|
Fearless posted:It was earlier than that. There were girls in the scout troop I was in as a kid in the early 90s, and according to this it was 1992: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2008/03/10/boy_scouts_have_changed.html There's been girls in the BSA as a whole since the 70s in the Venturing division (for ages 14 to 21).
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
Trump is advocating for getting NBC's broadcast license pulled because they're  Fake News... And so it begins. You can take a wild guess how his supporters feel about this. Especially the hardcore constitutionalists, which is loving mind-boggling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Zipperelli. posted:Trump is advocating for getting NBC's broadcast license pulled because they're It's not going to happen, but the utter shitshow of Trump Peter Thiel'ing one of the four major broadcast networks out of existence would be amazing. Because Trump would be just dumb enough to go after NBC itself to try and kill NBC News. So that means killing NBC daytime, their prime time block, and the Tonight Show / late night block along with it and putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work All for want of one news story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Greta Van Susteran may have seriously broke my MSNBC addiction I had since the campaigns. I just couldn't make it through her show and gradually I was able to just turn cable news off entirely for whole days at a time. cable news is garbage and msnbc is no different
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:Greta Van Susteren was on MSNBC for like literally six months but got fired after it became clear that people were literally flipping the channel to something else or turning off their TVs while her show was on and then immediately turning back to MSNBC once Hardball started. I was actually doing this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:Greta Van Susteren was on MSNBC for like literally six months but got fired after it became clear that people were literally flipping the channel to something else or turning off their TVs while her show was on and then immediately turning back to MSNBC once Hardball started. I honestly don't understand what people like Phil Griffin were hoping to accomplish here. MSNBC is known as a "liberal" news channel, and it's most popular programs are run by liberal hosts, and said liberal programs are doing better than ever because there's a Republican president in the White House. So what's the obvious direction to go in? Why, hire more right-wing political pundits, of course! I mean, even then, I could at least sort of understand why the higher ups might think it would be a good idea to hire people like Greta. The logic being that she was fairly popular at Fox, therefore, she might bring her audience with her to MSNBC. Of course, this was an utterly moronic assumption given how well many political pundits do when they're moved to a different network, particularly one that's (in theory, anyway) ideologically opposed to the network they were previously on. Hell, even when it's a network that shares similar ideological goals, that doesn't tend to turn out well. I watched Keith Olbermann every single night since 2009 when he was on MSNBC. When he moved to Current, I don't think I've watched his program for literally more than two episodes. And I consider myself a FAN of Olbermann! And it clearly wasn't just me who stopped tuning in either, as he got axed from the network no more than a year later. Now, the other reason to hire right-wing pundits is because the higher ups may not want to piss off the dude in the White House, or maintain that obnoxious sense of "balance" or whatever. Well, okay, but that also doesn't seem to be enough because you fired Greta for lovely ratings. So you think they learned their lesson, but they're apparently giving a shitheel like HUGH HEWITT a T.V. show as well!  I really don't know what the hell is going on at that place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
Zipperelli. posted:Trump is advocating for getting NBC's broadcast license pulled because they're the funny thing is that's not how it works at all and he can't do poo poo beyond issue empty threats. but that's all he wants to do anyway Mr Interweb posted:I honestly don't understand what people like Phil Griffin were hoping to accomplish here. MSNBC is known as a "liberal" news channel, and it's most popular programs are run by liberal hosts, and said liberal programs are doing better than ever because there's a Republican president in the White House. So what's the obvious direction to go in? Why, hire more right-wing political pundits, of course! griffin is the establishment dem who brought in the entire post-hardball primetime lineup. his boss andy lack who runs nbc news is the guy buying up all the ex-fox news talking heads The Muppets On PCP fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:It's not going to happen, but the utter shitshow of Trump Peter Thiel'ing one of the four major broadcast networks out of existence would be amazing. Because Trump would be just dumb enough to go after NBC itself to try and kill NBC News. So that means killing NBC daytime, their prime time block, and the Tonight Show / late night block along with it and putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work Do you think it's not going to happen because Trump is generally incompetent at getting what he wanted, or is there another reason why shutting down NBC might not work? Serious question, treat me like someone who only vote third party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
