[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;32275376]Hopefully word of this will spread, and it will help calm the current political climate, and stop people from believing the biased BS that comes from 1 sided politicians.[/QUOTE]
WingNutDaily will probably call it Socialist Propaganda or something. :v:
Oh boy you left a lot for me to respond to.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32278927]First, the only thing this kind of law would apply to is media organizations in the United States, not to every single American citizen. Second, why does it matter what other nations report? It doesn't. It's our responsibility to worry about and look after ourselves, and to be accountable for what we say and do. If they wanted to follow suit with us using similar laws, that's fine, but otherwise it's not any of our concern. [/QUOTE]
First of all, where is it that news agency specifically sign up to be a media organization? What would be classified as a news agency and what wouldn't? Can a blog be a media organization? Is there a minimum subscriber count? Didn't Canada just declare Fox News not a media organization? Would they be one here?
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32278927]
Ensuring that our country's media outlets report correct and accurate information in a professional, ethical manner is "shackling" ourselves"? To a professional system of ethics and standards through law, I suppose. But even so, how's that a negative thing? It isn't. It's just one more step in the right direction.
[/QUOTE]
So how many true lies has Fox News really told? Sure, they've skewed the truth, made things sound much worse than they were. But how many? It may sound stupid, but what if the guy in your previous picture really has found that there is a way that this will make 'white people slaves'? Doesn't he have the right to say that?
I'm sure Fox draws it's conclusions the same way.
[QUOTE]
Actually, the most popular ones in the United States are CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX, the AP, CBN, USA Today, the Washington Post, and the Young Turks.
[url]http://www.tv-tube.tv/tvchannels/news/country/united-states[/url]
[/QUOTE]
Foreign news networks do have a degree of influence. Reuters and the BBC are viewed by many here in America.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32278927]
As Wikipedia says, [Citation Needed].
[/QUOTE]
You want me to cite that some popular blogs are hosted outside the United States?
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32278927]
Some, but it's doubtful many are, especially when one looks at the number of news outlets I just listed above that have their own blogs.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, some, who would be exempt from these rules, quite the loophole.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32278927]
In regards to misinformation, I do not recall saying otherwise; I remarked on the issue of [b]intentionally[/b] spreading misinformation- which can be stopped. Furthermore, how do you reckon that more government transparency will do anything to solve this problem- let alone how do you propose we make the government anymore transparent than what it already is? Every issue that Congress is presented is available for you to read already.
[/QUOTE]
An important part of that was [B]Clarity[/B]. What I was missing was simplicity. When an average person has to read through a 3000 page document to get the cold hard facts, you are going to alienate people that don't have the time or that can't process that much information.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32278927]
We should be, and many people are, but many also are not. That's redundant. And then there's the fact that regardless of whether or not people are informed and are politically active, a good lot of them will still simply support whatever benefits them the most and simply say "Fuck everyone and everything else".
[/QUOTE]
Are you really informed if you don't have the big picture laid out in your mind? That's part of it.
[QUOTE]
First, we're not "shackling ourselves". Second, simply ignoring the issue isn't going to accomplish anything other than allowing the problem to grow. And it will grow.
[/QUOTE]
Can I skip this? Feels like a repeat.
[QUOTE]
When you're targeting major media outlets that reach far more people than a basement-dwelling blogger does, fat chance of them finding a way around it. Even assuming they do, the important thing is that it won't be acceptable and definitely won't be swelling to even bigger proportions. That said, the notion of not doing anything at all to counter it is not only defeatist, it's rather silly considering that plenty of other countries have laws pertaining to the subject for the exact same reasons. Laws which they've been able to successfully enforce.
[/QUOTE]
Defeatist? No. I see the growing of these networks as the symptom. The lack of thought when it comes to politics is the virus.
[QUOTE]
Well it is the most distrusted media outlet in the United States.
[/QUOTE]
While also being the dominant media outlet. People like it for some reason.
[QUOTE]
It must be a very special gift. To be able to see into the future, I mean.
If it would be, it would be very surprising, since, again, plenty of other countries have got laws about this sort of thing. And surely it could be adapted to work with what numerous laws we've already got pertaining to libel, slander, etc.[/QUOTE]
I deleted that almost an hour ago. You took that long to write this?!
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;32278954]WingNutDaily will probably call it Socialist Propaganda or something. :v:[/QUOTE]
It was made by the Obama administration with the sole reason of swaying public opinion for his reelection, so, yes, it is technically propaganda.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32279434]It was made by the Obama administration with the sole reason of swaying public opinion for his reelection, so, yes, it is technically propaganda.[/QUOTE]
Not the administration, his campaign Super PAC.
[QUOTE=Novistador;32276647]Was no one else a little freaked out a while ago when the whole health care thing had just come up and there were suggestions from democrats (I'm not sure if they were directly involved with Obama or the Whitehorse) That there should be an organization that either licences or monitors and punishes blogs and other Internet and media sources that published statements regarding healthcare (and other government initiatives) which were unfavourable, or the government considered to be false.
