Starker on 28/11/2017 at 13:31
Just the antics of a clown, as usual. I'd be far more worried about things like the FCC getting rid of net neutrality, the attempts to take control over the Consumer Protection Bureau, and the the hobbling of the State Department, the EPA and other government agencies and institutions.
Quote:
(
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-gutting-of-state-department-hard-to-explain-with-politics-1092765251853) http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-gutting-of-state-department-hard-to-explain-with-politics-1092765251853
"If you think about it, ideologically, we know why the Trump administration is eviscerating the EPA, right? Ideologically, we know why the Trump administration is emptying out the Education Department. Ideologically, we know why they put a guy like Ben Carson in charge of Housing and Urban Development, whereupon he promptly hired Eric Trump's wedding planner to run that whole part of the federal government in the northeastern United States, right?
If you don't believe in protecting health and safety, or in protecting the environment, or in helping the poor, or in ensuring safe housing for all Americans, or in public education, if you don't believe in any of those things - they don't believe in any of those things - then sure, a Trump administration is going to do whatever they can to dismantle, discredit, even corrupt the agencies who are tasked with doing that work. They're burning them down because they don't think they should exist. At least we knew that they're going to do that.
What's the ideological interest, what's the Republican, even Trumpian interest behind eliminating the ability of the United States to project power around the world and to get our way with other countries, and to uphold our standing among nations? Who ideologically wants that?"
Dia on 28/11/2017 at 13:44
@Starker: Believe me I am worried about everything that Drumpf and his administration are doing because none of it is beneficial to anyone but the elite 1%. That's what it always comes down to. It's just that those two articles were like icing on my get-rid-of-that-corrupt-pig cake. I'm done.
heywood on 28/11/2017 at 19:10
Quote Posted by Starker
Well, I don't really know what the American media was like before the 1990s and I only started following American news regularly in the 2000s. But wasn't the fairness doctrine meant to ensure there were contrasting views present in the reporting? How was it used to make sure that nobody strayed too far from the establishment position?
There are books out there documenting some of the abuses of the FCC's station licensing and regulatory authority to suppress opposition political speech, mainly during the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations.
One thing I personally noticed was that TV and radio broadcasters tended to avoid criticism of prominent individuals, especially public officials, because the FCC required broadcasters to provide free air time for the individuals to respond.
I also noticed a more general avoidance of divisive or controversial topics. Part of the reason might have been the difficulty of retaining a "balanced" staff that was capable and willing to present both sides of divisive issues, especially for small radio stations where a lot of the staff were more or less volunteers. Depending on the topic, it can also be hard to line up opposing guests to debate both sides of it. But I also suspect that the kind of people who wanted to air views that were out of the mainstream were also the kind of people who wouldn't want to spend their money to give the opposing side equal time. So my recollection was that radio broadcasters stuck to general interest news and local topics.
On the TV, the nightly news shows stuck to vanilla general interest stories. Political or issue oriented debate occurred in round table format shows which usually featured a psuedo-impartial host or moderator and two or more panelists from opposing political parties. But those panelists were rarely far from the establishment. The only exception I can remember is William Buckley's Firing Line. He even had Noam Chomsky on his program once.
There were some shows and show segments that featured investigative and sometimes adversarial journalism, such as 60 Minutes. But they avoided politically or culturally charged topics, and when they went after a government official it was usually over fraud, waste, abuse, or negligent oversight. I can't imagine a show like Frontline's United States of Secrets ever being made in those days. And we only got that because Snowden leaked it and foreign news sources published it.
Trance on 29/11/2017 at 00:08
Project Veritas really is a nasty piece of work. They really do make it look like all those people on the right decrying all of mainstream media as liberal propaganda are projecting. Project Veritas is so much further off the deep end of the propaganda pool than any mainstream news source I know of, either on TV or the internet.
I didn't even know about all the ass-covering work they've done in the wake of this debacle until I watched today's PDS.
