The New American Politics thread

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Regulation of news media is censorship. That's a difficult sword to steer correctly. Not to mention breaking the first amendment

No it's not. You force them to report facts and cut opinion shows and punditry.

You basically return Walter Kronkite style news reporting. We have it with Peter Mansbridge.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by nik-

No it's not. You force them to report facts and cut opinion shows and punditry.

You basically return Walter Kronkite style news reporting. We have it with Peter Mansbridge.

We don't have Peter Mansbridge because the Government censors bad reporting


Who decides what is fact and what's opinion beyond what the courts already do? The government? If Trump is elected can he get rid of msnbc for not deleting what he considers facts?

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by nik-

No it's not. You force them to report facts and cut opinion shows and punditry.

You basically return Walter Kronkite style news reporting. We have it with Peter Mansbridge.

Report whose facts? Cut opinion and punditry? I'm a little blown away anyone would think these are good ideas, let alone something that should be done in a non totalitarian government.

You get the good with the bad., that's how free speech works. The market dictates what stays on the air and right now it's #HotTakes and loud opinion. Flash said this isn't what the people want? I beg to differ. Not only is this what the people want it's what they deserve. They demanded this garbage and now that's all they get.

[nik-]

Just because people love reality TV doesn't mean news sources should follow the pattern.

And what do you mean whose facts? Journalism still exists, the five W's still exist.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Jesus... I cannot believe people actually think like this. "Here are the sorts of things newspeople can say and here are the sorts of things they can't" is clearly censorship. I'm glad that actually putting this idea into practice is likely impossible... although, I guess the existence of s.2 of the Charter didn't stop the CHRC from being a thing.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The only regulation that should be done is media should be forced into not-for-profit status. But as long as making money is the #1 goal of news organizations, we can expect them to follow that line of thinking and not care about facts or evidence, and care only about moving the number. It's why people hate the media (yet keep using it).

[nik-]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Jesus... I cannot believe people actually think like this. "Here are the sorts of things newspeople can say and here are the sorts of things they can't" is clearly censorship. I'm glad that actually putting this idea into practice is likely impossible... although, I guess the existence of s.2 of the Charter didn't stop the CHRC from being a thing.

I don't see the problem with forcing news channels to report news and not pass off opinion as news.

I'm in no way suggesting they follow a government script, they should absolutely be free in the news they report and have their own investigators and reporters. Currently they spew garbage presented as news 24 hours a day and it's harmful to a society.

[ResAlien]

Forcing news channels to do anything is a problem. Again, whose facts? Some hypothetical completely non partisan committee you'll create to decide what gets reported? In the real world your idea comes with biases and interests, people and money, and an agenda is getting pushed one way or another.

You don't like the current state of popular journalism, got it. Are you going to censor the internet as well? Force websites to only post what you deem appropriate? It's a silly idea that is impossible to implement and one that neglects to grasp the whole "freedom of the press" thing we have in the free world.

[nik-]

Internet sites can do as they please. If you're accessing the public airways and presenting yourself as a news organization, you should have to adhere to a standard of journalism that really none of them do.

Obviously it will never happen, but these channels are awful and a public detriment.

[Hemi-Cuda]

There just needs to be a mandate for a government funded news organization that is unconcerned with ratings and legally bound to be impartial. It's why the BBC is so good, and why CBC is better than anything we see down south

[calgarygeologist]

I have a feeling that the primary in Michigan tonight will be interesting for Bernie. I think the results will be surprising and will favour Bernie. The polls have Hillary leading but I think that the Bernie campaign might be able to mobilize enough of their supporters to get a win.

[nik-]

Even the CBC leans a bit, but the BBC is pretty good.

I know the thought of "censorship" is scary. I just don't see this as censorship. If you want to do what Fox and MSNBC do, that's fine. You're just not legally allowed to declare yourself a news station. You're an opinion station or a punditry station.

People are being educated by these echo chambers and it's horrifying.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by nik-

Internet sites can do as they please. If you're accessing the public airways and presenting yourself as a news organization, you should have to adhere to a standard of journalism that really none of them do.

Obviously it will never happen, but these channels are awful and a public detriment.

Fox News provides some of the best comedy TV can give you. I mean did you see O'Reilly's drunken idiocy at the Trump wang debate last week?