I know many of you would probably support such a thing because it would at the time come to the defence of an issue you support, but the whole idea of a government agency responsible for punishing media outlets which spread dissenting ideas is a rather totalitarian one.
It sounds more like something you would hear about in China than in the west.[/QUOTE]
well when the media is spouting shit like death panels I think that's justified
[editline]13th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32279434]It was made by the Obama administration with the sole reason of swaying public opinion for his reelection, so, yes, it is technically propaganda.[/QUOTE]
Debunking lies =/= Spreading propaganda
[QUOTE=Lambeth;32279674]well when the media is spouting shit like death panels I think that's justified
[editline]13th September 2011[/editline]
Debunking lies =/= Spreading propaganda[/QUOTE]
It's kinda both. If it was really written by his PAC then yes it is somewhat propaganda. It is by definition:
prop·a·gan·da
   [prop-uh-gan-duh] Show IPA
noun
1.
information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
It's from his campaign spreading information to debunk myths to help his standing, and it counts both now and election day.
If you're gonna define it like that I think sarah palin and anyone else who blatantly lied were/are committing libel and should be tried in a court of law.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32279635]Not the administration, his campaign Super PAC.[/QUOTE]
My bad, but it still doesn't change what I was saying.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;32279930]If you're gonna define it like that I think sarah palin and anyone else who blatantly lied were/are committing libel and should be tried in a court of law.[/QUOTE]
But that's the dictionary.com definition? I'm confused.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32280008]But that's the dictionary.com definition? I'm confused.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying it's kinda nuts to suggest this is propaganda when fox news exists.
[url]http://english.glendale.cc.ca.us/propaganda.examples.html[/url]
Many aren't like Fox News but still count. Propoganda is more than news and it can be good or bad.
This isn't much propaganda, i would say. Most of it is facts, but they arent against obama on it(for one the big PAID BY OBAMA ADMINISTRATION)
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]First of all, where is it that news agency specifically sign up to be a media organization?[/quote]
The second that their journalists start supplying news reports to media outlets, which are in turn released through television, radio, newspapers, websites, etc., they are a part of whatever media organization(s) they are supplying this material to and are accountable for what it is they've chosen to report on and (moreover) how they've decided to report on it.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]What would be classified as a news agency and what wouldn't?[/quote]
A news agency is an organized clique of journalists which supply news reports to media outlets.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]Can a blog be a media organization?[/quote]
No. Blogs are, by definition and substantiated by their current use in media outlets, part of the media organization with which they are affiliated- not independent of them as their own media organizations.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]Is there a minimum subscriber count?[/quote]
More important, are they affiliated with a media organization?
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]Didn't Canada just declare Fox News not a media organization?[/quote]
No.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]Would they be one here? [/quote]
Yes.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]So how many true lies has Fox News really told?[/quote]
I'm not keeping a list. Are you, by chance?
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]Sure, they've skewed the truth, made things sound much worse than they were.[/quote]
This is also called [b]lying[/b].
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]But how many?[/quote]
After a quick Google search, this website has some interesting ones archived (including videos and articles from them):
[url]http://foxnewslies.net/[/url]
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]It may sound stupid,[/quote]
It does.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]but what if the guy in your previous picture really has found that there is a way that this will make 'white people slaves'?[/quote]
Then he would be inclined to further elaborate on his supposed finding instead of standing outside the capitol with a bunch of other people holding in his hands a sign that just reads "OBAMA'S PLAN WHITE SLAVERY". Allow me to take his claim with a small amount of skepticism. Just a tiny amount.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]Doesn't he have the right to say that?[/quote]
Sure. Just as I have the right to say that's got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read on a sign at a political protest, then demand he show me what part of the health care bill allows for "WHITE SLAVERY".
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]I'm sure Fox draws it's conclusions the same way.[/quote]
Odd then that they've wound up so many times "skewing the truth, making things sound much worse than they were"... wouldn't you say?
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]Foreign news networks do have a degree of influence.[/quote]
Suddenly, you've gone from saying that [quote]Many popular news agencys these days are foreign[/quote] to [quote]Foreign news networks do have a degree of influence[/quote].
