Can't wait to see all the whining if/when the next dem-lead FCC brings back the Fairness Doctrine.
Dues Ex was right about everything.
Every non sci-fi dystopian fiction is or will be true. People in the future will be so bewildered that we had stories of dystopias for decades but didn't bother to prevent them from coming true.
People blindly following the ideals of a weak man's idea of a strong man/not giving a shit about ethics/the planet is EXACTLY what leads to most dystopias.
It's more that trump and co are so monumentally moronic that they hopefully fucked up chances of the country becoming more fucked up. Best case scenario Mueller ends the trump presidency and trump going down shows the gop for the shady thugs they are. Congress strengthens election/ethics/media law and restricts the president's power so future shitgibbons can't do as much. And the next dem president is environmentally friendly. (environmental protection becoming such a partisan thing is beyond horrible)
What I don't even get is, with all the complaints of "liberal media outlets" from particular niches of conservatives, wouldn't the Fairness Doctrine be in the favor of conservatives who believe the media is left-wing biased?
Only one conservative news outlet (Fox News) would have to incorporate left-wing views, whereas all of the other news outlets would have to incorporate more right-wing leaning news to balance it out. It would logically stand that it would be a net gain for conservative opinions getting more air time and exposure, would it not?
holy shit. did anybody else find this, like, terrifying?
Because the common understanding of it is not that. The way it is presented to the layman is that it is explicitly designed to force people to see liberal news and information above all else. They've been told that its not about equality or neutrality, which they are convinced they are getting already, but instead about eliminating these things. And most of the people consuming this don't know any better, and they're told they're being lied to and manipulated by everyone else. Its virtually like a cult where-in the cult convinces its followers, who by and large are typically normal people, that everyone outside the cult is targeting them and trying to hurt them. So they encourage them to cluster up and restrict themselves to just the cult's members, insuring that view is never strongly challenged. Any attempts are entirely foreign and viewed with complete hostility.
Historically when cults collapse or members find themselves outside the cult somehow, these people have incredible difficult adjusting to outside life. The world is still viewed as hostile and threatening, a foreign enemy. Often times therapy or rehabilitation are needed to get former cult members to properly function in society, and its not uncommon for them to show a lot of the hallmarks of PTSD. It takes coordinated effort and immersion from professionals and support networks to help former cult member reintegrate in to a society they've had no strong connection with for a prolonged period of time and have actively be told to resist. This exact same situation can be observed in modern conservatism, where trying to integrate people with society typically takes a coordinated effort from friends and family working to immerse them in it. But the problem there is that, in most cases, these are massive communities, virtually entirely towns and counties, and even states, that all fall in to this. The friends and family are all a part of it working to keep each other in line and perpetuating the cult's views. There is no other society to become immersed in to help them rehabilitate.
This gave me vibes of an opening sequence of a dystopia movie. Those sort of news cut-ins you often see during disaster movie credits.
They can't keep people illiterate, so they bombard them with chaos and fear to make them feel helpless.
In doing this they've made systems to churn it out. To weaponize the helplessness.
But now the wheels spin out from under them. Their hands slip off the handlebars.
What are they going to do when they're just as helpless as the rest of us?
It's like Russians are the "OJ's lawyer" of news/media.
"They convinced people X was happening, they're sure to work for me!"
Ha I saw one of my local stations.
After Trump is impeached and imprisoned, the next great battle for our democracy will fall in breaking up shit like this. Right wing propaganda outlets have been intentionally radicalizing their viewerbase -- indoctrinating a generation of political extremists.
My reaction when I see something that's extremely dangerous to our democracy:
https://youtu.be/hWLjYJ4BzvI?t=59s
we cyberpunk now
Not even close yet or some technology scribes in Cyberpunk genre already existed as not too bad but lean good if done right.
See Postcyberpunk genre
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PostCyberPunk
And also NOT everytime dystopian thinking is not always goes Cyberpunk (with occasional Biopunk) outcome if everyone fight it back before it's completely too late.
Am I the only one having a hard time understanding absolutely anything in this post? I feel like I'm having a stroke.
Conservatives generally don't trust the government to decide what is "fair" when it comes to news.
But yet they'll bend over backwards as long as a corporation is involved?
Another business and/or person (like the internet) can always compete with corporations, like we're seeing en mass at the moment, but no one can compete when the government gets to shut you down if you don't follow their rules.
Yes, but the 'free-market' requires you to have access to a large amount of wealth/power to compete with a giant Sinclair-like conglomerate.
Something that absolutely isn't possible for the people who this propagandizing affects most.
You will never, ever, compete Wal-Mart as a local business if Wal-Mart wants you out.
I honestly can't understand anyone who claims to both want a free society while also actively wanting their government to control how news is reported. That seems totally antithetical to me.
State control of news is a monolithic constant in every modern authoritarian state. How do you think they're going to decide what constitutes "fair?" It's going to be a bunch of big-wig politicians, or people appointed by those politicians. They are then going to be able to back up their decisions with the force of law. How can that possibly be a good thing?!?
We are already seeing an explosion of alternative news sources that cover every possible angle of a story, some horrible and some great. The information is already out there and freely available.
Your claim:
Another business and/or person, now more easily than ever, can always compete with corporations
The truth: That's not true at all. In many cases competition is literally impossible either because corporations have made competing against them illegal or are willing to kill their competition rather than compete with them by taking losses for long enough that their competition collapses - whereupon they can now monopolize the market they've now stripped of competitors.
I don't understand how you could possibly have this view yet be okay with corporations despite having the same issues. (Actually worse since the Fairness Doctrine was actually quite fair.)
He was pointing out how corporations can't be trusted either. Something you were writing off as not a concern because:
which is something that cannot happen under the circumstances Firgof Umbra described. Quit playing stupid, you're not an idiot and you do both yourself and the people you debate with a disservice by continuing to act like this. You know exactly what he meant to begin with.
I'm not CLOSE to asking for state run media.
I just think it makes perfect sense that local media outlets should control the information of their local media outlets, not giant corporation propaganda conglomerates.
Sgman lives in the 70s, don't you guys know? When corporations income did not exceed that of several countries.
... I mean, we're clearly talking in the context of media and news reporting? I feel like that was obvious. Taking a single statement totally out of the context of a conversation, and even out of the post in which it was written, is just silliness.
Excellent, let's stay in that field despite your absolute position which you never qualified as specific to a particular market - in effect bringing your statement totally out of the context of your conversation.
It still applies. Go on, try to start up any media network you like - all the channels are already bought and owned by corporations on cable networks and local airwaves will fight you with corporation-backed money to draw your audience away and shut you down.
Are we talking about the internet exclusively, then, because you won't win that argument either? Excellent, because it's going to be impossible. The FCC has rolled back protections which would stop broadband companies from simply making your website an annoyance to read due to bandwidth caps or paywalls, in exchange receiving some fat stacks of cash. The fact remains - if you are arguing there exists a 'level playing field' then you are arguing about a world that is not the one we live in.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