[video=youtube;8rzipaZWLQ4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzipaZWLQ4[/video]
The way that guy coaxes an interview appointment out of the WaPo reporter just to flip the interview around on him puts me in mind of the (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoJtC-NI-io) psychiatrist sketch from Fry and Laurie. Pathetic.
Renzatic on 29/11/2017 at 02:40
Quote Posted by Starker
Well, I don't really know what the American media was like before the 1990s and I only started following American news regularly in the 2000s. But wasn't the fairness doctrine meant to ensure there were contrasting views present in the reporting? How was it used to make sure that nobody strayed too far from the establishment position?
The way it was set up, the news always had to talk always about the news, regardless of who was doing it, or why. If the Democrats did something stupid, it was presented to the viewing public in a deadpan, factual manner, without any twist or spins. Ditto for the Republicans. Everything had to be presented as it came known to the press, without bias or opinion, which were all saved for the editorial sections of the papers.
I guess if there were a problem with it, it'd be that the FCC was considered the sole arbiter of fairness and balance. A single organization all but determining what the media says, and how it says it can be considered a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Renzatic on 29/11/2017 at 02:48
I dunno if I'd call what Trump said racist exactly. Shit stupid? Oh yes. Petty? Very much so. Completely lacking in respect for those he was honoring? Ayup. But racist? Maybe if you were to push the point really hard, but...eh. Nah.
Starker on 29/11/2017 at 03:52
Quote Posted by Trance
Project Veritas really is a nasty piece of work. They really do make it look like all those people on the right decrying all of mainstream media as liberal propaganda are projecting. Project Veritas is so much further off the deep end of the propaganda pool than any mainstream news source I know of, either on TV or the internet.
Also, Lord Dampnut is one of their confirmed donors, giving them 20 000$ through his charity foundation: (
https://thinkprogress.org/donald-trumps-foundation-gave-20000-james-okeefes-project-veritas-e8fbdb48e16c/)
Quote Posted by Trance
I didn't even know about all the ass-covering work they've done in the wake of this debacle until I watched today's PDS.
Yeah, I don't think they know what the editorial section is or at least they hope their audience doesn't.
And the response from WP:
Quote:
(
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/28/the-6-most-puzzling-aspects-of-this-james-okeefe-project-veritas-botched-sting-debacle/)
5. Project Veritas's exposé of The Post includes a reporter talking about how opinionated The Post is — in its opinion section
As The Post prepared to publish Monday, Project Veritas and O'Keefe suggested repeatedly that The Post was fighting back against a damning video that Project Veritas was about to publish.
On Monday night, the video arrived. It featured Post employees surreptitiously recorded talking about how The Post's editorial section opposes President Trump (which is news to nobody) and how Trump is good for business (which is also news to nobody).
Almost every newspaper has an editorial board that leans ideologically one way or the other and has strong opinions about issues of the day.
For some more context, here's a list of some of their other "sting operations" that didn't go so well: (
https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/935272597520076803)
Starker on 29/11/2017 at 04:22
Quote Posted by heywood
There were some shows and show segments that featured investigative and sometimes adversarial journalism, such as 60 Minutes. But they avoided politically or culturally charged topics, and when they went after a government official it was usually over fraud, waste, abuse, or negligent oversight. I can't imagine a show like Frontline's United States of Secrets ever being made in those days. And we only got that because Snowden leaked it and foreign news sources published it.
Hmm... Frontline started in the 80s and there are some episodes that seem pretty hard-hitting to me from their descriptions: (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Frontline_%28PBS%29_episodes)
Nicker on 29/11/2017 at 04:57
Quote Posted by Renzatic
I dunno if I'd call what Trump said racist exactly.
While it is also offensive for all the reasons you gave, I have no problem identifying it as racist as well. It was an intentional, derogatory attack using race as leverage. It was initiated by an observation about the historical claim of American First Nations. It referenced a historical person in a demeaning manner. It was delivered to actual Native Americans in front of a portrait of the proudly genocidal, Andrew Jackson.
How many layers does it take?
Waddle. Quack. Duck.