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]Reuters and the BBC are viewed by many here in America.[/quote]
However, they are not even within the top 11 most popular news outlets. So they must not be viewed very often, or by very many. Perhaps it's something in between the two.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]You want me to cite that some popular blogs are hosted outside the United States?[/quote]
Knock yourself out. For every one you can cite, I will cite three that are hosted in the United States. Actually- make that five.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]Yes, some, who would be exempt from these rules, quite the loophole.[/quote]
Hardly so. One could just as easily amend the proposal to state that ones which are based in the United States yet hosted on a server in a foreign country are not exempt from the law. The government seizes domains all the time that illegally stream movies under similar circumstances, but that's another matter entirely.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]An important part of that was [B]Clarity[/B].[/quote]
If you have transparency, then you have all the means at your disposal to have clarity.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]What I was missing was simplicity. When an average person has to read through a 3000 page document to get the cold hard facts, you are going to alienate people that don't have the time or that can't process that much information.[/quote]
Speaking from personal experience, it's not so much that they don't have the time or just can't understand that much information, it's more of an issue that they just don't want to look through it all- because it doesn't interest them, because they just don't want to, etc. Not that there aren't summaries to each of these documents out there on plenty of .gov sites for people to look over in brief, because there are. Open House is probably the best example.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]Are you really informed if you don't have the big picture laid out in your mind? That's part of it.[/quote]
The critical part of getting the bigger picture is understanding those little, annoying details. Might that be repetitive? Sure, but that's how it works. Not that you can't, again, look around from plenty of related sources to get a brief overview of whatever it is you're trying to research.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]Can I skip this? Feels like a repeat.[/quote]
Go for it.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]Defeatist? No. I see the growing of these networks as the symptom. The lack of thought when it comes to politics is the virus.[/quote]
Like I said as far as the lack of thought concept goes: [quote]And then there's the fact that regardless of whether or not people are informed and are politically active, a good lot of them will still simply support whatever benefits them the most and simply say "Fuck everyone and everything else".[/quote] So while you're bound to find some that have a genuine interest but just aren't informed, you'll find tenfold who just want what benefits them the most. And they don't give a damn about anyone or anything else.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]While also being the dominant media outlet.[/quote]
All the more reason why this kind of media law is needed.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]People like it for some reason.[/quote]
Probably because of the speaking methods the commentators use. That much can be praised about them: they are very skilled rhetoricians.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32279374]I deleted that almost an hour ago. You took that long to write this?![/QUOTE]
Bought and started downloading Red Orchestra II in the process.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;32280215]This isn't much propaganda, i would say. Most of it is facts, but they arent against obama on it(for one the big PAID BY OBAMA ADMINISTRATION)[/QUOTE]
No, it's paid for by "Obama For America", his campaign PAC.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32280225]
Text
[/QUOTE]
Can you read into my posts any more? This is kinda silly.
"Many popular news agencys these days are foreign" and "Foreign networks do have a degree of influence" do not negate eachother. Yes, many popular news agencys are foreign and yes, they do have a degree of influence. Why do you act like I just proved myself wrong? Enough Americans watch them to have some influence.
I'm sorry if skewing wasn't the best word I could have chosen, I think the better word would be 'sensationalist'. Which yes, many Fox news articles are, and they are always said in a way that would support their beliefs. But that isn't lying. It's another way of thinking.
I read through a few pages of the website you pointed out. Looks like the only complaints they have are 1 misconception by a reporter, and a bunch of bullshit from Hannity and Palin(and Glenn Beck of course). Both of whom just seem to be incredibly stupid and misinformed. The one REAL misleading lie I noticed was whe he said 'he knews a planned parenthood operator', which he couldn't of because he would have known the real statistic. But three people does not a News Corp make? Anyways, they only have about 11 lies on this website since March. I'm sure you can find 11 mistakes on MSNBC since then. As for the stupidity of the hosts, if you'd noticed, the shows are not prescripted. In fact, the hosts are proven wrong a couple times on the show, they just brush it off so they don't look stupid. But I'll give it a break because it's a new website. I'm sure you have better examples anyways.
Overall, I think punishing news corporations for misleading information would be dumb because they themselves may come to incorrect conclusions. The man waving the sign probably isn't sitting there because Fox said healthcare 'be keeping the white man down'. If you asked him, he would probably have a reason for it. The reason is probably wrong, but no one probably taught him how to examine the facts in his early years. Which brings me back to my original point of people need to be taught how to examine the evidence themselves, because right now they just take what any corporation gives to them, right or not. They intend to say what they say, because they said it, how you gonna prove they did it just to mislead us? In the end, government censorship of media is dangerous and can be completely up to the opinion of a biased authority. Even libel cases must show clear malicious intent, and you can't find something like that in these articles.
My fellow Americans. It has been far too long since you were reminded you must be in constant fear of attack from foreign invaders. You must be reminded to put all faith in your government and allow them to temporarily restrict freedoms whenever and wherever necessary to ensure your continued safety.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32281196]Which yes, many Fox news articles are, and they are always said in a way that would support their beliefs. But that isn't lying. It's another way of thinking.
[/QUOTE]
No it is not it is lying.
If I change some that is said to fit what my beliefs are, that is changing it, that is lying.
[url]http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=fox+news[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer#p/a[/url]
This is not a good thing at all, Obama.
[release]President Obama believes America should continue to prioritize Israel’s security. In a 2011 address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the President said “[B]The bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable [/B]and the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is ironclad … It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels. It’s why we’re making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies. It’s why, [U][B]despite tough fiscal times[/B], [highlight]we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels.[/U][/highlight]” [/release]
[url]http://www.attackwatch.com/attack-files-entry/obama-israel/[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