All boy scouts should know that tampons are one of the best first-aid items to have in a shooter situation because they make decent short-term field bandages for gunshot wounds. So I've read.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:Do you think it's not going to happen because Trump is generally incompetent at getting what he wanted, or is there another reason why shutting down NBC might not work? Serious question, treat me like someone who only vote third party. In this case the answer is, in 100% seriousness, "Both". There is no way Trump can legally or formally do it himself unless he pressures the FCC, an independent government regulatory service, into doing it, which is (to my knowledge anyway) illegal. Also holy poo poo the man's incompetent. Plus I doubt you could find enough people to even form the legal team to take the case to the FCC who would be comfortable with instantly becoming famous for being the people who killed the network that makes This Is Us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
[quote="“toanoradian”" post="“477299296”"] Do you think it’s not going to happen because Trump is generally incompetent at getting what he wanted, or is there another reason why shutting down NBC might not work? Serious question, treat me like someone who only vote third party. [/quote] Because he would have to shut down every NBC affiliate in the country. Notwithstanding the legal near-impossibility of that, let's imagine he gains some superpower and can actually do it: overnight thousands of people (plenty of them Republicans) would be laid off by decree of the president. You bet your rear end Congress would suddenly become very efficient & enact a way to reverse it. And if they couldn't, his approval ratings would drop low enough that they'd likely start impeachment proceedings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:Do you think it's not going to happen because Trump is generally incompetent at getting what he wanted, or is there another reason why shutting down NBC might not work? Serious question, treat me like someone who only vote third party. nbc news isn't a broadcaster and they don't have a license to pull
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:Do you think it's not going to happen because Trump is generally incompetent at getting what he wanted, or is there another reason why shutting down NBC might not work? Serious question, treat me like someone who only vote third party. NBC doesn't have a license. Thus Trump can't revoke that license. There are thousands of individual NBC stations out there, some granted owned by by the same owners. You'd need to build a case that works in the current FCC regs and then run that case by each of those stations to get even one off the air, and it could be outright impossible to find evidence of something that justifies license revocation rather than minimal fines. So even if you knock out a station here or there, you still need something on the other thousands. This basically requires a new law allowing the FCC to block licenses "just for the hell of it" to take care of the rest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
fishmech posted:This basically requires a new law allowing the FCC to block licenses
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
Man I watched a lot of Olbermann back in the days of the Bush administration. I loved his show because rather than trying to "debate" and bring on some right wing hack, he brought on experts in particular fields and discussed poo poo, even if it was them agreeing with each other. His firing was bullshit, especially considering Hannity did the same poo poo for his party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:Because he would have to shut down every NBC affiliate in the country. Notwithstanding the legal near-impossibility of that, let's imagine he gains some superpower and can actually do it: overnight thousands of people (plenty of them Republicans) would be laid off by decree of the president. You bet your rear end Congress would suddenly become very efficient & enact a way to reverse it. And if they couldn't, his approval ratings would drop low enough that they'd likely start impeachment proceedings. Legally speaking, it would also set an incredibly dangerous precedent: that if the press isn't complimentary of the president, they can be fired by decree. I think even Fox would realize that there's no way this ends well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Legally speaking, it would also set an incredibly dangerous precedent: that if the press isn't complimentary of the president, they can be fired by decree. I think even Fox would realize that there's no way this ends well. It only there were a doctrine where the Press had to be fair.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Legally speaking, it would also set an incredibly dangerous precedent: that if the press isn't complimentary of the president, they can be fired by decree. I think even Fox would realize that there's no way this ends well. The whole discussion is already predicated on a fantasy universe where free speech orgs, civil rights orgs and every single even remotely legitimate news organization as well as most if not all tabloids and magazines wouldn't respond to the act by burying the executive branch in enough litigation to literally drown the Supreme Court. Like, imagine the Supreme Court building buried under a 500' tall mountain of legal briefs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Lote posted:It only there were a doctrine where the Press had to be fair. The press being fair is what got us into this mess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:The press being fair is what got us into this mess. No, news being businesses did that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Personally, I blame social media and their lax moderation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Man I watched a lot of Olbermann back in the days of the Bush administration. I loved his show because rather than trying to "debate" and bring on some right wing hack, he brought on experts in particular fields and discussed poo poo, even if it was them agreeing with each other. His firing was bullshit, especially considering Hannity did the same poo poo for his party. It seemed to me Olbermann was good as an opposition figure, especially in the early Iraq war days when those were hard to come by, but he didn’t transition well to having more reasonable people in office. Bill Maher was similar- he was always kind of a dick, but it was gratifying to see him go after the Bushies when most of the media was being painfully deferential.