Chump for President

[mrsleeve]

it's not out of left field at all.

the tactics the Drumpf administration is using are right out of the fascist playbook, as detailed in the article i linked.

Oh you mean the one they "borrowed" from the Wilson admin used during the WWI years

[Kershaw]

Kershaw, go look up the fairness Doctrine and find out who supported it.

What's your point in connection to what I said? How did the Fairness Doctrine have anything to do with spying on your neighbors?

So far I've learned that Reagan killed it and its death might be the cause of the rise of increased party polarization.

[marshallnoise]

What's your point in connection to what I said? How did the Fairness Doctrine have anything to do with spying on your neighbors?

So far I've learned that Reagan killed it and its death might be the cause of the rise of increased party polarization.

It doesn't relate to spying on your neighbors. I just thought you would be interested in what it is. Censorship, period. Perpetuated by the left. Party polarization is directly related to information dissemination. The less censorship and release of more information/ideas, means people begin thinking on their own.

[mbonder]

Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but isn't that what the Fairness Doctrine was attempting to do? Force media outlets to present multiple points of view so that the consumer could have a more fully developed understanding of any situation and would be free to interpret it as they saw fit.

The Fairness Doctrine was killed by a bipartisan commission of 4 congressmen, 2 republicans and 2 democrats, all appointed by Ronald Reagan. Reagan vetoed congressional attempts to save the Fairness Doctrine while in office, followed by George HW Bush who did the same during his tenure.

Far as I can see, by eliminating the Fairness Doctrine the government has empowered media to report only one side of any situation, which would be a form of censorship. This has allowed media to report on pro-conservative or pro-liberal stances only, which has helped to polarize the political landscape.

Am I reading this incorrectly? It would seem that by eliminating the Fairness Doctrine we have allowed de facto censorship through media outlets.

EDIT: I see what you are getting at here though, as I thought about it from the other side. By not allowing media to present EXACTLY what they want to present, this is viewed a restricting freedom of speech, and thus viewed as censorship.

I can see the merit to both arguments, although I would tend to lean on having as much information presented by media as possible. Presenting only one viewpoint seems more like censorship directed toward the masses to me than having to present more information rather than less. I guess you have to decide which is more damaging, forcing someone to present information or keeping information from someone.

[marshallnoise]

Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but isn't that what the Fairness Doctrine was attempting to do? Force media outlets to present multiple points of view so that the consumer could have a more fully developed understanding of any situation and would be free to interpret it as they saw fit.

The Fairness Doctrine was killed by a bipartisan commission of 4 congressmen, 2 republicans and 2 democrats, all appointed by Ronald Reagan. Reagan vetoed congressional attempts to save the Fairness Doctrine while in office, followed by George HW Bush who did the same during his tenure.

Far as I can see, by eliminating the Fairness Doctrine the government has empowered media to report only one side of any situation, which would be a form of censorship. This has allowed media to report on pro-conservative or pro-liberal stances only, which has helped to polarize the political landscape.

Am I reading this incorrectly? It would seem that by eliminating the Fairness Doctrine we have allowed de facto censorship through media outlets.

You are reading it correctly. The argument is about the government controlling the media. If you are concerned about NAZIs and state directed media, then you are for the Fairness Doctrine.

When it comes to the media as a free-market entity, you allow public opinion to sway what they cover via advertisers. At least the government isn't in control of who says what.

We were always polarized, it was just never covered in the media because there wasn't a lick of difference between ABC, CBS and NBC for decades.

[BraveUlysses]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/16/donald-trumps-grievance-filled-press-conference-annotated/

president manchild had a bad presser today

[decay]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...nce-annotated/

president manchild had a bad presser today

mmm yummy word salad!

[Kershaw]

It doesn't relate to spying on your neighbors. I just thought you would be interested in what it is. Censorship, period. Perpetuated by the left. Party polarization is directly related to information dissemination. The less censorship and release of more information/ideas, means people begin thinking on their own.

Well, that's an interesting tangent I suppose. It was a bill that forced people to admit the other sides points. If anything that's the opposite of censorship and could lead to spreading misinformation because the other side's view points are not based in fact. Like the stopping of birth control or sex ed, one can oppose it for moral reasons and say talking about it will get teens interested in sex. But research shows that teens will find out about it anyway and the only thing removing sex ed and access to birth control does is lead to more babies.