[Flash Walken]

The owner ship of news outlets is what requires regulation, not necessarily the content.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Some early GOP exit poll info tidbits:

1. In Mississippi, 51 percent want illegal immigrants deported; 46 percent say they should be offered legal status. Voters in Michigan are more supportive of offering legal status (56 percent) vs 37 percent who want them deported.

2. Large majorities of Republican voters in Michigan (62 percent) and Mississippi (75 percent) support temporarily banning Muslims who are not US citizens from entering the country.

3. Significant numbers of Republican voters in Michigan (37 percent) and Mississippi (31 percent) say that they made up their minds who to vote for in the last week.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Some early GOP exit poll info tidbits:

1. In Mississippi, 51 percent want illegal immigrants deported; 46 percent say they should be offered legal status. Voters in Michigan are more supportive of offering legal status (56 percent) vs 37 percent who want them deported.

2. Large majorities of Republican voters in Michigan (62 percent) and Mississippi (75 percent) support temporarily banning Muslims who are not US citizens from entering the country.

3. Significant numbers of Republican voters in Michigan (37 percent) and Mississippi (31 percent) say that they made up their minds who to vote for in the last week.

Hmm...put 2 and 3 together and what do you get?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Well, at least in Michigan, apparently not what you'd expect.



Retail politics works up north, it appears.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Some early GOP exit poll info tidbits:

1. In Mississippi, 51 percent want illegal immigrants deported; 46 percent say they should be offered legal status. Voters in Michigan are more supportive of offering legal status (56 percent) vs 37 percent who want them deported.

2. Large majorities of Republican voters in Michigan (62 percent) and Mississippi (75 percent) support temporarily banning Muslims who are not US citizens from entering the country.

3. Significant numbers of Republican voters in Michigan (37 percent) and Mississippi (31 percent) say that they made up their minds who to vote for in the last week.

Not surprised about the Muslim question for Michigan. Michigan has a substantial Muslim immigrant population, it is a very 'surface' issue there.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Fox News provides some of the best comedy TV can give you. I mean did you see O'Reilly's drunken idiocy at the Trump wang debate last week?

For me the trouble is that a lot of people accept Fox News as a credible news station when really all they are is a propaganda machine for the GOP. Thanks to Reagan we now have Fox News and other biased sources.

It was called the "Fairness Doctrine" and was created to prevent the American people from receiving misinformation in the disguise of fact. Over 60 years after its creation, the Fairness Doctrine is a thing of the past and the American people are worse off because of it.

http://www.examiner.com/article/repe...r-bias-sources

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

I think it comes down to a complete dumbing down in US culture. I watched a documentary on Netflix recently called Best of Enemies, which portrayed the pundit debates between Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr. Two very eloquent pundits going at each other, and it was one of the highest rated programmes of the year. Even when I watch old US chat shows like Dick Cavett on youtube, I'm surprised at how smart they are with interesting discussions on various topics.

Funny, I watched that same documentary on Sunday. It really is shocking to see genuinely intellectual debate on popular American television. How thing have changed.

However, that documentary did suggest that the very popularity of the Buckley vs Vidal debates ushered in an era of confrontational punditry. While they were remarkably intelligent and eloquent men, they tore into each other viciously, and I suspect that's what really drove the ratings.

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

Now, everybody in the media panders to the lowest of the low intellectually and everybody suffers for it. And with increasingly vocal idiots having their voices heard on social media, politicians have begun pandering to the nation's dumbest ideas.

It's not just a media thing. Basically, the 60s and 70s saw a cultural turn away from authority in the West. It became cool in the rich democracies to champion everyone who challenged authority and traditional norms, and so the elites - political, academic, social - were discredited. This new liberalism dovetailed nicely with American populism, where the wisdom of the common man is held in higher regard than the artist or intellectual.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The American people don't want this, they just have no choice in the matter.

I disagree. Americans can always watch PBS if they want sober news that doesn't insult the intelligence of its audience. How many do?

Originally Posted by nik-

I don't see the problem with forcing news channels to report news and not pass off opinion as news.

But most people prefer opinions to news. Just look at the top hits on any news website. And where do you draw the line? I get most of my news from CBC, but their interviews betray a strong bias on a whole host of issues. "Just the facts, m'am," is an abstract ideal.