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Vodos posted:No, news being businesses did that. Ah yes all those countries out there where the news isn't a business like: gently caress dude, the fairness doctrine is exactly what got us into this mess. Because the fairness doctrine trained the media to present Both Sides!!! on every issue despite the fact most issues have an objectively wrong side which shouldn't be presented as equally valid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Legally speaking, it would also set an incredibly dangerous precedent: that if the press isn't complimentary of the president, they can be fired by decree. I think even Fox would realize that there's no way this ends well. That's cute you still think regressives would do that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Ah yes all those countries out there where the news isn't a business like: I think his point was that we're in this situation because the news media gave more air time to an empty Trump podium than it did to Hillary talking about her policies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Ah yes all those countries out there where the news isn't a business like: Nope. The fairness doctrine had the media responsible for finding the spectrum of views and presenting the best representatives of the views. That did not mean that if they had a segment on global warming that they had to give an equal amount of time to denialists, but rather a mention that a very minor percentage of experts disagree. A proportional presentation of the subject. If it was closer to 50/50, then it would need equal time. The revocation of this rule is what has led to Rush, Fox News and the RWM monoliths being the sole sources of information for conservatives, since the above now have no obligation to even pretend to show more than their side. Showing both sides of an issue is more a question of journalistic balance, which serious journalists try for, a counter to the yellow journalism of the past. The current show both sides, even when one side is obviously wrong or bad, is more about not wanting to drive off any of the remaining viewers who might not agree. The Equal Time rule is for political candidates and is still in effect. If a broadcaster gives time for free to one candidate, it must do the same for all legally qualified candidates. If they sell any time, they have to at least offer the same amount of time to the other candidates. If one candidate buys 300 ads and the opponent can only afford 3, as long as they offered they're in the clear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
MrUnderbridge posted:Nope. The fairness doctrine had the media responsible for finding the spectrum of views and presenting the best representatives of the views... You start massively wrong here and keep digging your hole so I'll save you the embarrassment. This did not happen. There was no enforcement mechanism to guarantee this and there was next to no will at the stations and networks to ensure it anyway. The Fairness Doctrine was essentially introduced so that the FCC and the federal government as a whole could claim they were Doing Something to ensure use of the airwaves, especially in the early days of TV when many minor metropolitan areas could expect to only have a single TV station for years would be "fair". But there was zero teeth to it, it was common for example for Southern TV stations to extremely limit coverage of the Civil Rights movement. And it was common for the way to handle being "non-biased" was to just say "maybe the truth is in the middle" on a shitload of topics where the truth certainly wasn't in the middle between who they allowed on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
The right in still blames The Media for losing the Vietnam war by reporting on it and they blame it for torpedoing the Nixon administration. That generation won't be satisfied until all those media outlets are out of business or the generation is all dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
MrUnderbridge posted:Nope. The fairness doctrine... I started to respond to fishmech's post but you put it better than I did. The Fairness doctrine was essentially designed so that the people with the most money couldn't basically BUY the means of disseminating information, what constituted news and allowed equal time for rebuttal. Of course that ship has sailed but overall it was a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:The right in still blames The Media for losing the Vietnam war by reporting on it and they blame it for torpedoing the Nixon administration. That generation won't be satisfied until all those media outlets are out of business or the generation is all dead. There should be something in the constitution that allows for a free press and I think it should be near the top.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:The Fairness doctrine was essentially designed so that the people with the most money couldn't basically BUY the means of disseminating information, what constituted news and allowed equal time for rebuttal. This is absolutely not true at all. And the "equal time" was never actually equal, nor is that actually how things should work. It takes a lot longer to explain why evolution is real, for example, than it is to rant about how the bible says creation is real and look eyes are complex so evolution is fake. Same goes for a ton of political issues, it's easy to say some right wing lies for 5 minutes that can't be corrected within 5 minutes of response. The Fairness Doctrine was implemented so the FCC and the federal government as a whole wouldn't have to be in charge of making things "unbiased". It was a way to completely punt on the issue, and instituted a policy of false balance that functions to the right wing's advantage then, and functions to their advantage now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