It's interesting to see your take on it. People have theorized it's removal has lead to the rise of party polarization. It's interesting you state that party polarization is directly related to information dissemination, which is true. But then state that one population only receiving one set of information is the path to a better informed public.

If one set of the population only receives one set of information, they will polarize. You can see this in the small differences of similar species in the Galapagos, that's how insulated populations work. So by removing the requirement that each side present the other side's points along with their their own, it seems like that would lead to more polarization? Right?

It doesn't seem like this bill was about censorship. If anything, it seems like it was about the "release of more information/ideas, [so that] people begin thinking on their own." So why are you against it? By your statements, I would think you would be fighting to bring this bill back.

Interesting that you brought it, not sure of it's relevancy, but interesting nonetheless.

[Massive Lee]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...nce-annotated/

president manchild had a bad presser today

Wow. Just wow. That orange dude is totally crazy and living in a fantasy world.

"... and we have imposed new sanctions on the nation of Iran,... and they're the world's top sponsor of terrorism. "

Since when did a single terrorist come out of Iran? I would like to know where he got his intelligence from. Because he must have his cards mixed up. Saudi Arabia, Donald. Repeat after me. Saudi Arabia. The US' best friend in the Middle East is the state that sponsors ISIS / DAESH, while the US created and still supports Al Qaeda and its Syrian branch, Al Nosra. Saudi Arabia is the country from which fifteen 9/11 came from. Ben Laden, Donald, was Saudi, not Iranian. You know Saudi Arabia, these people with whom you're having great business deals and who owns $117 billion of U.S. debt... (still less than China's $1 trillion ownership, and Japan's. But still.)

So, please, Donald, remind us what has Iran anything to do with terrorism? You can use simple words if it is too difficult for you or your support base...

[MrBurgundy]

So, please, Donald, remind us what has Iran anything to do with terrorism? You can use simple words if it is too difficult for you or your support base...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politi...ort-terrorism/

https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2014/239410.htm

[marshallnoise]

Well, that's an interesting tangent I suppose. It was a bill that forced people to admit the other sides points. If anything that's the opposite of censorship and could lead to spreading misinformation because the other side's view points are not based in fact. Like the stopping of birth control or sex ed, one can oppose it for moral reasons and say talking about it will get teens interested in sex. But research shows that teens will find out about it anyway and the only thing removing sex ed and access to birth control does is lead to more babies.

It's interesting to see your take on it. People have theorized it's removal has lead to the rise of party polarization. It's interesting you state that party polarization is directly related to information dissemination, which is true. But then state that one population only receiving one set of information is the path to a better informed public.

If one set of the population only receives one set of information, they will polarize. You can see this in the small differences of similar species in the Galapagos, that's how insulated populations work. So by removing the requirement that each side present the other side's points along with their their own, it seems like that would lead to more polarization? Right?

It doesn't seem like this bill was about censorship. If anything, it seems like it was about the "release of more information/ideas, [so that] people begin thinking on their own." So why are you against it? By your statements, I would think you would be fighting to bring this bill back.

Interesting that you brought it, not sure of it's relevancy, but interesting nonetheless.

Glad you enjoyed it. The thing about it is that whenever the government has control over something, whoever is in power has control over its enforcement or non-enforcement. The ideas aren't the issue here, its who is in control of the ideas. The government is barred from screwing with people's speech via 1st Amendment. News, fake or biased or accurate, is protected. Regulation of who says what will always lead to censorship.

Oh, and I loved Trumps presser today. He was epic. :p

[marshallnoise]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politi...ort-terrorism/

https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2014/239410.htm

Shocking! Trump was telling the truth!

[Kershaw]

Glad you enjoyed it. The thing about it is that whenever the government has control over something, whoever is in power has control over its enforcement or non-enforcement. The ideas aren't the issue here, its who is in control of the ideas. The government is barred from screwing with people's speech via 1st Amendment. News, fake or biased or accurate, is protected. Regulation of who says what will always lead to censorship.

History showed that it worked quite well, at the very least better than what we currently have.

[MrBurgundy]

Shocking! Trump was telling the truth!

[marshallnoise]

History showed that it worked quite well, at the very least better than what we currently have.

It was illegal and it didn't work well at all. Unless by working well you mean that the FCC was able to censor news outlets effectively. If so, you are right. It did work well.