reid's show to "debate" tax policy, and it's stunning how he just doesn't even loving try to sound like someone who graduated high school. All he kept saying was that tax cuts lead to more revenue, citing one example of legislation that made the case (Reagan's 1986 tax reform bill) and that the lovely policies he supported for Kansas for the past 4 years don't count because that's just "anecdotal".
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
gently caress if I'm going to be bothered finding out if it's the first, but we do have an entrant who was quotetweeted into my feed. https://twitter.com/PamelaGeller/status/906722870377816064
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
 This tweet won't age well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:
So is the fact that the hurricane isn't going to hit the east coast of Florida but the west coast supposed to be some of victory for those who didn't believe the hurricane was a threat?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 17:57
|
|