fishmech posted:This is absolutely not true at all. It is and you are wrong. That was the original intent and the spirit of the law at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine Whether or not it was exploited and used for nefarious means and loopholes were found is another argument but the idea behind it was exactly as I described and the reason it was introduced; to basically separate propaganda from fact and to allow for equal time on public airwaves. Sure, it's complicated but the original intent is clear. You think it's a coincidence that rise of RWW and its effect on the national discourse can be directly traced to overturning it? And also why the GOP had such a hard on for getting rid of it? The whole loving thing is about controlling access to information and we're seeing it now with the issue of net neutrality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:It is and you are wrong. That was the original intent and the spirit of the law at least. No, the original intent and spirit of the law, once again, was so that the FCC and the federal government could punt on actually performing regulation of content on TV by very loose standards of providing "balance" and "equal time" on "controversial issues". For most topics most of the time, a given radio or tv station or program could say whatever they want. They could also selectively not cover what they didn't want to cover and frequently would. And of course it was exploited instantly. It never was designed around "separating propaganda from fact", TV and radio were covered in propaganda the whole way through. It was just that since it was propaganda for the status quo, propaganda for war, propaganda for the Traditional Family, it wasn't "controversial". And it NEVER provided equal time on the airwaves. You'd have to be insane to really believe TV and radio ever provided equal time between, say, gay rights activists and groups whos aid gays were scum. That there was equal time between the John Birch Society and the communist party. That there was equal time between people who supported Ronald Reagan and people who were sane. Before the fairness doctrine went away we had tons of right wing media. For example, nearly all the national media leaned right, because that was so safely in the status quo that it wouldn't be "controversial", it was "in the middle" between those darn liberals who wanted civil rights and universal healthcare and Sensible Conservatives who said gently caress you to both. And that's to say nothing of all those church-led programs on radio and TV where clergy could spout anything they wanted pretty much unopposed, especially for rural areas and TV stations serving conservative areas. And of course back when cities actually had multiple newspapers every city had at least one major heavily-conservative newspaper - and back then people actually read the papers! And that's to say nothing of the fact that outlets like Fox News would never have been subject to the fairness doctrine in the first place - it simply didn't apply to cable and satellite. It never applied to the internet either, no hope of stopping a Breitbart say. The fairness doctrine never worked. Removing it allowed a lot of people to finally be open about being outright conservative instead of faking "oh I'm a reasonable centrist who just happens to agree with conservatives 99% of the time" sure, but that's not really important. All that the fairness doctrine gave us is a media that constantly wants to perform its principle of Truth In The Middle anyway. Edit: Like I really really want you to think about the fact that it provides for the "equal time" and "balance" on "controversies". And who gets to decide what's controversial is basically whoever was already in power. You could say all sorts of poo poo and not have it be "controversial" and thus an attempt by someone who opposed to the conservative stuff you said wouldn't have grounds to get their "equal time". But let's say a gay rights activist in 1965 wanted to say gays are human beings who deserve rights. You can be drat sure that's controversial and needs equal time from someone who says it needs to stay illegal. fishmech fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Oct 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Sethrogen/status/914677616606613506 https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/915334008728408064
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:https://twitter.com/Sethrogen/status/914677616606613506 Jesus gently caress, I hate Dinesh so much. A friend of mine (who is Desi) calls him an Uncle Taj and I just.. can't really disagree with the sentiment honestly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:The right in still blames The Media for losing the Vietnam war by reporting on it and they blame it for torpedoing the Nixon administration. That generation won't be satisfied until all those media outlets are out of business or the generation is all dead. There are people who (still) view Nixon favorably?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
How does Dinesh reconcile Democrats are Gay Nazis with the actual gay Nazi guy, Milo?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Jesus gently caress, I hate Dinesh so much. A friend of mine (who is Desi) calls him an Uncle Taj and I just.. can't really disagree with the sentiment honestly. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure at this point that Dinesh saw the play that Richard Spencer punching video got and asked "Why doesn't anyone care enough to punch me?” If we keep ignoring him, he'll have to escalate until he's showing up to public appearances in Klan robes asking us if we're triggered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
Lote posted:How does Dinesh reconcile Democrats are Gay Nazis with the actual gay Nazi guy, Milo? He doesn’t. He’s a moron.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2017 14:38
|
|
