[URL]http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/61301[/URL]
Here's a source from Fox News if Canada Free Press doesn't suffice. [URL]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/20/fcc-official-others-warn-agency-study-would-squash-news-media-1st-amendment/[/URL]
[QUOTE]The purpose of the proposed Federal Communications Commission study is to “identify and understand the critical information needs of the American public, with special emphasis on vulnerable-disadvantaged populations,” according to the agency.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]However, one agency commissioner, Ajit Pai, said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece Wednesday that the May 2013 proposal would allow researchers to “grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run.”[/QUOTE]
For the record, "Canada Free Press" is not in any way a news organization, it's just a right wing blog run by some dudes that [i]might[/i] even be parody
[QUOTE=Zeke129;43992357]For the record, "Canada Free Press" is not in any way a news organization, it's just a right wing blog run by some dudes that [i]might[/i] even be parody[/QUOTE]
Which is why I cited Fox News as a source as well, just in case.
[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;43992367]Which is why I cited Fox News as a source as well, just in case.[/QUOTE]
so to verify a right-wing blog that might be a parody as credible you cited a right-wing blog that might be a parody
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;43992491]so to verify a right-wing blog that might be a parody as credible you cited a right-wing blog that might be a parody[/QUOTE]
Would you rather obamaisthedevil.webs.com as a source?
[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;43992512]Would you rather obamaisthedevil.webs.com as a source?[/QUOTE]
it would be just as credible as the other two
Yeah, uh, Fox News isn't a news source. It's Entertainment News.
If it doesn't show up in WSJ, NYT, CNN, NBC, or BBC, it's not news.
EDIT: Your Dumbs are not respected in Fort Kickass.
Good. Cable news is fucking awful, and anything that may improve that is good news to me.
i'm just imagining obama installing them himself
in multiple locations
at the same time
So...the FCC is doing a study, and some of their people want to hang around the news organizations for a while and ask questions/collect data for the study? That really doesn't sound so unreasonable. In fact, it's exactly what reporters do all the time.
[QUOTE=Diet Kane;43993019]i'm just imagining obama installing them himself
in multiple locations
at the same time[/QUOTE]
he knows the Penultimate Truth
[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;43992512]Would you rather obamaisthedevil.webs.com as a source?[/QUOTE]
are you a right-wing blogger that might be a parody
[QUOTE=J!NX;43995292]are you a right-wing blogger that might be a parody[/QUOTE]
OH SHIT THE JIG IS UP
If a Murdoch-owned news channel cites a Murdoch-owned newspaper as evidence, is that incestuous reporting?
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;43995518]If a Murdoch-owned news channel cites a Murdoch-owned newspaper as evidence, is that incestuous?[/QUOTE]
I'd say it's masturbatory.
[QUOTE=woolio1;43992573]Yeah, uh, Fox News isn't a news source. It's Entertainment News.
If it doesn't show up in WSJ, NYT, CNN, NBC, or BBC, it's not news.[/QUOTE]
So... small towns aren't allowed to have news?
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;43996131]So... small towns aren't allowed to have news?[/QUOTE]
It's hardly [I]important[/I] news if the major agencies don't feel its worth reporting.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;43996235]It's hardly [I]important[/I] news if the major agencies don't feel its worth reporting.[/QUOTE]
And just because major agencies report on it doesn't always mean its important news.
I'm getting the feeling I should have phrased that better...
[QUOTE=hexpunK;43996235]It's hardly [I]important[/I] news if the major agencies don't feel its worth reporting.[/QUOTE]
Great, so the news is what the 'important' news agencies decide it is.
[QUOTE=Appellation;43997038]Great, so the news is what the 'important' news agencies decide it is.[/QUOTE]
Well, pretty much. Sure they won't get all the important stories (how many agencies stopped reporting on the Arab Spring when it stopped being "interesting"?). If all the news agencies started reporting on all the things happening in the country, no matter how small, they'd have little time to talk about the important things. Yeah, local agencies might report on things important to your town or city, but it's probably meaningless to the country or world.
Note how I said "news agencies" not "Fox News". There's a difference. A good number of the news sources in the US are exceptionally questionable.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;43997090]Well, pretty much. Sure they won't get all the important stories (how many agencies stopped reporting on the Arab Spring when it stopped being "interesting"?). If all the news agencies started reporting on all the things happening in the country, no matter how small, they'd have little time to talk about the important things. Yeah, local agencies might report on things important to your town or city, but it's probably meaningless to the country or world.
Note how I said "news agencies" not "Fox News". There's a difference. [B]A good number of the news sources in the US are exceptionally questionable.[/B][/QUOTE]
So why are you saying that only they decide what news is important if they're exceptionally questionable?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;43997090]A good number of the news sources in the US are exceptionally questionable.[/QUOTE]
Why exactly are you focusing on the US? Worldwide there are a good number of questionable news sources.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44001173]Why exactly are you focusing on the US? Worldwide there are a good number of questionable news sources.[/QUOTE]
The article is about US news sources. I know there are questionable sources everywhere, I come from the land of the Daily "Holy shit cancer Muslims" Mail.
[editline]22nd February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;43998945]So why are you saying that only they decide what news is important if they're exceptionally questionable?[/QUOTE]
Because I'm not talking about the questionable ones? If that's what you took away from that post, then this is a waste of our time.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;43995518]If a Murdoch-owned news channel cites a Murdoch-owned newspaper as evidence, is that incestuous reporting?[/QUOTE]
My mind is fucked right now
On the level of paranoid-fiction, this would be the beginning of some sort of 'Big Brother' scheme
On a serious level, hopefully this will cut down on the amount of opinions and just give the straight facts (Americans should decide their opinions on such topics, not those who deliver it to them.)
The government should go all the way and just make it a legal requirement to tell the truth to the best of your ability if you want to have the word "news" anywhere near your broadcast
I really don't understand American news, it's so different to news channels in the UK. Over here they actually tell you the news, mostly unbiased (on television anyway, papers are a different story), whereas over in America it always seems VERY opinionated. Stuff like Nancy Grace and Fox news.
[QUOTE=Scotty.;44006898]I really don't understand American news, it's so different to news channels in the UK. Over here they actually tell you the news, mostly unbiased (on television anyway, papers are a different story), whereas over in America it always seems VERY opinionated. Stuff like Nancy Grace and Fox news.[/QUOTE]
At least our newspapers are better.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;44006809]On the level of paranoid-fiction, this would be the beginning of some sort of 'Big Brother' scheme[/QUOTE]
this is legit what my civics teacher believes and what he's basically convinced half of the class to believe
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.